<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">Based on the discussions in the Plenary at ICANN 60, the following task was decided: </div><ul type="disc" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-top:0in"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0in">Jurisdiction second reading of draft recommendations – Approved with 4 objections but certain edits are required. These include the proposed text from Jorge Cancio with respect to continuing the jurisdiction discussions<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">....</div><u></u></li></ul><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Having reviewed the transcript, including Jorge's intervention, related interventions by others, and Thomas's recapitulation of this point, I have drafted the proposed language below (and also attached) to be added to the Subgroup Report, most likely at the end of the Subgroup Report.</div><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I hope that this has captured the spirit of the discussion reasonably well.</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"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:115%;color:rgb(0,112,192)">FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF JURISDICTION-RELATED CONCERNS<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%">There were a
number of concerns raised in the Subgroup where the Subgroup had substantive
discussions, but did not get to a point of conclusion. As an example, there were discussions of
limited or partial immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%">These concerns
were put on the table by different stakeholders, and for these stakeholders,
these are legitimate concerns. As these
concerns were not discussed to the end, there should be a path forward for
these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability, which was </span><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%">tasked to look into a limited number of issues
within a limited period of time and with a limited budget.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%">Therefore, the
Subgroup suggests that a further other multistakeholder process of some kind should
be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution,
of these concerns. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%">We believe that this Report, with its annexes,
can be a very useful tool for further debates which will surely take place –
whether in another cross-constituency effort or in a future ATRT Review, or in
some other ICANN context. The
appropriate forum for such discussions is beyond the mandate of the CCWG;
however, we encourage the community to build on the work of the Subgroup and
prior work in this area. <span></span></span></p></div><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> </p></div>