Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. · Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 9 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). 2. Questionnaire a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections. b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this. c. Translation Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there. Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages. Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers. Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :) Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments. b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?) Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February). David McAuley (RySG): ok c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl... Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICP... David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere? Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in. David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that? Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases. David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age. Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this. David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks 5. AOB (none) 6. Adjourn Decisions: · Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it. · Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services. · Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. · Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible. · Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. Action Items: · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. · Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
Dear All, Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that. I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third This is not acceptable and not agreed. This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand *where the figure 42 days comes from*. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it. *This is totally objected.* We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 . Pls correct that i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react. secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person. Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it. This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us Regards Kavouss 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18* – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*Action Items*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
*Notes (including relevant portions of chat):*
*9 Participants at start of call*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none).
*2. Questionnaire*
*a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections.
*b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider.
Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58.
David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this.
*c. Translation*
Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments
David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6?
Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi.
David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there.
Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages
Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add
David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language.
Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6.
Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages.
Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things
Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks
Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers.
Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed
Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it
Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :)
Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english
Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all
Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages
Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected
Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me
*3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation*
*a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en>*
Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments.
*b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing>*
Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form.
David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner
Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary
Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this.
Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?)
Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions.
David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort?
Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February).
David McAuley (RySG): ok
*c. Sign-Up Sheet:*
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing
Greg Shatan: -
*4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_ DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere?
Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in.
David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that?
Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases.
David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age.
Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list.
David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do
David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this.
David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times.
Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this.
David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda.
Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus.
David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too
David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks
*5. AOB (none)*
*6. Adjourn*
*Decisions:*
· Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it.
· Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services.
· Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously.
· Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible.
· Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc.
*Action Items:*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear all, Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss: Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 An: 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications Dear Mathieu Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines. Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen. With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received. Kind regards Jorge == I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs. Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 An: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January Dear All, Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that. I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third This is not acceptable and not agreed. This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand where the figure 42 days comes from. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it. This is totally objected. We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 . Pls correct that i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react. secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person. Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it. This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us Regards Kavouss 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>: Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 9 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). 2. Questionnaire a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections. b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this. c. Translation Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there. Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages. Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers. Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :) Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments. b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?) Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February). David McAuley (RySG): ok c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl... Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICP... David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere? Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in. David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that? Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases. David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age. Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this. David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks 5. AOB (none) 6. Adjourn Decisions: • Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it. • Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services. • Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. • Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible. • Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. Action Items: • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
DearJorge, Tks for reiterating your initial proposal. I am in favour of one month ,( 30 DAYS) after the end of Copenhagen. Tks Kavouss 2017-01-25 14:33 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear all,
Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss:
*Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 *An:* 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications
Dear Mathieu
Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines.
Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen.
With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received.
Kind regards
Jorge
==
I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs.
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Kavouss Arasteh *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 *An:* MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM < Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
Dear All,
Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire
The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that.
I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen
Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third
This is not acceptable and not agreed.
This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand *where the figure 42 days comes from*. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it.
*This is totally objected.*
We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 .
Pls correct that
i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react.
secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person.
Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it.
This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18* – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*Action Items*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
*Notes (including relevant portions of chat):*
*9 Participants at start of call*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none).
*2. Questionnaire*
*a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections.
*b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider.
Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58.
David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this.
*c. Translation*
Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments
David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6?
Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi.
David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there.
Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages
Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add
David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language.
Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6.
Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages.
Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things
Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks
Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers.
Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed
Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it
Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :)
Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english
Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all
Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages
Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected
Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me
*3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation*
*a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en>*
Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments.
*b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing>*
Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form.
David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner
Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary
Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this.
Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?)
Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions.
David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort?
Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February).
David McAuley (RySG): ok
*c. Sign-Up Sheet:*
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing
Greg Shatan: -
*4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_ DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere?
Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in.
David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that?
Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases.
David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age.
Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list.
David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do
David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this.
David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times.
Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this.
David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda.
Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus.
David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too
David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks
*5. AOB (none)*
*6. Adjourn*
*Decisions:*
· Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it.
· Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services.
· Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously.
· Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible.
· Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc.
