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

Fri Mar 2 18:52:34 UTC 2018

I support no change (option 4). If there is deadlock then I can live with
option 1.

Best

Farzaneh

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:31 PM, McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction <
ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> wrote:

> Thanks Greg,
>
>
>
> I also support #4, no change.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Steve DelBianco
> *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2018 1:08 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <
> raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1
> TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on
> 2 March
>
>
>
> CSG supports “No change to the report”.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> on behalf
> of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 1:46 AM
> *To: *Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr>
> *Cc: *ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost
> Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
>
>
>
> 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_
> 3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180302/2192881b/attachment-0001.html>