Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #27– 18 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/zs3RAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2B90A.5F4366F0] Action Items: · Staff – Get responses to questionnaire which are not in English translated to English. · Greg Shatan – (Re Employ media case analysis) Draft a request to ICANN Legal as to why there is no choice of law in the registry agreements. · Greg Shatan – Place work plan in Google Docs and post link to group to facilitate commenting. · Greg Shatan – post update to list on Review of ICANN Litigations noting which cases are due by who and which cases still need people to review. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 16 participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda (2 minutes) Greg Shatan - (none) 3. Administration (1 minute) 3.1. Changes to SOIs Greg Shatan - Any changes (none). 3.2. Identify Audio Only and Phone Number Participants Greg Shatan - Any audio only? (none) 4. Review of decisions and action items from last call (2 minutes) 4.1. Decisions – none 4.2. Action Items: 4.2.1. To review work plan presentation for plenary per comments (Greg) Greg Shatan - this was done and emailed and presented to the plenary. 4.2.2. Questionnaire Review Team – Review latest submissions Greg Shatan - No meeting of this group yet. An email has been sent to the QRT email list with a proposed process. 4.2.3. Will post to list to encourage discussion of the latest case analysis (Greg) Greg Shatan - completed. 5. Update on Questionnaire (10 minutes) 5.1. Questionnaire closed April 17, 2017 Kavouss Arasteh - should cut off as of this meeting. Greg Shatan - chat seems to indicate preference for Friday 23:59UTC (DECISION). need staff to advise when translations will be available (ACTION ITEM). Note that there are more than a dozen open comments currently. avri doria: it isn't just holidays, it is the massive number for open comments. avri doria: same thing happened at NCSG call this morning Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I just note that apparently we have little feedback from registries and registrars (or their constituencies)... 6. Review of ICANN Litigations (15 minutes) 6.1. Name.Space, Inc. v. ICANN. – DM David McAuley - Interesting case but very little impact on Jurisdiction. (presenting case analysis). Milton Mueller - want to emphasize - the original lawsuit from NSI in the late 90's is why the USG asserted control over the Root to avoid the anti-trust issues. ICANN could still be sued for monopolization if it could be proved it colluded for this but this was by design and the fact it is US jurisdiction makes little difference. Phil Corwin - question for DM - if this case were brought today would it also be dismissed? David McAuley - Hard to say - it could of been a little easier for NSI to make the monopolization case - but uncertain they would of gotten any further. Kavouss Arasteh: Milton, Is really ICANN able to do this type of monopolization after transition avri doria: i think until it is challenged, it is difficult to call it definitely. Depends on how they interpret the NTIA grant to ICANN when it turned everything over. Milton Mueller: there is no NTIA grant to ICANN Greg Shatan - re anti-trust immunity or a state actor were not considered by the court - the contract with the USG was the main consideration. avri doria: Milton, i will be interested to see how future cases argue it and how it is treated. Milton Mueller: Kavouss: if ICANN passed a policy that was proposed by registrars and registries that substantially restricted competition in the domain name market it could be sued on antitrust grounds David McAuley (RySG): The "no amendment would cure language by the court is also interesting Erich Schweighofer: Does that mean that ICANN is subject to control of monopolisation, e.g. abuse of a dominant market position. David McAuley (RySG): I cannot answer that one Erich 6.2. Employ Media LLC v ICANN - RBL Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix - (presenting case analysis) Milton Mueller: What was the settlement, Raphael? Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix - who would be able to register for .jobs. Milton Mueller: Who caved ? ICANN or .JOBs? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): what could be the reasons for not specifying the applicable law? Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix - not specified in the documentation. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): nobody does such a thing without a reason... Milton Mueller: right Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (being a well-advised corporation) Greg Shatan - ACTION ITEM - Ask ICANN applicable is not specified - Anyone interested in drafting? if not I will.why Kavouss Arasteh - why was this not included - there must be a reason? Greg Shatan - any further questions? 7. Questions to ICANN Legal: Follow-Up (10 minutes) 7.1. Further questions and next steps Greg Shatan - Sam Eisner was on the plenary call - if participants missed that they are encouraged to read the transcript or listen to the recording. Any further points on this except the question from the previous point? (none). Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): and I guess others may pop-up as we discuss 8. Draft Work Plan and Schedule: Follow-Up (10 minutes) 8.1. Comments or Questions on Current Draft (revised after Subgroup meeting and circulated to Plenary) Greg Shatan - Encourage all comments on the plan - this is our plan so please comment. ACTION ITEM GS - will put it up as a GoogleDoc. to facilitate comments. Would like to remind everyone we should only look for remedies to issues that are identified. David McAuley (RySG): That would be welcome Greg Greg Shatan - would note there are some cases that have not been claimed for analysis - and would encourage people to claim those and those that have claimed but not completed to please complete these (ACTION ITEM). Would be nice to have something for ICANN 59. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): aim for that...yes Kavouss Arasteh - will this work plan actually get us somewhere? Greg Shatan – This is my hope but this is our workplan – so up to us to decide. David McAuley (RySG): our return to scope discussion will be important in this respect 9. AOB (none) 10. Next meeting 25 April 05:00 UTC 11. Adjourned
