Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #11 – 29 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/vJDDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan:changes to SOIs (none). 2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions Greg Shatan: recap of objective of questions. I have reformulated based on the original draft. Farzaneh Badii: Can the rapporteur or group vet the veracity? Kavouss Arasteh: what is the form of submission? Greg Shatan: we have not decided if submissions can be anonymous. We also have not decided on the mechanics for submitted responses. Per KA we could use Effect vs Affect. David McAuley (RySG): hand down, I agree w/Greg and I personally think it is unwise to ask for replies that are second-hand Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As I said last time, some people with adverse experiences may be reluctant to share them if a certain degree of anonymity is not granted Parminder: (bad audio - unworkable). Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Indirect effects of Jurisdiction - when serving on the Board of ICANN I had to fill out a form for US tax purposes as a Vendor! this is not suitable for volunteers outside of US. Second point - Board accepted creating additional jurisdictions - I had suggested Geneva. Greg Shatan: JJS any comments on questions? Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: I'll see if I can suggest a few lines. Parminder: I will like the chairs to clarify what is their view about other question proposed by some members. We need to include things beyond experiences. Jurisdiction impacts reach people who are beyond the usual ICANN community and these views should be captured. Greg Shatan: In our previous meeting, we agreed that we needed actual experiences of being affected by jurisdiction - which resulted in the questions we received. Now do we want to turn this questionnaire to cover a wider field as some have suggested and also go beyond facts. Parminder: and we have to decide what we do Kavouss Arasteh: The two persons drafting team bluntly rejected the consideration of any questions coming outside that little group Avri Doria: Greg, there are more kinds of facts than you are recognizing. Farzaneh Badii: I think we can work with these questions. we just have to reach out to the affected community, which I have done in the past. Parminder: but we are still at the stage at deciding what we want Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg, I suggest adding something like this: "ICANN's jurisdiction also carries other effects, not directly on the performance of the DNS. 1) All forms used by ICANN, including financial and fiscal, take into account only the US situation. Thus, when ICANN reimburses travel or accommodation costs to its volunteers (such as Member of the Board, or of ALAC), the latter are defined as "vendors", which is inappropriate, considering the free work provided by them to a US corporation. 2) One of the recommendations of ICANN's "Improving Institutional Confidence" (2009) was to set up an "additional jurisdiction" (not a replacement for) the US jurisdiction of ICANN. Specifically, we suggested setting up an additional jurisdiction in Geneva, in order to facilitate ICANN's international work, e.g. in recruiting employees or signing contracts for studies, polls, etc. Pedro da Silva: These questions do not take on the suggestions by Parminder. It would be valuable to understand perceived risks and threats if they are well founded. David McAuley: Support GS in his views. Agree with Parminder that this will not make it to a wider community - regardless what we do. Let us remember our mandate and would not support asking for perceived risks - or at least if it is asked limit it to disputes. Farzaneh Badii: I have researched about the communities that are affected by ICANN jurisdiction in one way or another Kavouss. I think I quite clearly said that above. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Farzaneh: could you share any doc on your research? Jeff Neuman 2: I strongly believe that we should only be looking at impacts of ICANN's jurisdiction on the DNS and/or participation in the multistakeholder model. Other impacts seem to me to be out of scope Farzaneh Badii: Kavouss, I also think you represent the Iraninan gov at ICANN. You might want to reach out to those who might be affected by ICANN jurisdiction due to sanctions too. Kavouss Arasteh: I am a GAC representative Farzaneh Badii: yes Jorge, I will provide that for the group. either in a blogpost or in a list Kavouss Arasteh:could make question 1 more general? Verifiable is subjective. Do not agree with DM. Farzaneh Badii: yes but you are representing Iran on GAC. you might be able to see what the Iranian community is going through with regards to DNS related issues and jurisdictional issues. Parminder: i find people say affrct only on DNS industry needs to be found. am i correct? Greg Shatan: re Verifiable - direct experience could be taken at face value - however indirect references should be verified. Parminder: i disagree. Effect on everyone, all public, is included. David McAuley (RySG): As to the meaning of "verifiability" I think the responder will factor that in and so it seems a good term to me Avri Doria: please count me among those who support a broader questionnaire Parminder: even if we use the term 'dispute' - disputes can be brought under public law on public interest questions. and they are included. Avri Doria: support wider questionnaire. We could have two parts to the questionnaire. We should not be defeatist - it may be responded by more people than we think. There have been many papers published on this subject which could be relevant. