[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 18:57:34 UTC 2018

I note some support for "no change" and as that's already well established
language I can certainly live with that outcome...

Please note, I had left the call just before ending to join another call,
so wasn't actually present at the moment of any discussion, of the
alternative to the middle ground of "Option 1" from earlier in the call
but  (still a good fall back as well in my view) so my response was
specifically to Greg's urgent Concensus Call, to the list, based on the
background provided in that email.

On Mar 2, 2018 23:34, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180303/59b3deca/attachment-0001.html>