March 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Two litigation reviews
by McAuley, David March 3, 2017

March 3, 2017

Seeing Mathieu's mail just now reminded me that I was to send my litigation reviews (2 so far) to list. Attached are two reviews in one document - DCA v. ICANN (Trial court) and DCA v. ICANN (Appellate Court). Best regards David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

2 2

CCWG-Accountability Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions for ICANN Legal
by Greg Shatan March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Co-Chairs and Fellow Participants, Attached for the appropriate review and submission to ICANN Legal are several questions from the Jurisdiction Subgroup. Please let us know if there are any questions or concern before these are sent to ICANN Legal. When these are submitted to ICANN Legal, please ask for an estimate of the time to return answers, and advise them that they may respond on a rolling basis, if that will allow us to receive certain answers more quickly. For convenience, a link to a Google Doc version is also included: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HslgBieiTl2LNT1CXNct7ZS1Qi5lZy3r8Y42CVz… Thank you. Greg Shatan *Rapporteur* *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

3 2

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 1 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

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/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… 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.

1 0