[Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March

Cheryl Langdon-Orr langdonorr at gmail.com
Fri Mar 2 12:34:22 UTC 2018 

I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my
balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be
published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment.

On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All
I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge.
I therefore maintain my support
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

​All,

​We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts
resulting from "Note 4.1."  I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list
& draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result
emerges.  On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to *20:00 UTC*.
(Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.)

The bottom line is this:  *Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed
modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ...
most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in
the Draft Report.*




* Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following
alternatives:1. Support first proposal only.2. Support second proposal
only.3. Support both proposals.4. No change; neither text will be in the
Report. Thank you.*

The draft report is attached in Word and PDF.  In addition, I found it
helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we
are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached.  The
chat and captioning are here
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>.

The short version of the timeline is this:

   - We discussed Note 4.1 on the call.  The objective was identified
as "showing
   the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through
   various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I
   noted that nothing was jelling.
   - Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground."
   - There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we
   can take that as the result of 4.1."  There was no objection and we moved
   on to the rest of the call.
   - As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding
   point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand
   in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text.  The first part
   was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the
   second part was new.
   - The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this
   suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted
   that the proposal could be reviewed on the list.
   - In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I
   prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text
   that Thiago put in the chat.

Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position.  First, this was not
actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in
treating it as if it were.  Second, while the Draft Report makes it look
like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from
the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one
(identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call).

A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order
and should not be considered.  We would then have one suggestion and life
would be simpler.  Another hyper-technical view would be that the
suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one
or the other (or neither)" decision.

I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way:

We have two proposals.  Both are possibilities.  Neither text was really
discussed on the call.  The first text was based on a conceptual
understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed.
The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't
discussed either.  We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must
be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup.  With this
lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of
the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate.

*As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed
modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ...
most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in
the Draft Report.*

*Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following
alternatives:*

*1. Support first proposal only.*
*2. Support second proposal only.*
*3. Support both proposals.*
*4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.*

Greg


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <
raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the
> second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can
> serve as an example to the first.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
>
>> Dear Greg and all,
>>
>>
>>
>> If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was
>> agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that
>> Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?:
>>
>>
>>
>> “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of
>> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional
>> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these
>> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be
>> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for
>> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other
>> fora, had already been acknowledged”
>>
>>
>>
>> As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *Im
>> Auftrag von *Greg Shatan
>> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22
>> *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft
>> Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on
>> today’s call.  This is also available in Google Docs at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3Nwpd
>> vIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review and comment.  I have marked in the margin the sections
>> corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call.
>>
>>
>>
>> In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12
>> at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.”  There are two
>> proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1.  The first received broad
>> support on the call without noted objections.
>>
>>
>>
>> The second received both support and objections on the call.  Since there
>> was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many
>> participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their
>> views on this second proposed addition.  This text reads as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of
>> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional
>> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these
>> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be
>> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for
>> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other
>> fora, had already been acknowledged.
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a
>> whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2
>> March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all
>> responses.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL
>> or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
>> print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the
>> sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments
>> without retaining a copy.
>>
>> *Disclaimer*
>>
>> The information contained in this communication from the sender is
>> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others
>> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
>> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in
>> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
>> be unlawful.
>>
>> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
>> automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a
>> Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place
>> for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and
>> compliance. To find out more Click Here
>> <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
> LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
> @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112>
>
<Note 4.1 Timeline.docx>

<CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx>

<CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf>

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction


_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20180302/0416a445/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list