Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #26 – 11 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/U7-RAw 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@01D2B2D7.2DA88FA0] Action Items: · Greg Shatan – To review work plan presentation for plenary per comments. · Questionnaire Review Team – Review latest submissions · Greg Shatan – Will post to list to encourage discussion of the latest case analysis. Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 18 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - changes? (none). Paul McGrady: Greg - special thanks for making this call on an important holiday 3. Administration 3.1. Changes to SOIs (none) 3.2. Identify Audio Only and Phone Number Participants - None 4. Review of decisions and action items from last call 4.1. Decisions – none 4.2. Action Items: 4.2.1. GS to prepare and post and draft on working methods and status of the sub-group to the sub-group prior to presenting it to the plenary on 12 April (status?) 5. Review of Working Method 5.1. Discussion of draft for plenary. Greg Shatan - (presentation of document) Looking to have a draft for ICANN59 for first reading. Mathieu Weill - Strong support for this. This demonstrates progress. Suggestion to add to include how much work has been done on list where there were lists of issues which we should get back to - even if there was no agreement on this - some sort of summary of the key threads. Second suggestion - looking forward - wondering if we would not achieve more by meeting less frequently. Greg Shatan - good points. David McAuley - Agree with MW trying to get IOT to pivot to do more work on list. On you April item - tee up those things well in advance and encourage people to understand the positions but not have people rehash knows positions. Greg Shatan - good thanks Paul McGrady: +1 David. Team members should also review what the Board Chair has said about this. Steve DelBianco - ICANN legal responses seem to validate what many people’s positions - would it modify the workplan? Greg Shatan - makes the workplan more realistic - hope it will assist us greatly in our work. There is a connection between scope, discussions on list and not meeting every week - would require more discipline. avri doria: it is wonderful that rapporteurs want people to work more on the list. But will wishing make it so. David McAuley (RySG): one reason we may be able to do more on list in IRP IOT is that we are dealing now with discrete public comments avri doria: it is just that i have often tried, but long since gave up on that goal. best of luck. Greg Shatan - any objections to using this for the plenary with edits as per suggestions (none). David McAuley (RySG): fair points Avri, but I am hoping your wish of good luck comes true avri doria: i will note that it is the intent we had when we startted the work on the Staff Accountabilty subgroup. While some work got done is shared online documents, almost none got done n the list. YMMV (your mileage may vary, an expression for you results may be different) 6. Questions to ICANN Legal (30 minutes) 6.1. Walk through response from ICANN Legal identify any issues Greg Shatan - (presentation of ICANN Legal response) Becky Burr 3: But it is clearly correct to say that many - if not most - countries will provide jurisdiction in a case where ICANN has purposely availed itself of the jurisdiction Steve DelBianco [BC]: Couldn't a litigant just review prior cases to determine where/how ICANN responds to claims of jurisdiction? Mathieu Weill: @Steve : our finding was that there is no prior case outside of the US Becky Burr - These answers are a little frustrating - the jurisdiction issue is common defense - but this is tied to the facts of any case. Paul McGrady: I'm not surprised by the ICANN Legal answer to #7. They would be nuts to answer such a question. I'm not saying the WG should not have asked it, but the answer was entirely predictable. Becky Burr 3: agree Paul David McAuley - Agree with BB. Ground prepared if we want to seek further advice. Mathieu Weill: Would suggest a follow up question about the 10 Ry, non gov, who picked Geneva : have all requests been granted ? were there criteria and, if so, which ones ? Mathieu Weill: Also note that the absence of alternative for Registrar Agreements may be a topic to discus within this group Paul MCGrady - re no third party beneficiaries - New gTLDs re .FEEDBACK - so this needs to looked at deeper but probably not ICANN legal. Greg Shatan - maybe better to say there are no express TPB. David McAuley (RySG): I thought that the existence of third party beneficiaries to contracts was usually a public policy matter in the jurisdiction in which litigation exists Mathieu Weill - this is very helpful from ICANN legal (see above point from MW). Wale Bakare: Absoultely, i agree with @Mathieu 7. Update on Questionnaire (5 minutes – we will not be going through the JNC submission this week, all submissions can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire) 7.1.1. Shin Takamura – 4 April 7.1.2. Just Net Coalition – 6 April 7.1.3. Carlos Vera – 7 april Greg Shatan - sub-group on questionnaire will review these before bringing these back. 8. Update on Analysis of Cases (5 Minutes – simply noting these have been submitted unless there is time) 8.1. Name.Space, Inc. v. ICANN. – DM 8.2. Employ Media LLC v ICANN - RBL Greg Shatan - would expect comments on list. 9. AOB (none) 10. Next meeting 18 April 1900UTC 11. Adjourned Decisions: · (none) Documents Presented · Revised Work Plan and Schedule for Jurisdiction Subgroup<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077651/RevisedWorkPlanand...> · ICANN Responses to Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions-SE<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64077651/ICANN%20Responses%...>