<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Dear Thomas,</div><div> <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"> </font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 6.75pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Thanks</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">1.In that case you plainly and clearly intervened in the activities and working methods of <span> </span>sub group which you and your colleagues have <span> </span>at several occasions claimed that the Co Chairs should not and should refrained to <span> </span>intervene ,in the capacity of CO -Chairs in the working methods or activities of the sub groups .At several occasions <span> </span>I asked that the co- chairs need to <span> </span>provide advice <span> </span>to them and your answer to me was that " It is not the duty of the co-chair to intervene in the activities / working methods of any sub group . But did break this Rules two times. As I did mention in my previous message.</span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><span>2. In regard to the substance of your message, as Milton clearly and rightly mentioned </span></span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><span>Qoute</span></span></p><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><span><span><span class="gmail-im"><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><em><font color="#0000ff">"But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop"</font></em></p></span><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><em><font color="#000000">Regards</font></em></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><em><font color="#0000ff"><font color="#000000">Kavouss<span></span></font></font></em></p></span></span></span></font></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Thomas Rickert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello Thiago and Milton,<br>
thanks for your comments.<br>
<br>
I will not try to defend the points I made, which are based on our WS1 report and previous discussions we had. You have different views on this and that is fine.<br>
<br>
The easiest way to shed light on this is to reach out to the ccNSO leadership and ask for clarification.<br>
<br>
I hope that is an acceptable way forward.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Thomas<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">milton@gatech.edu</a>>:<br>
><br>
> I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work.<br>
><br>
> But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop.<br>
><br>
> In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-">ws2-jurisdiction-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira<br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM<br>
>> To: 'Thomas Rickert' <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net">thomas@rickert.net</a>>; <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Thomas,<br>
>><br>
>> Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain<br>
>> immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities<br>
>>>> "steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?<br>
>><br>
>> I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and<br>
>> how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation<br>
>> on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example,<br>
>> see here: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>ws2-jurisdiction/2017-</a><br>
>> August/001441.html and here: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>ws2-</a><br>
>> jurisdiction/2017-August/<wbr>001496.html ).<br>
>><br>
>> It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Thiago<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -----Mensagem original-----<br>
>> De: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-">ws2-jurisdiction-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org">bounces@icann.org</a>] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6<br>
>> de setembro de 2017 04:17<br>
>> Para: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
>> Cc: Thomas Rickert<br>
>> Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues<br>
>><br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>><br>
>> there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations<br>
>> and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be<br>
>> worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.<br>
>><br>
>> This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.<br>
>><br>
>> Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone<br>
>> our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.<br>
>><br>
>> Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our<br>
>> accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to<br>
>> ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations<br>
>> that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..<br>
>><br>
>> ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step<br>
>> over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO<br>
>> leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the<br>
>> ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very<br>
>> demarcation in our recommendations.<br>
>><br>
>> In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work<br>
>> that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs<br>
>> would violate that rule.<br>
>><br>
>> I hope this helps.<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Thomas<br>
>><br>
>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>