Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #22 – 21 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/CKPRAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D292D8.89D1E070] Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed) · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group. Notes (including relevant parts of the chat): 15 participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - any modifications? (none). Kavouss Arasteh (15 minutes into the call) - lodging complaint about trouble being completed. Also, please speak slowly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I was only just connected to audio/phone as well Kavouss there were obviously complications 3. Administration (5 minutes) 3.1. Questions to ICANN Legal – Status of Legal Committee Greg Shatan - Leon Sanchez has forwarded our questions to CCWG-Acct Legal comm. 3.2. Hypotheticals document – Propose suspending the work until ICANN Legal responds to the questions. Parminder - this is a slightly different than what has been asked but they may be sequential. Greg Shatan - any other comments? (none). Documents will remain open for comments and people can contribute to them in the meantime we take them up again as a group. Any objection? (none). David McAuley (RySG): support that Greg Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. 3.3. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Propose suspending the work until this group completes the review of ICANN’s past and current litigation which will inform the development of that document. Parminder - similar nature to my comment on 3.2. Would ask to keep this document open since review of litigation is not all the information for this document. Greg Shatan - Agree with Parminder and as per previous point the document will remain open for comments. Any objections? (none). Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. 4. Questionnaire Update (20 minutes) 4.1. Method for processing responses 4.1.1. Rolling review of responses – Propose new responses to the questionnaire to be reviewed by the Jurisdiction sub-group at each meeting. Greg Shatan - Any objections (none). Parminder - Responses will be available to the sub-group. Greg Shatan – yes – they are posted on the Jurisdiction wiki as they come in. Decision: The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings. 4.1.2. Proposal for a review team – Propose review team will be responsible for updating the sub-group on new responses and their status at each meeting as well as elaborating an evaluation framework for responses, for approval by the sub-group, based on the responses received. Greg Shatan - presentation of general expectations of review team. Kavouss Arasteh - Is sound ok now? suggest review team and evaluation team are separate but they should be balanced from all SOACs. Greg Shatan - Only one team. In terms of balance hoping we get volunteers from all groups. Mathieu Weill: Happy to help Mathieu Weill: Also, please all consider doing outreach about the questionnaire in your respective groups Greg Shatan - any objections? (none). David McAuley (RySG): sorry, let's label the RT as a pilot - the job might eat up the team's time so let's make it easy for them to seek relief. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion DM. Kavouss Arasteh: Blanced team Decision: The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses. 4.1.3. Selection of the review team Greg Shatan - Volunteers? MW, Parminder, DM, KA, VMarda. Thank you. David McAuley (RySG): If these volunteers plan to be in Copenhagen maybe we can meet briefly. Action Item – staff to try to organize an informal meeting of the RT in Copenhagen. Mathieu Weill: +1 david. Good idea Kavouss Arasteh: May I propose that Mathieu coordinating the wroks of the team Mathieu Weill: Kavouss : thanks but that might be beyond my abilities And not very good to have too many hats Kavouss Arasteh: I do not thing any one oppose to my suggestion provided that mMathieu kindly agrees to that. Decision: Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda. Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. 4.2. Review of current responses in tool (document). Greg Shatan - Review of tool Kavouss Arasteh - Is there any threshold to make this valid? Greg Shatan - Good topic for the Review Team. We will also review these responses individually - this is not about voting - its more an information gathering process. Kavouss Arasteh - need wide representation on responses. Greg Shatan - depends on who responds. Any comments on the tool itself or the comments received to date? Kavouss Arasteh - deadline is 17 April - I wish to include the source of the information.and we should not forget the views of the minority. Greg Shatan - Reminder this is a questionnaire and not a survey - sources can be added - all of this is really details for the Review Team. Kavouss Arasteh - Source is important. David McAuley (RySG): good point, @Kavouss - Seun Ojedeji: I agree with Kavouss Greg Shatan - For the review team to consider. We need to give each response its due consideration to find facts - this what the questionnaire is about. David McAuley (RySG): Agree to let RT grapple with this first 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes) 5.1. Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Mathieu Weill: I'll look at Pool.com<http://pool.com/> (the only one in front of a non US court) Vidushi Marda: i can look at ruby glen Kavouss Arasteh - Please send a request on the list to get volunteers and give a week. Parminder may wish to volunteer for some. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion avri doria: i'll volunteer for Auerbach vs ICANN David McAuley (RySG): those picking cases here please be sure to put name in tool - so others don't duplicate work avri doria: what is the url for this sheet? Mathieu Weill: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRl... Action Items: · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases. 5.2. Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document) Mathieu Weill: Was not really sure of choice of law / governing law so might need to add Parminder - It would be interesting on these cases if they are a matter of facts or principles - given we are considering jurisdiction vs ICANN policies. David McAuley (RySG): if we add to the form lets please write down what we are adding so reviewers are not guessing Greg Shatan - Good suggestion - under outcome. Lets also note if the court considered jurisdiction. Action Item: Will review the form. David McAuley (RySG): courts always "discuss" JX just to say they have it. Parminder: it is significant that court asserts jurisdiction, and full jurisdiction on different icann policy issues Philip Corwin: This is the litigation that ended with what was then the very controversial .com settlement Mathieu Weill - we need to make all the questions in the form crystal clear. Greg Shatan - Good suggestion. Kavouss Arasteh - I will have suggestions for this form. Two different type of judgements etc. Greg Shatan - Godd suggestion - please provide input on list. We have run out of time and will adjourn. Action Items: · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group. Summary of Decisions and Action Items: Decisions: · The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. · The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration. · The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings. · The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses. · Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda. Action Items: · Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants. · Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen. · Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases. · Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case · Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case · Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case. · Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed) · Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week. · Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group.