*Action Items:*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss I would logically also support such a deadline Kind regards Jorge Von: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2017 16:38 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January DearJorge, Tks for reiterating your initial proposal. I am in favour of one month ,( 30 DAYS) after the end of Copenhagen. Tks Kavouss 2017-01-25 14:33 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear all, Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss: Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 An: 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications Dear Mathieu Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines. Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen. With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received. Kind regards Jorge == I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs. Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 An: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January Dear All, Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that. I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third This is not acceptable and not agreed. This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand where the figure 42 days comes from. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it. This is totally objected. We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 . Pls correct that i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react. secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person. Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it. This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us Regards Kavouss 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>: Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 9 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). 2. Questionnaire a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections. b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this. c. Translation Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there. Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages. Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers. Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :) Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments. b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?) Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February). David McAuley (RySG): ok c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl... Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICP... David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere? Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in. David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that? Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases. David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age. Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this. David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks 5. AOB (none) 6. Adjourn Decisions: • Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it. • Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services. • Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. • Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible. • Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. Action Items: • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Please bear in mind that enough time is needed after the Copenhagen meeting to consider discussions. The deadline should not be set on an arbitrary basis, but instead on a logical basis, with an aim to maximize inputs and enrich discussions. Hence, I can only echo Kavouss and Jorge. 30 days after Copenhagen would be the best choice, but if it is felt that it is too long, at least 15/20 days should be allowed as a minimum. Otherwise, we would run the risk of preventing several parties from participating and contributing, and the outcome could as a consequence be deemed skewed or biased. Best Rafael De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Enviado el: miércoles, 25 de enero de 2017 14:33 Para: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; mssi-secretariat@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; rickert@anwaelte.de; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch CC: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Asunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January Dear all, Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss: Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 An: 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications Dear Mathieu Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines. Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen. With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received. Kind regards Jorge == I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs. Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 An: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January Dear All, Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that. I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third This is not acceptable and not agreed. This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand where the figure 42 days comes from. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it. This is totally objected. We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 . Pls correct that i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react. secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person. Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it. This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us Regards Kavouss 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>: Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 9 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). 2. Questionnaire a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections. b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this. c. Translation Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there. Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages. Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers. Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :) Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments. b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?) Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February). David McAuley (RySG): ok c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl... Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICP... David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere? Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in. David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that? Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases. David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age. Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this. David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks 5. AOB (none) 6. Adjourn Decisions: • Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it. • Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services. • Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. • Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible. • Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. Action Items: • Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. • Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. • David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. • Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Jorge, Taking into account that the issue is rather complex and GAC représentatives Need to be adequately briefed in Copenhagen and provided further brief to their national multistakeholder the 30 days is the minimum commenting period. I hope CCWG Co-Chairs would kindly agree with that assisting developing countries to have necessary time to reflect and comment Regards Kavouss 2017-01-25 16:52 GMT+01:00 Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetad.es>:
Please bear in mind that enough time is needed after the Copenhagen meeting to consider discussions. The deadline should not be set on an arbitrary basis, but instead on a logical basis, with an aim to maximize inputs and enrich discussions. Hence, I can only echo Kavouss and Jorge.
30 days after Copenhagen would be the best choice, but if it is felt that it is too long, at least 15/20 days should be allowed as a minimum. Otherwise, we would run the risk of preventing several parties from participating and contributing, and the outcome could as a consequence be deemed skewed or biased.
Best
Rafael
*De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de * Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Enviado el:* miércoles, 25 de enero de 2017 14:33 *Para:* kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; mssi-secretariat@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; rickert@anwaelte.de; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch *CC:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
Dear all,
Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss:
*Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 *An:* 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications
Dear Mathieu
Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines.
Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen.
With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received.
Kind regards
Jorge
==
I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs.
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Kavouss Arasteh *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 *An:* MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM < Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
Dear All,
Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire
The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that.
I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen
Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third
This is not acceptable and not agreed.
This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand *where the figure 42 days comes from*. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it.
*This is totally objected.*
We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 .
Pls correct that
i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react.
secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person.
Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it.
This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18* – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*Action Items*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
*Notes (including relevant portions of chat):*
*9 Participants at start of call*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none).
*2. Questionnaire*
*a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections.
*b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider.
Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58.
David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this.
*c. Translation*
Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments
David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6?
Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi.
David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there.
Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages
Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add
David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language.
Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6.
Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages.
Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things
Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks
Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers.
Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed
Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it
Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :)
Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english
Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all
Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages
Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected
Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me
*3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation*
*a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en>*
Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments.
*b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing>*
Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form.
David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner
Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary
Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this.
Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?)
Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions.
David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort?
Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February).
David McAuley (RySG): ok
*c. Sign-Up Sheet:*
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing
Greg Shatan: -
*4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_ DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere?
Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in.
David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that?
Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases.
David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age.
Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list.
David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do
David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this.
David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times.
Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this.
David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda.
Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus.
David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too
David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks
*5. AOB (none)*
*6. Adjourn*
*Decisions:*
· Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it.
· Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services.
· Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously.
· Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible.
· Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc.
