<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>1.Dear Pedro, </div><div>Thank you very much for your compréhensive analysis and valuable argument as well as your vision on the fundamental and crucial issue of Jurisdiction. As a Iran GAC Member I fully and wholeheartedly support that.</div><div>2.Dear Sam,</div><div>While I agree with the most of your views but I have certain difficultés to isolate the Jurisdiction from the WS 2 Process due to the fact that the process will be failed if the Jurisdiction issues is not properly dealt with.</div><div>3.Dear Grec</div><div>Please kindly listen and hear all these objections to the multistakeholder of on single sub region that radically against the issue of Q4and just ignor views of their own even tough they may be relatively numerous but still not representing the Global Multistakeholder </div><div>4. Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div>You need to get out from silence and inattention .We have elected you to guide this process. Other rapporteurs are SELF NOMINATED and NOT ELECTED .</div><div>Merry Christmas AND happy New Year </div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-12-24 16:35 GMT+01:00 Sam Lanfranco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net" target="_blank">sam@lanfranco.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+1">I may be an isolated outlier here with regard to how
to
approach the core issue of jurisdiction within this CCWG, but I
will state my
view in as few words as possible. Jurisdiction will remain a major
issue
whether this CCWG includes, or excludes, jurisdiction as a
question on its questionnaire,
and whether or not it tries to address the issue of jurisdiction
within this
CCWG’s deliberations. <u></u><u></u></font><br>
<font size="+1">
</font><br>
<font size="+1">In many ways ICANN is a new form hybrid
organization, with
its multistakeholder policy making process, and with its global
DNS policy remit.
The jurisdiction issues run both wide and deep, and are not issues
of simply
finding the right “residence” for ICANN. <span> </span>They are about how do we (all
stakeholders
including governments) figure out how to handle the jurisdiction
related issues
posed by ICANN’s multistakeholder policy making structures, and
its global DNS policy remit. What
lessons can we drawn on from experience, and what needs to be cut
from whole
cloth (i.e., innovated)?<u></u><u></u></font><br>
<font size="+1">
</font><br>
<font size="+1">While I have no objections to jurisdiction being
addressed
inside this Accountability CCWG, I do not see this CCWG as an
adequate venue
for such an important issue. The work required to address it
properly means
that such a dialogue should take place in a venue (CCWG, whatever)
devoted
specifically to the jurisdiction issue. This CCWG could start the
process by recognizing
that, stating that the issue warrants its own CCWG (or whatever),
and pressing for
rapid movement in that direction. I could elaborate on each of the
above points
but I hope that the message is pretty clear. The rationale for
such an approach
almost self-evident. <u></u><u></u></font><br>
<font size="+1">
</font><br>
<font size="+1">Sam Lanfranco, NPOC/csih</font><span><u></u><u></u><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="m_3101829077196309154moz-cite-prefix">On 12/24/2016 9:53 AM, Pedro Ivo Ferraz
da Silva wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Tahoma;font-size:10pt;direction:ltr"><font face="Verdana" size="3">Dear
CCWG-colleagues,</font>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium">After
reading some comments in this email thread, I must admit to
be really disappointed.</span><span class="m_3101829077196309154apple-converted-space" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium"> </span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
Some of our colleagues in the CCWG seem to have
forgotten - perhaps on purpose - that the topic of
jurisdiction was allocated to WS2 as a result of a
postponement, since the majority of this group thought
it was not appropriate to deal with it in the
pre-transition period due to time constraints. My
government was not in favor of postponing the
discussion on jurisdiction, as we consider it was – and
remains – a fundamental aspect of a new ICANN truly
governed by the multistakeholder community without any
pre-conditions, but in respect to the viewpoint of the
other colleagues, we agreed to move it to WS2.
<br>
<br>
Now that time has come to properly deal with this topic,
it is quite frustrating to notice that some participants
insist on limiting and/or procrastinating this debate,
including by using the absurd argument that any
discussion around jurisdiction cannot put into question
any aspect already decided in WS1, which is embedded in
the California law. We cannot see good faith in that
kind of circular argument.