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: +1 Avri Kavouss Arasteh: Avri+1 Parminder: ican now the basis of our differences on how the questionnaire should - some people think we are looking only on the impact on the DNS industry which can be reached and speak up directly, on their own. Other people think the wider public impact is as or perhaps more important. Mary Uduma: +1 Avri Kavouss Arasteh: Parminder +1 Parminder: Such impacts are found in different ways than impact on DNS industry can be found, for which the current questionnaire may be useful - though it still is limited for even that purpose Greg Shatan: more legal questions should be submitted to lawyers for professional input. Avri Doria: its not just about legal views - we need to have a look at the broader picture - having lawyers do this work could not be a good investment. Also, we never make decisions on only one meeting usually. Kavouss Arasteh: Once again questions must be sufficiently broad Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: link to "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008, https://archive.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm Kavouss Arasteh: Could staff provide a link to that material on mailing list David McAuley (RySG): I think Avri makes a fair point about two meetings Greg Shatan: AD good points. We can continue to discuss the questionnaire. Could we consider two questionnaires which would allow us to get this fact based one out sooner? We also need a reading list? Parminder: We cannot issue multiple questionnaires. Avri Doria: the questionnaire would help build that list. we could ask people for references. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: and more specifically, see chapter 3 and its item 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 as follows: "3.5. During its consultations (not only recently but over the last two years), the PSC has received input from global stakeholders external to the United States that ICANN should also be represented in other jurisdictions. The PSC believes that that it would assist increase the credibility of ICANN’s claim to be an entity serving a global community for ICANN to have representation in other countries additional to that which it will always possess in the United States.3.6. The PSC emphasizes that an additional legal presence will strengthen ICANN's fundamental multi-stakeholder model and underline the element of public trust that is a key element of its mission. The PSC believes that such a presence is not about reducing accountability. Indeed it will provide for more acceptance and confidence in ICANN as it will have a legal personality that is additional to its US presence. (...)" Kavouss Arasteh: can we advance on questions given the time remaining. David McAuley (RySG): I think we should stick to the remit found in Annex 12 Greg Shatan: Agree with DM. Vinay Kesari: Hi Greg, all - I unfortunately have to step away a few mins early. If I could just ask everyone to also devote some thought to how we're getting this questionnaire out, who it will be sent out to, etc. (once of course the questions are settled), we could perhaps come to that separately on list or on the next call. David McAuley (RySG): I remain "con" on questions asking for answers going beyond direct experience, with respect Avri Doria: i remain pro, also with respect. Greg Shatan: temperature check - who wants to add an additional question to this (and would need to define the question). No clear result. Parminder: I am still unable to hear or understand what is the danger of that additional question Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly look at my suggestion to amend Q1 and Q 2 Jeff Neuman 2: I like impact on the DNS and/or their participation in the ICANN multistakeholder community Parminder: yes, id work with avri and others who supported Parminder: you want it done now? Avri Doria: you confused it. Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff , I tend to agree with you , to some extent Avri Doria: check for narrow, cross for borader. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: like Avri, I favour a wider or additional question. Kavouss Arasteh: Jean- Jaques+1 Parminder: lets do it in the next two days and close it on the elist Avri Doria: cross is red, check is green Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): broader Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I have very bad connection, but please note my support for Avri's points Kavouss Arasteh: Made some progress - we have to develop the questions more. Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): +1 Avri Parminder: we cannot issue two questionnaires in quick succession ... that is even logistically not wise, apart from logically not ok David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Parminder - two questionnaires is not good Greg Shatan: Let us work on the list on defining that additional question Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: There is significant support for an additional question. Let's please have a small group elaborate this additional question in the next 1-2 days. Parminder: i can cut paste from the list -- but it will be impossible to close it Parminder: there have been suggestions on an proposed text, we should go by that, without an entirely fresh text Kavouss Arasteh: Pedro, in principle, I agree to either broader the existing questions or draft additional questions$ Parminder: I mean additional question of course Avri Doria: ok Greg Shatan: (lost connexion) Bernard Turcotte: We are at the top of the hour - as proposed by GS we will pursue the questionnaire discussion on list. Meeting Adjourned. Documents Presented · Experience Questions.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/Experience%20Quest...> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions (1).pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/InfluenceofExistin...> · MultipleLayersofJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/MultipleLayersofJu...>