<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Dear All</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I am not sure to be able to participate in
the plenary meeting tomorrow, that places place post midnight
for me.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I would like the plenary to consider the
dissenting opinion by Brazil and by me and provide a response on
them.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I want to specifically make the following
points, and seek response from CCWG and its Chair.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">(1) My main concern is that the issue of "customised
immunity" was never given an "official" chance and space in the
jurisdiction sub-group's working, despite this being perhaps the
strongest issue being repeatedly raised by many members. There
was a deliberate dismissive attitude to it from the very start,
till the very end, by those who were conducting the process. In
fact, there remained a deliberate effort to not allow the
proposal of "customised immunity" to even be allowed to be made
clear, which is very different from the group accepting it.
Whether at the June 2017 meeting when CCWG chair lumped change
of location and/or place of incorporation of ICANN and the
customised immunity as one issue, and dismissed it, or in the
latest sub group's report which says the group discussed ICANN
change of location/ place of incorporation (which it never did,
nor anyone proposed it with any seriousness) but fails to
mention that many members kept raising the "customised immunity"
issue (which term does not even get a mention in the report), it
is most distressing how it was constantly attempted to be shown
that these two were the same issue, when in fact they are very
very different. And many members constantly went to great
lengths to explain the difference. As late as yesterday, Milton
Mueller in commenting on two dissent note,s again tries to make
it sound that the immunity proposal is really about setting up a
new inter-gov organisation or something !! <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Now, if the process leaders were simply not
ready to give even cognitive space to the main proposal of a big
number of members - of customised immunity -- and accept its
"very existence" as distinct from change of ICANN's location
proposal -- incontrovertible evidence of which exists in the
records -- where is the question of it being given due
consideration in the process of consensus building, which by
definition requires full consideration of all views? This is the
main reason that, in my view, there did not exist a consensus
building process, and thus the report and recommendations cannot
be considered as consensus report/ recs. (Further explained in
my dissent note.)</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">(2) With regard to the two sets of recs
actually made: I am most concerned by the observation in the
report that the sub-group, and by extension the CCWG, cannot ask
ICANN to amend its contract templates (of course only for future
contracts). <b>Is this a</b><b>n appropriate observation in the
view of the CCWG and CCWG's chair?</b> Did CWG-Stewardship and
CCWG- Accountability 1 not give many recommendation for ICANN to
make changes practically at every level, right up to its mission
statement, and bylaws, and setting up new subsidiary bodies? So,
if we can recommends changed to ICANN's bylaws, why cant we
recommend changes to its contract templates?<b> I request the
CCWG plenary to make a clear determination on this question</b>.
And if, as I expect CCWG to conclude, it is not a fact that we
cannot recommend ICANN to change its contract templates, then
one of the main recs by the sub-group is basically vitiated on
account of a wrong assumption, and the report should be returned
to it for re-development. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">(3) The sub-group's report provides ICANN
with a series of option on how the "choice of law" question could
be handled. I would like like clarification on the status of
these options. They look like all of them are presented as
agreed by consensus, and thereby it is left to ICANN to adopt
one or the other as it deems fit. Is this so? One of the options
is to keep the status quo (no mention of choice of law) and
another is to enforce a single choice of law on all contracts,
that is the laws of the US and the state of California. My understanding
then is that if now ICANN declares that henceforth no choice of
law will be available in its Registry contracts and that all of
them will necessarily be governed solely by laws of the US and
that of the state of California, it can legitimately claim that
it has done so in pursuance of a recommendation of CCWG
(assuming that CCWG adopts the recs developed by the sub group).
<b>Aga</b><b>in, request CCWG and CCWG to make a clear, yes</b><b>/
no, determination on this issue.</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 17 October 2017 06:46 PM,
Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:012001d3474a$2605e970$7211bc50$@redbranchconsulting.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Please note my apology for the Plenary
meeting tomorrow. I will be on a plane somewhere over the
eastern seaboard of the United States.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please accept this note as my reflecting my
full support for the two recommendations presented by the
subgroup and the expression of my hope that the Plenary will
accept them for first reading and agree to them as final
recommendations at the second reading in Abu Dhabi (which I
will also be unable to attend).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also join fully in Milton Mueller’s
observation that the minority dissenting reports are not
really dissents (in the sense of objecting to the actual
recommendations made) but are more properly characterized as
lamentations that the work of the subgroup did not reach a
broader consensus for what the proponents perceive as even
more substantive reform. I opposed their proposals in the
subgroup as impractical and unwise and continue to do so now.
To the extent the Plenary considers these dissents I would
urge that their concerns be tabled and that the plenary move
forward with the consensus recommendations before it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My PGP Key: <a
href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg
Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 16, 2017 11:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> ws2-jurisdiction <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org"><ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Ws2-jurisdiction] Plenary Reading of
Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I'd
like to remind you that at the upcoming
CCWG-Accountability Plenary on October 18 at 19:00 UTC,
there will be a <b>first reading of the draft
recommendations</b>. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">If it
passes this first reading, it will be presented for a
second reading at the Face-to-face meeting on 27
October.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">If it
fails to pass a second reading at the 27 October
meeting, it cannot be included in the final report.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">If it
fails to pass a first reading at the 18 October meeting
it would require exceptional circumstances to have it
pass a second reading at the 27 October meeting.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Please
attend the Plenary session so that your views are heard,
and so you can hear the views of other members of the
Plenary.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>