<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">One amendment to my email above. I think it will be more efficient to address our ccNSO-related questions to the ccNSO participants in this Subgroup and the CCWG. They will have the background on both the CCWG discussions of ccTLD matters and the broader ccTLD context. If and when needed, they can turn to ccNSO leadership (noting that Nigel Roberts is a member of the ccNSO Council).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Let's not obscure the substance of the co-chairs' message in Thomas's email by getting pulled into a procedural thicket.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The point the email raises -- the "mandate re ccTLD issues" is a significant point: "Whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations ... should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team." The co-chairs' reminder of how the question was answered regarding the overall work of the CCWG is critical. The remit of this or any subgroup can't be broader than that of the CCWG as a whole. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I see that there is some disagreement with these conclusions. I will take up Thomas's suggestion and ask ccNSO leadership for clarification, sending them the relevant correspondence and issue statements. While others are free to discuss this in the meantime, I expect that the response from ccNSO leadership will bring us information that will help any further discussion of this point.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">How does this affect our work?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">First, we haven't decided that the three ccTLD-related proposals are, in fact, issues. Nor have we decided that these issues are likely to "result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup" (as per our Path Forward), or even that they are within our remit. If these proposals aren't adopted as issues, for whatever reason, then the point raised by the co-chairs (among others) is moot for purposes of this Subgroup. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Second, remember our principle that we need to consider issues separately from potential remedies. Don't decide against an issue because you don't like the proposed remedies; there may be other possible remedies. The opposite is true as well. (Of course, if we don't take up a proposed issue, opinions about suggested remedies for that issue are beside the point.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, we should keep our on eye the work directly in front of us -- refining the "OFAC proposal" and working our way through the potential issues related to the lack of choice of law clauses in certain ICANN contracts. If we were to spend the next several weeks debating the Subgroup's mandate regarding ccTLD issues, we will have no recommendations and no report. (That said, I would be remiss if I let such a debate go on for several weeks....)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is closed. It means we have to be goal-oriented, and our goal is to bring our work together into a report in the next month or so, with recommendations that this group will support. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">P.S. To be clear, I see no procedural impediment to taking up this point. The procedural objection has been duly noted, as have the responses.<br></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><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><span class="m_5910687856027297516m_-6937269142094986472gmail-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></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="m_5910687856027297516HOEnZb"><div class="m_5910687856027297516h5"><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="m_5910687856027297516m_-6937269142094986472HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Thomas<br>
</font></span><div class="m_5910687856027297516m_-6937269142094986472HOEnZb"><div class="m_5910687856027297516m_-6937269142094986472h5"><br>
> Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>>; <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">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-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>ws2-jurisdiction/2017-</a><br>
>> August/001441.html and here: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>ws2-</a><br>
>> jurisdiction/2017-August/00149<wbr>6.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" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-</a><br>
>> <a href="mailto:bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>