<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">My apologies, but I will be unable to keep
late hours today and therefore not be able to at the plenary
meeting. Tomorrow is the most important festival in India and
have some commitments in the morning.... I have made some clear
points below, one is about the main cause of my objection to the
recs and the report as the process was vitiated, and then I ask
two specific determinations to be made by the group -- which
issues are in the bold -- I will be glad for specific responses
to be made to them. </font><br>
</p>
parminder<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 17 October 2017 08:09 PM,
parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:849224d8-73ac-3146-f74e-3959d3c80e8c@itforchange.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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" moz-do-not-send="true">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<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>