[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.

Wed Oct 18 16:17:41 UTC 2017

FWIW, I actually don't think a Yes or No response will be applicable to the
questions as written. It could have been written as:

Do you think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
......

Regards
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Oct 18, 2017 5:03 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

Dear All,
This type of intergation is not legitimate
Regards
Kavouss

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> Parminder (and Thiago)
>
> I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit
> of a simple Yes or No answer:
>
>
>
> 1.       Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC
> license for DNS services?
>
> 2.       Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told
> by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC
> sanctions?
>
> 3.       Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC
> license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
>
> 4.       Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition
> to the contracted parties’ contracts?
>
>
>
> If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the
> subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the
> status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the
> consensus recommendations.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to your answers.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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-bounc
> es at icann.org <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>
> <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>
> <gac at gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <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 [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at ican
> n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29
> *Para:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Cc:* 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>
> 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>
> 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
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171018/8aa39520/attachment-0001.html>