[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Oct 18 17:34:11 UTC 2017
Continuing in the spirit of seeking (and hopefully) getting direct
answers, Milton, I may well ask; are you for or against the following
statement
"All governments and jurisdictions should have the same status vis a vis
ICANN's global governance operations"
And if you for and not against it, can we put it in the agreed recs...
parminder
PS: let me also add that if you have any other questions or
clarifications to seek from me, I am happy to provide them. i think you
need to perhaps ask more questions to understand things better rather
than claim things like -- seeking "customised immunity" for ICANN
involves setting up a new inter-gov organisation. That was a most
astounding statement to hear from you at such a late stage of our
discussions.
On Wednesday 18 October 2017 08:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Parminder (and Thiago)
>
> I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which
> admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
>
>
>
> 1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general
> OFAC license for DNS services?
>
> 2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly
> told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding
> by OFAC sanctions?
>
> 3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC
> license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
>
> 4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law
> addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
>
>
>
> If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with
> the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of
> upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual
> alternative to the consensus recommendations.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to your answers.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM
> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim
> Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org; gac at icann.org; GAC <gac at gac.icann.org>;
> ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report.
> Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For
> consideration by the CCWG.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting”
> materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them
> actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with,
> and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the
> actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations
> are not enough for them.
>
>
> This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a
> whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not
> otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and
> apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but
> disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a
> group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement
> to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working
> Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to
> develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
>
> A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what
> it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo,
> there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very
> significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak
> formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group,
> which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
>
> Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a
> great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a
> committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by
> the world community. If some members try to develop a report that
> greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is
> done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the
> many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a
> key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak
> mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free
> water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members
> may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the
> "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn
> the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful
> exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating
> from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation
> with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's
> report..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
> So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not
> achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader
> take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their
> position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the
> consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us
> could agree on
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM
> *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>
> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>;
> gac at icann.org <mailto:gac at icann.org>; GAC <gac at gac.icann.org>
> <mailto:gac at gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction
> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft
> Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft
> report. For consideration by the CCWG.
>
>
>
> Dear All
>
> Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which
> now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as
> a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
>
> This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group,
> assuming that it continues to function.
>
> Best regards
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
> I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which
> makes the required point very well. The sub-group should
> consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In
> default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
>
> My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts,
> part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it
> failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's
> statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how
> there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus
> justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the
> required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
>
> Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with
> regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted
> on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow
> me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be
> the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the
> deadline I hope.
>
> Best regards, parminder
>
>
>
> On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim
> Oliveira wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the
> "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be
> annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup,
> submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the
> CCWG plenary.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Thiago
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] em nome de
> Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29
> *Para:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>;
> ws2-jurisdiction
> *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup
> Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
>
> All,
>
>
>
> One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing
> error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several
> mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and
> discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for
> Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was
> correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been
> fixed in the attached.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report
> when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of
> the report is attached. I've checked each page to
> confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
>
>
>
> Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the
> Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the
> CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint
> is expected to be submitted. In the interests of
> time, this will be submitted to the Plenary
> separately from the Draft Report.
>
>
>
> /During the preparation of the OFAC
> Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email
> where a registrar declined to do business with a
> potential reseller, based on the registrar’s
> policy of not doing business with people with
> Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that
> this registrar, which had been registering domains
> for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to
> continue to do business with them. The Subgroup
> has concluded that, to the extent these instances
> are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these
> instances are adequately covered in the
> Recommendation already without any additional
> changes. This is not in any way a comment on the
> validity of these particular concerns. The
> Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests"
> based on these scenarios./
>
>
>
> I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the
> Draft Report.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> /Rapporteur/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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/20171018/9e102f30/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list