[Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Addition to Jurisdiction Subgroup Report

[Wilkinson]

> Good evening:

> further, other, multistakeholder process of some kind should be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution, of these concerns.

I support this outcome for the time being. Thankyou.

CW


> On 5 Nov 2017, at 21:43, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Good write-up.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> 
> On Nov 2, 2017 4:36 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> All,
> 
> Based on the discussions in the Plenary at ICANN 60, the following task was decided: 
> Jurisdiction second reading of draft recommendations – Approved with 4 objections but certain edits are required. These include the proposed text from Jorge Cancio with respect to continuing the jurisdiction discussions​....
> 
> ​Having reviewed the transcript, including Jorge's intervention, related interventions by others, and Thomas's recapitulation​ of this point, I have drafted the proposed language below (and also attached) to be added to the Subgroup Report, most likely at the end of the Subgroup Report.
> 
> ​I hope that this has captured the spirit of the discussion reasonably well.​
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF JURISDICTION-RELATED CONCERNS
> 
> There were a number of concerns raised in the Subgroup where the Subgroup had substantive discussions, but did not get to a point of conclusion.  As an example, there were discussions of limited or partial immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion.
> 
> These concerns were put on the table by different stakeholders, and for these stakeholders, these are legitimate concerns.  As these concerns were not discussed to the end, there should be a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability, which was tasked to look into a limited number of issues within a limited period of time and with a limited budget.
> 
> Therefore, the Subgroup suggests that a further other multistakeholder process of some kind should be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution, of these concerns.  We believe that this Report, with its annexes, can be a very useful tool for further debates which will surely take place – whether in another cross-constituency effort or in a future ATRT Review, or in some other ICANN context.  The appropriate forum for such discussions is beyond the mandate of the CCWG; however, we encourage the community to build on the work of the Subgroup and prior work in this area. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20171105/9ac6ba3c/attachment.html>