[Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina at mpicc.de
Fri Mar 2 20:24:27 UTC 2018
Dear all,
I strongly support option 4 - no change.
In the worst case I could possibly live with the option 1, but only if
there is a tie. Please don't count this note as my vote for the option 1
in any other case.
Cheers,
Tanya
On 02/03/18 07:45, Greg Shatan 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto: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
> <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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <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/d0d96b6e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list