November 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Middle East Community Members Statement on ICANN's Jurisdiction
by farzaneh badii Nov. 20, 2017

Nov. 20, 2017

Please find attached the Middle East community members statement on ICANN's jurisdiction. Farzaneh

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Addition to Jurisdiction Subgroup Report
by Seun Ojedeji Nov. 5, 2017

Nov. 5, 2017

Good write-up. Thanks Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 2, 2017 4:36 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: All, Based on the discussions in the Plenary at ICANN 60, the following task was decided: - Jurisdiction second reading of draft recommendations – Approved with 4 objections but certain edits are required. These include the proposed text from Jorge Cancio with respect to continuing the jurisdiction discussions .... Having reviewed the transcript, including Jorge's intervention, related interventions by others, and Thomas's recapitulation of this point, I have drafted the proposed language below (and also attached) to be added to the Subgroup Report, most likely at the end of the Subgroup Report. I hope that this has captured the spirit of the discussion reasonably well. Greg *FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF JURISDICTION-RELATED CONCERNS* There were a number of concerns raised in the Subgroup where the Subgroup had substantive discussions, but did not get to a point of conclusion. As an example, there were discussions of limited or partial immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion. These concerns were put on the table by different stakeholders, and for these stakeholders, these are legitimate concerns. As these concerns were not discussed to the end, there should be a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability, which was tasked to look into a limited number of issues within a limited period of time and with a limited budget. Therefore, the Subgroup suggests that a further other multistakeholder process of some kind should be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution, of these concerns. We believe that this Report, with its annexes, can be a very useful tool for further debates which will surely take place – whether in another cross-constituency effort or in a future ATRT Review, or in some other ICANN context. The appropriate forum for such discussions is beyond the mandate of the CCWG; however, we encourage the community to build on the work of the Subgroup and prior work in this area. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Proposed Addition to Jurisdiction Subgroup Report
by Greg Shatan Nov. 4, 2017

Nov. 4, 2017

All, Based on the discussions in the Plenary at ICANN 60, the following task was decided: - Jurisdiction second reading of draft recommendations – Approved with 4 objections but certain edits are required. These include the proposed text from Jorge Cancio with respect to continuing the jurisdiction discussions .... Having reviewed the transcript, including Jorge's intervention, related interventions by others, and Thomas's recapitulation of this point, I have drafted the proposed language below (and also attached) to be added to the Subgroup Report, most likely at the end of the Subgroup Report. I hope that this has captured the spirit of the discussion reasonably well. Greg *FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF JURISDICTION-RELATED CONCERNS* There were a number of concerns raised in the Subgroup where the Subgroup had substantive discussions, but did not get to a point of conclusion. As an example, there were discussions of limited or partial immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion. These concerns were put on the table by different stakeholders, and for these stakeholders, these are legitimate concerns. As these concerns were not discussed to the end, there should be a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability, which was tasked to look into a limited number of issues within a limited period of time and with a limited budget. Therefore, the Subgroup suggests that a further other multistakeholder process of some kind should be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution, of these concerns. We believe that this Report, with its annexes, can be a very useful tool for further debates which will surely take place – whether in another cross-constituency effort or in a future ATRT Review, or in some other ICANN context. The appropriate forum for such discussions is beyond the mandate of the CCWG; however, we encourage the community to build on the work of the Subgroup and prior work in this area.

3 2

2nd reading of jurisdiction sub group report
by parminder Nov. 4, 2017

Nov. 4, 2017

Greg It is unfortunate that among the few and very weak arguments that you put forward today in the f3f meeting about why customised immunity was never officially discussed in the sub-group you said that this was because it was offered as remedy without showing the issues that it addressed.... This, as I said during the meeting, is a shockingly false statement, and I said that I would provide evidence for it. You came back and stood by your statement. And so, the evidence as I promised is below. You set up a google doc on influence of existing jurisdiction on ICANN (link to it follows) to collect the issues that needed to be addressed, right.... One of the first entries made on it was mine, and it was extensively commented upon (most extensively by yourself).... This was close to the start of the process, near the middle of 2016. The entry on various issues I made was as follows. (cut paste form the doc begins) 1. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its policies –like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions. 2. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries). 3. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries. 4. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public. 5. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property laws. 6. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement, and conditions under it. (ENDS) This entry with many comments is still visible in this doc that you developed, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… All these are directly issues that point towards customised immunity as the remedy -- and lest there be any doubt the connection was explicitly made in group's email discussions. Many of these issues were again underlined by a statement made, in Nov 2016 at Hyderabad ICANN, by nearly all Indian NGOs active in IG area and supported by two largest global coalitions in this area. Pl see http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf . The statement connects these issues to customised immunity as a possible remedy, providing full details. This statement was posted on sub -group's list and discussed. Then during the public comment period (response to the questionnaire, pl see the corresponding ICANN page) many inputs once again raised important issues and linked them to customized immunity as a possible solution.... It is most shocking now at the end of the process to hear from the sub group's chair that customised immunity was always being proposed without showing the issues that it could remedy -- AND THAT WAS THE REASON IT NEVER GOT AN OFFICIAL SLOT FOR DISCUSSION. Greg, you must either disprove what I am saying here, and saying it with documented evidence, or withdraw your statement that undermines the large amount of work that so many of us did, and indeed the whole sub group's working..... We cannot let such false statements to be recorded as the historical records of this group's work, and the transcript of today's f2f meeting is supposed to go as a record annexed to the final report.. Our problem is; there was just too much prejudice, and people, including prominently the process heads/ chairs, were simply not listening to many us, they were tuned out even before the deliberative process begun!! This is not a consultative and participative process, this is something made to look like one.... Look forward to your response parminder sss

3 5