[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP

[Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira]

Dear Steve,
Dear Greg,

On Note 4, it is a fair point, and I do not wish to push it further. My main point was as I clarified, to add text reflecting the subsequent addition to the report of the “further discussions on jurisdiction-related concerns”, and not so much concerned with singling out any of the comments received. So, again, what appears as Note 4 is distinct and independent from what appears as Note 4.1.

Yet I would only suggest dropping point 4.1 if others believe that the report, as slightly revised in reaction to the public comments received, did respond at least in some fashion to the comments that joined their voices to Brazil’s dissent in asking for further discussions to take place, notably on immunity.

This not being the case, I do believe – as Greg suggested – it would be fair to also explicitly give similar satisfaction to the contrary voices, which however, as I clarified in our previous call, are not really contrary to Brazil’s dissent, which fact should in my view be made explicit in the report as part of the subgroup’s response to the comments received.

Thank you.

Best,

Thiago


De: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Steve DelBianco
Enviada em: terça-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2018 18:36
Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP

Per Greg’s request, regarding the 6 Notes in the final draft doc:

I enthusiastically support Notes 1-3.

Note 4: I do not understand the justification to single-out one comment (that of France) among so many that we received and considered. Pending an explanation of that justification, I would not support a note that calls attention to just one comment.

Note 5:  Support

Note 6: Support (but please ensure that it reflects the edit to one Stress Test that was offered on our last call.  I was driving and did not write it down!)

Thanks,
Steve


From: Ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 1:18 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP

All,

The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review.  The Google doc version is at MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing>

PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS.  THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED.

PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary.  Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.")

THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call).

Thank you for your review.

Best regards,

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20180227/934ad5f9/attachment-0001.html>