[Ws2-jurisdiction] SGT Jurisdiction. Final Report. Statement from Brazil.

Mon Oct 16 14:08:58 UTC 2017

Kavouss,

What is your basis for asserting that the Report is not a consensus
document?  Do you believe that the report should be withdrawn?

I look forward to your response.  Thank you.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All
> I share the views and concerns expressed by Benedicto, in particular his
> reference on not to categorise the report as a consensus doc.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 12 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Benedicto,
>
> Sorry, I didn't see your request before I sent off the draft, so i was
> unable to consider it.  Please feel free to send it directly to the Plenary.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Benedicto Fonseca Filho <
> benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you please make sure the message below appears in the e-mail you
>> will send to the CCWG plenary with the report?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Brazil expresses its opposition to the "Final Report" on Jurisdiction
>> that is being submitted to the CCWG plenary.
>>
>>
>>
>> The report does not address the concerns Brazil and others repeatedly
>> raised during the work of the subgroup, nor does it duly take into account
>> the contributions Brazil and others timely submitted on jurisdictional
>> issues that motivated the launching of Work Stream 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, the report falls short of the objectives envisaged for Work
>> Stream 2 – in particular the need to ensure that ICANN is accountable
>> towards all stakeholders –, by not tackling the issue of ICANN's subjection
>> to US jurisdiction, as well as leaving untouched the unsatisfactory
>> situation where US authorities (tribunals, enforcement agencies, regulatory
>> bodies, etc.) can possibly interfere with the activities ICANN performs in
>> the global public interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> As we have stated from day one of Work Stream 1 back in 2014, Brazil
>> cannot accept this state of affairs – where Governments are not placed on
>> an equal footing vis-à-vis the country of incorporation as regards their
>> ability to participate in ICANN's management of Internet global resources
>> –, which is not in line with the rules and principles embodied in the Tunis
>> Agenda for the Information Society nor with the fundamental tenets of the
>> multi-stakeholder approach, which we uphold and support.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this respect, Brazil recalls that its non-opposition to the conclusion
>> and outcome of Work Stream 1 was made in good faith based on the
>> understanding that a satisfactory settlement of the jurisdictional issues,
>> as identified during the transition process, would be addressed in a
>> satisfactory manner. We are saddened to notice that the report does not
>> live up to that expectation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, Brazil objects to the portrayal of the report as a consensus
>> document, which we understand is due to an incorrect consensus-level
>> designation made by the Chair, as well as the fact that many views and
>> contributions made during the process – including in some cases our own -
>> were systematically disregarded or ignored, with no effort being made in
>> order to build consensus and bridge differences with respect to these views
>> and contributions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brazil will submit within the agreed deadline a document to be attached
>> to report with the points we consider should have been included therein."
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Benedicto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at ican
>> n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>> *Enviado:* quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 15:42
>> *Para:* ws2-jurisdiction
>> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
>> *Assunto:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Documents for Review and Approval in
>> Today's Meeting
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I attach the current drafts of the Draft Report (including the OFAC
>> Recommendations) and the Choice of Law and Venue Recommendation, as Word
>> and PDF documents.  The current drafts are also available as Google Docs.
>> In order to keep the drafts synchronized, I have changed the sharing status
>> of the Draft Report to "view only" and copied the Choice of Law and Venue
>> draft into a new Google Doc, with view only status.  Links are below:
>>
>> Draft Report:   *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website
>> at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* *MailScanner has
>> detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust
>> this website:* https://docs.google.com/docume
>> nt/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?usp=sharing
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> Choice of Law and Venue:
>>  *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at
>> "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* *MailScanner has detected
>> definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this
>> website:* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7A233KiPQV2ijVgWzxWOv3e
>> ePTy9rSPIMFxbiZ86lo/edit?usp=sharing
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7A233KiPQV2ijVgWzxWOv3eePTy9rSPIMFxbiZ86lo/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> There is only one suggested change to look at at in the Draft Report.
>>
>> There are a number of suggested changes in the Choice of Law and Venue
>> Recommendation.  Unless the Subgroup decides otherwise, these changes will
>> be made final after the meeting.  (Note that other text is still open for
>> suggested changes even if not marked in the document, but these changes
>> will need to be finalized on the call.
>>
>> There are also a number of "Comments" in the documents.  These are left
>> in so you can see them, but they will be taken out when the document is
>> finalized for submission to the Plenary.  (Note: It's easier to see the
>> comments on the PDF but some are truncated.  In the Word doc, you'll need
>> to click on each one to expand it.  It's easiest to see them all in the
>> Google Doc.)
>>
>> *THESE DOCUMENTS MUST BE SENT TO THE PLENARY BY 23:59 UTC TODAY IN ORDER
>> TO BE PART OF THE CCWG REPORT.*
>>
>> I look forward to our upcoming call.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20171016/0910be55/attachment.html>