[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Oct 17 13:32:54 UTC 2017
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I
> have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually
> disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of
> them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations.
> They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
>
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a
whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not
otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple
pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with
it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would
still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of
that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced
Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers
from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it
says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there
isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant
that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations
that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do
not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a
great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a
committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by
the world community. If some members try to develop a report that
greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done
in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very
significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global
governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating
measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies
should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with
that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply"
part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report,
doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting
emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it
was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with
respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
>
>
> So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve
> consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on
> jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position
> could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis
> of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM
> *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org; gac at icann.org; GAC <gac at gac.icann.org>;
> ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report.
> Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For
> consideration by the CCWG.
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
> Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now
> includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a
> single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
>
> This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group,
> assuming that it continues to function.
>
> Best regards
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes
> the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the
> draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG
> should directly consider them.
>
> My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1
> is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do.
> This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then
> makes additional points, detailing how there has been a
> miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft
> recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part
> one is enclosed herewith.
>
> Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with
> regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on
> the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to
> submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend
> in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
>
> Best regards, parminder
>
>
>
> On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the
> "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed
> to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on
> 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Thiago
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] em nome de Greg
> Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29
> *Para:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>;
> ws2-jurisdiction
> *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft
> Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
>
> All,
>
>
>
> One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error
> in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions
> of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was
> from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar
> Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the
> Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it
> was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report
> is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the
> formatting errors were resolved.
>
>
>
> Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the
> Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the
> CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is
> expected to be submitted. In the interests of time,
> this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from
> the Draft Report.
>
>
>
> /During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation,
> the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar
> declined to do business with a potential reseller,
> based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business
> with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also
> learned that this registrar, which had been
> registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals,
> refused to continue to do business with them. The
> Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these
> instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by
> these instances are adequately covered in the
> Recommendation already without any additional
> changes. This is not in any way a comment on the
> validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup
> will consider creating "stress tests" based on these
> scenarios./
>
>
>
> I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft
> Report.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> /Rapporteur/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171017/fbd893b5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list