February 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] 答复: Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
by Greg Shatan Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

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(a)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(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *代表 * > Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch > *发送时间:* 2017年1月25日 21:33 > *收件人:* kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com; mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org; > Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx; rickert(a)anwaelte.de; > Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch > *抄送:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)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(a)afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross > Community' <accountability-cross-community(a)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(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- > bounces(a)icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Kavouss Arasteh > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05 > *An:* MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org>; > Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>; > Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM < > Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org; CCWG Accountability < > accountability-cross-community(a)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(a)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_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWl… > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWl…>* > > 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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 30 January
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #19 – 30 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/14PRAw 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 on the list · Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February. · MW has completed his 2 cases. · Re draft question from DM on possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdictions – sub-group should review and post comment if any this week. Notes (including relevant portions of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (15 participants at start of call). No changes to SOIs. 2. Questionnaire a. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: Great deal of discussion. Some requesting 30 days after the ICANN58 meeting. Would suggest closing 7 April with no extensions possible - as a middle ground. Any comments? Bernard Turcotte: Reminder that KA has requested 30 days after ICANN 58. Greg Shatan: yes 7 April would be a compromise. Avri Doria: sure, give all the time people need. David McAuley (RySG): I ilke the idea of not extending and looking at replies as they come in John Laprise: the longer the better to allow participation and knowledge of the issue. Greg Shatan: Good points, we have a lot of work to do in the meantime so no reason not to extend. Also, we can ask people to respond early and the group can consider these as they come in. As such would suggest closing 17 April which is 30 days after ICANN 58 closes. Mathieu Weill: A quick work plan note: Mid Apr is 2 months away from Johannesburg. Might be difficult to be in a position to have a 1st reading by then David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu Mathieu Weill: Not that it is a deadline, but it's important to manage expectations on timeline Greg Shatan:(decision) No objections. So, the questionnaire will be taking responses until 17 April which is 30 days after ICANN58 and there will be no extensions. Avri Doria: if we work with the replies coming in, then finishing up after the 17th might be quick. and we can make a plea for early responses because of the schedule. 3. Hypothetical #1 (taken from “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C ) Greg Shatan: This is what I think is the heart of our work. (going through the document). David McAuley: A difficulties I am having is understanding WHAT WENT WRONG. Otherwise Avri Doria: does the nationality of the plaintiff feed in any complexity? Philip Corwin: On point 4, if the ruling is against ICANN and ICANN belives the ruling to be erroneous, it has a right of appeal. Mathieu Weill: Who is judging on correctly or wrongly decided? Avri Doria: it is a possible good thing to mark all the points in the hypotheticals where some action by ICANN and its Board & EC Philip Corwin: IMH< the key consideration is that ICANN is HQ'd in a jurisdiction with a clear commitment to the rule of law, and that any party with standing can initiate litigation regardless of their home jurisdiction. Avri Doria: Philip sometimes easier said than done Mathieu Weill: We should check how many litigations in court were initiated by parties outside the US (to check how Phil's requirement translates into practice) Avri Doria: As long as someone from the 7 countries does not need to appear in court, it might be ok. Philip Corwin: @Avri--challenges of bringing litigation, especially costs, are hardly unique to US Wale Bakare: Would the decision different in either case? Avri Doria: i don't know, but i understand some view a physical presence as sometimes preferable in terms of making an appeal. Wale Bakare: In physical's emotions can get involved and perhaps could impact on the decision Avri Doria: often a good thing Philip Corwin: regardless of the governing law, the court's ruling might be pro-ICANN from one judge and anti-ICANN from another. There is no way to guarantee 100% consistency in any judicial forum. That's why there are rights of appeal. Avri Doria: they are part of the equation Mathieu Weill: Having ICANN accountable to other governing laws might actually bring additional accountability, for instance related to privacy Mathieu Weill: This is a great list of factors to compare jurisdiction if need be David McAuley: It might help if we segment questions in 2 ways - Corporate Governance questions and Everything else. Greg Shatan: This could be a template for looking at things. 4. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a. Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en b. Draft Summary Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWl… Greg Shatan: Kudos to MW for being the first to complete his. David McAuley (RySG): Thanks for that Mathieu - I need to get active on my reviews Philip Corwin: Facts are often in dispute in litigation, with the court being the ultimate finder of facts. It finds the facts, and then it applies the relevant law. Mathieu Weill: GS will wait for your update to the forms. Greg Shatan: Will do. c. Sign-Up Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… 5 “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C a.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuy… Greg Shatan: We need to look to other hypotheticals that go to this question. KA has suggested a list of questions earlier in the year. 6. AOB Greg Shatan: DM has drafted question for ICANN Legal. Will consider this week. 7. Adjourn Decisions: · · Time period for responding to questionnaire will be until 17 April with no extensions.

3 3

Case summary - 2 drafts for your review
by Mathieu Weill Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Dear Colleagues, During a long flight today, I tried to apply our case summary form to two of the past ICANN litigations. Both forms are attached for : - The State of Arizona vs NTIA case in Sep 2016 (I guess many of us are familiar with this case) - The 2004-2006 Verisign vs ICANN case Id appreciate feedbacks from the group regarding whether the detail level is appropriate, and whether the information is relevant to the various questions. Thank you for your understanding if there are any confusions due to my lack of legal skills. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************

6 18