<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Parminder,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you for providing your position on the two recommendations. The point you mentioned were substantially discussed on the calls and on the list, and the results are reflected in the report. As for views on the scope and reach and supremacy of the CCWG over all other structures and their specific remits, I think there is a common understanding -- just one you don't agree with. As always, you are entitled to your opinion, of course.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, thank you for catching an editing error in the Report. The references to the RAA on pages 13-14 should have been references to ICANN's Terms and Conditions for the Registrar Accreditation Application (the reference was correct in the Executive Summary). As such, this is ICANN the Organization's policy, which is well within our remit to make specific recommendations about. I believe that takes care of your final concern.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>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_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:04 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<br>
<div class="m_-3218433292490485691moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 12 October 2017 12:25 AM,
Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><span class=""><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Parminder,</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Welcome back to the
Subgroup. If you had been participating in the Subgroup or
Plenary recently, you would know that the time for considering
and submitting recommendations for consideration by the group
has passed some time ago. The deadline for any Subgroup to
submit a draft report <b>to the Plenary</b> that could be
part of the CCWG Report is<b> 23:59 UTC today</b>. This has
been clearly communicated for some months now.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This report is not
intended to be a full record of all the group's
deliberations. Its focus is the recommendations that have
reached consensus (i.e., broad support, but not necessarily
unanimity or lack of objection) in the Subgroup. As such, it
does not generally reflect discussion of items that did not
garner broad support.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">You can review the
Subgroup's emails and meetings to see how we arrived at these
two recommendations as being the ones to be included in the
Subgroup's report. This was based on identifying these
recommendations as ones where the group could find common
ground and where concrete recommendations could be made.
Based on the meetings and emails over the last several weeks,
I am fairly confident that these two recommendations have the
consensus support of the Subgroup. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I disagree with (1) not giving an explicit and unreserved rec for
ICANN to seek general license of exception for DNS policy and
implementation activities, and (2) with the observation in the part
on choice of law/ venue that this group is in no position to
recommend to ICANN to amend its base RA or RAA agreements. <br>
<br>
About the latter, there seems to be clear lack of agreement and
common understanding among us on the very remit of the group. This
is a cross community group and it should be able to give recs that
affect any authority or body in or connected to ICANN... That is the
very purpose of such a group... Of course every thing would be under
the authority of an existing permanent body committee etc, whereby
then any community WG would not be able to make any rec at all... I
completely do not understand it.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, even as, in the choice of law/ venue part, the report
says that "this Subgroup ... cannot .... require ICANN to make
amendments to the RA or the RAA", in the OFAC related sections it
holds that "the last sentence (of RAA agreement) should be amended
to require ICANN to apply for and use best efforts to secure an OFAC
license ......". Is this not a contradiction? Can someone please
explain this to me. Thanks.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
parminder <br></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> We will confirm on
today's call that the Report as a whole has that same support.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">However, if the Report
does not have consensus support of the Subgroup, we will have
no choice but to not submit the Report.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg </div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 PM,
parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Since there is no response on how
and when was it decided to chose only OFAC and choice
of venue as the issues to give recs on, and how the
issue of possible immunity from US jurisdiction
excluded from this exercise, i want to put it on
record before today's meeting (which I will not be
able to attend) that I, and perhaps others, would like
to put up a draft rec on the immunity issue for the
group.... It is up to the group to accept it or
not.... If it is unable to reach consensus it is
possible that I, and perhaps others, may want to put
it as a dissenting view, that will be requested to be
attached to the group's report. Please let me know the
process and time line for submitting (1) draft rec on
customised immunity for ICANN, (2) in case there is no
consensus on it. to give a dissenting view. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Also, I disagree with the manner
that the current report does a very partial job of the
mandate given to it, cherry picking one or two aspects
of the mandate and ignoring other, without a due and
clear process. I also disagree with the manner in
which its narrative glosses over the major discussions
ans dynamics in the sub group, especially around the
issue of US gov's jurisdiction and possibilities of
seeking customised immunity under the US IOI Act.....
It is most astounding how the report manages to
completely avoid even a mention of the immunity issue
which was hotly argued and discussed by the sub group,
and on which so many members had such strong views. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">It can hardly be said that there
is a consensus on the group's outputs as mentioned in
the draft report...</font></p>
<span class="m_-3218433292490485691HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p><font face="Verdana">parminder </font><br>
</p>
</font></span>
<div>
<div class="m_-3218433292490485691h5"> <br>
<div class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323moz-cite-prefix">On
Wednesday 11 October 2017 06:52 PM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323moz-cite-prefix">On
Wednesday 11 October 2017 03:40 AM, Greg Shatan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All, </div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have
received no comments on the Draft Subgroup
Report.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Greg, I was able to see it only just now and have
the following quick comments before today's meeting.
Will give more comments later on<br>
<br>
At 2 places the report notes that the sub group got
into discussing to topic of of "changing ICANN’s
headquarters or jurisdiction of incorporation".<br>
<br>
As I have previously mentioned on this list, I
recall no real discussion at any time on actually
"changing ICANN's headquarters or jurisdiction of
incorporation". What did happen were repeated
discussions on possibility of seeking immunity for
ICANN under the US's International Organisations
Immunity Act... Why dont we mention the actual
discussion that took place in the group -- however
inadequately, despite many members repeated requests
for a proper discussion -- then put in what was
hardly discussed?<br>
<br>
Next, the report says that it chose to priortize the
two issues of OFAC and choice of jurisdiction in
contracts among many possible issues. I just want to
be reminded which decision it refers to, and taken
when. In any case, I disassociate myself from any
such decision. But please do point me to the
relevant decision of the sub group. <br>
<br>
I am also not clear about <br>
<br>
"The Subgroup understands that it cannot require
ICANN to make amendments to the RA or the RAA "
(said with regard to choice of jurisdiction
recs)..... Why so? Sorry if this has already been
discussed, but fell be grateful if the reason is
explained to me.<br>
<br>
I do also note that there is really no
recommendation with regard to choice of jurisdiction
issue but just a series of musings. This fact that
no rec is being made in this regard should be very
clearly stated.<br>
<br>
So, finally the only substantial thing I understand
the group to be saying is that it wants ICANN to be
more specifically clear that it will try to seek
OFAC licence for all otherwise legitimate cases, and
that ICANN should explore (only explore) general
OFAC licences -- which rec is also made with too
much defensiveness. <br>
<br>
And it wants to say nothing on jurisdictional
immunity issue, in fact completely censor the issue
out of the report, even in parts which just
factually deal with discussions that happened in the
group. <br>
<br>
<br>
More later, <br>
<br>
thanks, parminder <br>
<br>
PS: Excuse me for the hurried comments, I am at some
place right now where I am very constrained in time.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have
added a summary of the Choice of Law and
Choice of Venue Recommendation to the
Executive Summary, based on the current state
of that Recommendation in the Google doc.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The
Draft Report is attached in Word and PDF
versions. The Google doc is (still) at <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/doc<wbr>ument/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8<wbr>sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?<wbr>usp=sharing</a></div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I will
circulate that Recommendation next, in Word
and PDF versions, as it now stands.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">These
documents will be discussed on tomorrow's
call. An agenda will be circulated shortly.</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_-3218433292490485691m_9065613103414112323moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>