<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Verdana" size="3"> </font></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium">In our view, the
</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium">discussion around the inclusion or
exclusion of Q.4 shows quite clearly that some of those
who have fiercely objected to any jurisdiction debate
during WS1 are </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium"> </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium">maintaining their objection
in WS2 as well. On that particular topic (Q.4) we concur
with the view that upon deciding on institutional
arrangements we should not only consider already occurred
cases but also take into account logically strong
possibilities. The responses to the questionnaire should
thus help us to deal with all possibilities associate to
jurisdiction. In case any unsubstantiated opinion will be
received, it should be summarily discarded.
</span><span class="m_3101829077196309154apple-converted-space" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:medium"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Verdana" size="3">From the various jurisdiction calls it became
quite evident that a substantial part of the subgroup -
mainly non-US - has great interest in examining and
debating ways through which we can make sure that any
issue associated to jurisdiction be addressed in a way
compatible with the company's international remit of
coordinating Internet public identifiers. In that
context, I would like to highlight my government´s
understanding that although the proposed questionnaire
under discussion may provide us with some relevant
factual information, it does not in any way cover all
aspects of interest. We would like to refer, for
example, to the list of issues compiled by Kavouss
Arasteh as per his 13 December 2016 e-mail. We would
also refer to questions that have continuously been
asked by Parminder, apparently without any satisfactory
answer. Those issues and questions include, for example,
dispute settlement related topics, which demonstrates,
in our view, that jurisdiction cannot be seen purely
from businesses´ viewpoint. As someone has stated, we
also need to look at the relationship between ICANN and
third parties and adequately consider non-contracted
Parties that might be affected by ICANN´s acts and/or
omissions.
<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Verdana" size="3">From the perspective of the Brazilian
government, the topics raised by Kavouss, Parminder and
others are issues of particular interest which,
needless to say, will not be adequately addressed
through the mere analysis of the answers provided to the
questionnaire, whether it includes Q.4 or not.<u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<font face="Verdana" size="3"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%"> My government has expressed its interest in
pursuing discussion on jurisdiction through those angles
many times – both during the IANA transition process and
well before that. Other governments have done the same,
as well as a sound number of civil society organizations
around the globe. The "NETmundial Multistakeholder
Statement", while calling for the internationalization of
ICANN, clearly expresses this as well. Let me emphasize,
by the way, that the NETmundial Statement calls for
ICANN´s internationalization and not for it to become an
intergovernmental organization. Those are two different
notions that should not be confounded.<span class="m_3101829077196309154apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
If this subgroup fails to deal with the multidimensional
issues associated to jurisdiction properly , it may be
applauded by some segments , but it will not contribute to
putting in place a framework that will ensure the shared
goal of making ICANN a legitimate entity in the eyes of
all stakeholders, including governments. To achieve that,
no issues should be discarded as "non important" or "not
yet verified". While preserving the essence of what was
achieved in WS1, innovative thinking, including on the
part of persons with legal expertise, will be needed. Is
it worth to wipe an important debate under the carpet just
to comfort one or a few stakeholder groups while
discontenting others? What kind of legitimacy is such a
biased and limited exercise likely to have within the
international community? .<br>
<br>
It is time the subgroup - including the coChairs - make a
honest assessment of the various viewpoints related to
ICANN's jurisdiction and conduct the debate as openly as
possible in order to address all the concerns and
interests behind it.</span> </font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Kind regards,</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Sec. Pedro Ivo Ferraz da
Silva </font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Division of Information
Society</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">Ministry of Foreign Affairs -
Brazil</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="3">T: <a href="tel:+55%2061%202030-6609" target="_blank" value="+556120306609">+55 61 2030-6609</a></font><br>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:16px">
<hr></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
<rest deleted> <br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-<wbr>Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/accountability-cross-<wbr>community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>