*Action Items:*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello everyone, Also want to echo the points made by Jorge and Kavouss. Enough time for governments to consider this important matter is highly recommended. Guo Feng GAC Rep. of China 发件人: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] 代表 Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch 发送时间: 2017年1月25日 21:33 收件人: kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; mssi-secretariat@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; rickert@anwaelte.de; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch 抄送: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org 主题: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January Dear all, Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss: Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 An: 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications Dear Mathieu Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines. Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen. With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received. Kind regards Jorge == I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs. Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Kavouss Arasteh Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 An: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January Dear All, Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that. I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third This is not acceptable and not agreed. This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand where the figure 42 days comes from. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it. This is totally objected. We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 . Pls correct that i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react. secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person. Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it. This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us Regards Kavouss 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>: Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18 – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. · Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 9 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none). 2. Questionnaire a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections. b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider. Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58. David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this. c. Translation Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6? Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi. David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there. Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language. Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6. Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages. Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers. Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :) Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me 3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments. b. Draft Summary Form: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form. David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this. Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?) Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions. David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort? Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February). David McAuley (RySG): ok c. Sign-Up Sheet: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl... Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICP...> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICP... David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere? Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in. David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that? Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases. David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age. Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list. David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times. Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this. David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda. Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus. David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks 5. AOB (none) 6. Adjourn Decisions: · Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it. · Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services. · Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously. · Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible. · Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc. Action Items: · Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list. · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments. · Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
All, On our most recent call, the decision was made to have the response period for the questionnaire extend until *April 17, 2017,* one month after the end of ICANN58. This decision was taken in order to respond to these concerns as completely as possible. Given the long submission period, this period will not be extended, but this should provide ample time. Best regards, Greg Shatan Co-Rapporteur On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:54 AM, GUO Feng <guofeng@caict.ac.cn> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Also want to echo the points made by Jorge and Kavouss. Enough time for governments to consider this important matter is highly recommended.
Guo Feng
GAC Rep. of China
*发件人:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *代表 * Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *发送时间:* 2017年1月25日 21:33 *收件人:* kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com; mssi-secretariat@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; rickert@anwaelte.de; Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch *抄送:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *主题:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
Dear all,
Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss:
*Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03 *An:* 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications
Dear Mathieu
Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines.
Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after Copenhagen.
With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods. Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so. If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to be received.
Kind regards
Jorge
==
I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all interested parties to make their inputs.
Regards
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Kavouss Arasteh *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 *An:* MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM < Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; CCWG Accountability < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
Dear All,
Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for response to jurisdiction questionnaire
The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10 days before that.
I do not understand why my argument that GAC requires enough time after debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen
Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply by shortening time to one third
This is not acceptable and not agreed.
This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand *where the figure 42 days comes from*. Because one of the co-chairs or all of them decided 42 days we have to accept it.
*This is totally objected.*
We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 .
Pls correct that
i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react.
secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing person.
Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it.
This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to dine with us
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #18* – 24 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw
A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
Thank you.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*Action Items*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
*Notes (including relevant portions of chat):*
*9 Participants at start of call*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none).
*2. Questionnaire*
*a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has no objections.
*b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider.
Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58.
David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a team for this.
*c. Translation*
Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments
David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6?
Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi.
David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue will still be there.
Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages
Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add
David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language.
Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not understand why we would expand - and any translation should be professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6.
Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard UN languages.
Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more than those that speak Telagu or other things
Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks
Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85 million native speakers.
Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed
Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it
Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many people interested in the work of this group - who are :)
Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english
Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all
Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other languages
Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected
Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow. doesnt matter spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me
*3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation*
*a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en>*
Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a draft summary form and circulated for comments.
*b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing>*
Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form.
David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction contested in any manner
Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to our work should be the last line of the summary
Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms, on Disputes involving ICANN - We could tag according to this.
Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there are any?)
Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case. Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions.
David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort?
Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3 weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports would be due 14 February).
David McAuley (RySG): ok
*c. Sign-Up Sheet:*
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing
Greg Shatan: -
*4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_ DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would happen elsewhere?
Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to how input in.
David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg – this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to judge by – why not go by that?
Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help us classify the cases.
David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal counsel about that in the digital age.
Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list.
David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do
David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document. Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for this.
David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times.
Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can have better discussions on this.
David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda.
Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus.
David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about it too
David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks
*5. AOB (none)*
*6. Adjourn*
*Decisions:*
· Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page which will have a web link to it.
· Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN languages by ICANN Language services.
· Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously.
· Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions for those requesting this could be possible.
· Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc.
*Action Items:*
· Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and distribute to list.
· Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
· David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
· Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting and distribute on the list.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Greg Shatan -
GUO Feng -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
MSSI Secretariat -
Perez Galindo, Rafael