Hello all, my apologies on this email sent out yesterday without a link – see the highlight below, link now included… The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | 27 October 16 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FhO4Aw The copy of the notes can be found below. Thank you! Brenda & Yvette Notes Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #9 | on Thursday, 27 October @ 19:00 UTC (including relevant parts of chat): 23 participants at start of call ________________________________ 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Acknowledge KA statement. Advise everyone that we will consider all the tough questions within our scope and that we will reach consensus on these. Statement from Kavouss Arasteh for the record: While the works of all subgroup are important and valuable and their efforts are fully recognized and highly appreciate, I as a Member of CCWG associate a very high degree of importance to a mutually accepted output of Jurisdiction sub group. I hope our expectations would be realized and the group produce an output which properly and legally address the case under consideration. It would be totally inacceptable, disappointing and frustrating to either end up with status quo or a Watered town product. The overwhelming majority community, in particular those which are still skeptical to the concept of multistakeholder approach, are carefully monitoring the output of this group to join others getting assurance that this fundamental, crucial and important issue is concluded with satisfactory results. We count on all of you and, in particular, count on the able chairman to explore all his expertise, skills, competence, knowledge and fairness in this regard 2. Review of Progress to Date Greg Shatan: will post this to a Google doc and give the group 24 hours to review. Any comments on A? (none). PDS email comment for B - Generally speaking, the progress report seems reasonable to me. I would only suggest the removal of the expression "and the Subgroup can’t find a less drastic solution" in point 2.b, as the idea of what "drastic" means seems quite abstract to me and can be subject to misinterpretations. Any comments on this? In meeting 7 of this sub-group it was phrased as this and accepted at that time. Avri Doria: So many other words can be used vs drastic why not change it. Milton Mueller: how about just replacing "less drastic" with "another"? Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with 2A, never understood what a gap analysis would be and support changing the word Drastic. Kavous Arasteh: Alternate solution - part starting with "IF the subgroup deems it is necessary to revisit this it will be done accordingly" Greg Shatan: KA please check if notes ok. David McAuley: I stand by the comments I made on the list regarding the gap analysis several weeks ago. simple) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Happy to switch out "drastic" Kavouss Arasteh: Grec pls assure me of the actions required Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thx Greg that seems reasonable of course comments to list will also be considered Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Dear Greg: the report seems quite balanced. But allow us some time to consider it, ok? Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). 3. Preparing for ICANN 57 a. CCWG F2F currently allots 30 minutes to an update and discussion of Jurisdiction matters. We need to determine how best to use this time. David McAuley: will we have remote participation? Bernard Turcotte: yes, but probably not the same URLs for the Adobe rooms - the URLs will be published ahead of time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we should focus those 30 minutes to talk about the "influence" doc, concentrating on specific issues. Greg Shatan: Agree with this suggestion from JC. Would like for this group to do more work on this document prior to presenting in Hyderabad. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Another reason to just work in UTC for planning Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): If lightning talks come from people with relevant experiences, preferably from outside our subgroup, that could enrich us Kavous Arasteh: Will we have the final documents ahead of time? Greg Shatan: How about 1200UTC Sunday. No objections. Kavous Arasteh: In the update in 4 we must include any open questions we need to raise with the plenary. Greg Shatan: Given the 30 minutes and that there are many questions - I think we should focus on questions wrt to the Influence document. Kavouss Arasteh: Could we make a short list of these open questions Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Agree with Greg: let's do some practical stuff focusing on the "influence" doc Greg Shatan: Someone has brought up the question of Immunity - but it is classified as a remedy - as such we should agree on what the Issues are. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, it would good that in the progress report you indicate average no. of participants Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We don't need to enter the immunity discussion. But the doc should not prejudge or conclude anything Kavouss Arasteh: what is " immunity discussion pls Paul McGrady: Just for the empowered community? Greg Shatan: No, more about making ICANN immune like NGOs etc. Paul McGrady: If this would happen it would undo all the accountability work we have just completed in WS1. Greg Shatan: There is much work to do even before we even consider this point. Paul McGrady: All horrible tends to grow in this environment - I think this is a horrible idea and hope it will not grow. Jorge Cancio: Immunity was inserted last week in the Multiple layers document. then there was another addition as an Addition vs a Suggestion that immunity would block accountability measures and should only be a suggestion. Agree with GS that it is early days and we should focus on the influence document. We cannot dismiss immunity without proper discussion and as such we should not jump to conclusions. In the Multiples layers document we should simply note that we will get to this if necessary. Greg Shatan: offending text now changed to suggestion mode. Greg Shatan: We should not raise immunity within the 30 minutes in Hyderabad. Any comments on the Influence document? much text has been added and you have until Sunday to insert comments. (Presentation of influence document) Section C is the heart of the document but t is unfortunately empty at this time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Let's focus on real life issues for the community - this "influence" doc is a good basis for gathering also inputs from the community Kavous Arasteh: If you refer to California law please include or hyperlink the document so we understand the references. Greg Shatan: good suggestion will look at doing this. We will circulate the latest copy of this document after this call. Parminder's issues are around the power of the state. JC is more about choice of law. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @Greg: could we at some time circulate this to registries, registrars and others directly affected in order to gather their impressions? We need to listen to real-life needs... otherwise we may get into an academic exercise with all due respect to academics of course :P Kavous Arasteh: not distribute widely at this point. Greg Shatan: I take what JC has said to mean “at some point” - so. Also ICANN has a list of legal issues it has been involved in - we should ask staff to distribute this to this group. It is essential everyone participate in producing these documents. Encourage everyone to participate in this document. 4. Reporting on our Progress Greg Shatan: will fill out the slide for Hyderabad and circulate. Any other comments? (none). Would ask everyone to look at the progress report and the Influence document. AOB ( none). Adjourned