<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:16pt;line-height:107%">Co-Chair’s
statement on the</span></b> <b><span style="font-size:16pt;line-height:107%">way forward for the Jurisdiction recommendations <span></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:16pt;line-height:107%"><br></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All,<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Co-Chairs have
reviewed the recording, chat transcript and captioning of the 18 October
plenary as it relates to the discussion of the first reading of the
Jurisdiction draft recommendations in an effort to determine the best way
forward amongst the many opinions and requests presented at this meeting
(please note that the relevant parts of those documents have been assembled by
staff into one document attached to this email for your consideration).<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First the Co-Chairs
would like to again thank all participants, but especially Ambassador Benedicto
Fonseca Filho of Brazil, for the constructive and professional nature of the
discussions. These discussions allowed everyone to understand the complexity of
the issues presented by Brazil as well as the limitations that a process such
as WS2 must impose on such work and the intrinsic impossibility of reconciling
these when dealing with concerns of such magnitude. The recommendations
presented by the Jurisdiction sub-group were arrived at in good faith and
represent a clear step forward for the community in these specific areas. This
being said, these recommendations clearly only scratch the surface of a number
of very complex issues including those presented by Brazil in their minority
opinion.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In considering the
best way forward for the Jurisdiction recommendations the Co-Chairs took
special note of the following from the raw captioning record:<span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style=""><span style="font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span>Benedicto Fonseca Filho - <span lang="EN-CA">We would certainly be happy to get rid of everything related to
process, anything that can be found to be [indiscernible] or anything of that
sort. We want to focus on the substance, but to make clear that the report as
such does not address key concerns we have and that, therefore, we avail
ourselves to file this minority [indiscernible].</span><span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style=""><span style="font-family:Symbol">·<span style="font-variant-numeric:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span>Benedicto Fonseca Filho - Thank you. I'll be
very short. Actually just to further clarify what I said before with regard to
the official deadline. I think this issue is very complex and you don't solve
complex issues in maybe one or two years, it requires a process for this
because it needs to mature, there are political realities that sometimes repeat
for a number of years. So what I am
saying, I don't think to allow one or two or three more weeks or two months
would be enough. I think that there's something that we could maybe entertain
would be to see some [indiscernible] action and to acknowledge it's a file that
needs to be under constant scrutiny, maybe the object of standing effort on the
part of ICANN. And I think what should guide that decision that was
[indiscernible] but [indiscernible] International organization that is truly
International, not interGovernmental, but [indiscernible] stakeholder
[indiscernible] new I understand, I fully concur that [indiscernible] it's not
believed that once we [indiscernible] as to load that file. As to a third thing
to be concerned with something very limited and say this is the end of it. But
that's the emotion I would like to convey.
Thank you.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As such the Co-Chairs
would propose that Brazil submit its revised minority opinion to the plenary
list by 23:59 UTC 25 October so that the members and participants can consider
it prior to the 27 October plenary. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In order to be
responsive to the issues raised, we will change the format of the face to face
meeting and will be providing ample room for opinions and positions to be
expressed and put on the record. This will allow for our group to recognize the
different viewpoints and challenges that either could not be dealt with in the
report or could not be reflected in the report to everyone’s satisfaction. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During this time slot,
we will be offering Brazil the opportunity to present its revised minority
opinion to the plenary and answer questions on it from the members and the
participants. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jurisdiction
challenges have been discussed and caused controversial debates since ICANN’s
inception and we hope and expect that these discussions will not end with the
completion of work stream 2. Thus, a record of this discussion will surely
serve as a valuable source of information to inform further discussions beyond
the contents of our report.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Co-Chairs also
recommend that the second reading of the Jurisdiction draft recommendations be
conducted at the 27 October face to face meeting as staff have confirmed that
any significant delay in approving these recommendations could endanger their
inclusion in the WS2 Final Report.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This would allow for
the Jurisdiction draft recommendations to be published for public consultation
soon after ICANN 60 and would allow the entire community to comment on the
recommendations as well as the minority opinions.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although not a perfect
solution we believe that this is the one which represents the majority of
views.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bernard Turcotte for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p></div></div>