June 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Partial immunity
by Thomas Rickert June 27, 2017

June 27, 2017

Dear all, As previously mentioned, we will address the issue of the procedural decision the co-chairs took during our meeting at ICANN59 in detail. However, given the ongoing debate on the list, let me please offer a clarification on one aspect of what I said and, more importantly, what was not said. The co-chairs established that 1. Relocalization of ICANN to another jurisdiction and 2. Making ICANN an immune organization were suggestions that did not get sufficient traction to be further pursued. I did not speak to the question of partial immunity. Please note that this clarification is in no way intended to be understood as an endorsement of the concept of partial or relative immunity, but I thought it was necessary to go on the record on this aspect. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas

7 9

Slides
by Greg Shatan June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

1 0

Question Presented
by Greg Shatan June 25, 2017

June 25, 2017

Please see attached.

12 19

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting 20 June at 19:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan June 22, 2017

June 22, 2017

All, The agenda for the upcoming meeting is attached. Materials other than Google Drive documents are also attached. Google drive documents will be downloaded and circulated nearer to the meeting. I particularly encourage members to contribute to the newly-created Proposed Issues List: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i6…. It's important that we collect proposed issues that have already been brought up in various documents and put them in one place. I look forward to our upcoming meeting. Greg

11 18

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
by Seun Ojedeji June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

On 19 Jun 2017 5:44 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Milton, The CCWG Co-Chairs instead framed the issue around the question "what will get sufficient traction in the group" vs. subjects that will not get sufficient traction, and thus would not lead to a consensus recommendation. SO: The thing is, such framing should be happening at the plenary and if the Co-Chairs are doing that at subgroup level, it should be to gather feedback and not to make a conclusive decision. However, I don't think this was an instance of anyone preempting a discussion, much less dishonestly. As noted, no issues have been foreclosed by the Co-Chair's decision, SO: Actually am not sure what the above mean but won't overflog this since the Co-Chairs have been duly notified and will address the matter. I will just note that I take the words of the Co-Chairs strongly and I think that should be the norm (perhaps it's the RIR mentality that is robbing on me). . I hope that everyone is interested in substantive debate, and I hope to see plenty of it in this group in the coming weeks. SO: That's the thing Greg, what is substantive isn't same for everyone. Certainly not for all volunteers ;-) Cheers! Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:41 AM John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > > > Best regards, > > > > John Laprise, Ph.D. > > Principal Consultant > > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ > > > > > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- > bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L > *Sent:* Monday, June 19, 2017 9:40 AM > *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < > ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented > > > > Please pardon my late intervention. We were presented with this question: > > > > *Question: Is considering or recommending changes to ICANN's status as a > not-for-profit California corporation within the scope of the Subgroup?* > > > > Two things seem obvious to me: > > 1. The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and > > > 1. There is overwhelming consensus AGAINST recommending changes to > ICANN’s status as a nonprofit California public benefit corporation. > > > > It seems to me that most of the debate is confusing issue #1 with issue > #2. The entire discussion has not developed any real alternative, much less > a clearly superior one, to California jurisdiction. The identified problems > with US jurisdiction (mainly OFAC) can be addressed without moving ICANN’s > place of incorporation. So let’s stop trying to dishonestly pre-empt > resolution of the jurisdiction issue by ruling certain discussions “out of > scope.” Let’s resolve it honestly by developing and acknowledging > consensus around the fact that other than the meaningless mirage of > “international jurisdiction” there is no better framework within which to > work than California law. > > > > The debate about scope, in other words, is a diversion from the > substantive issue, and I wish the chairs and the Americans in the subgroup > would stop trying to pre-empt substantive debate with scope debate. > > > > I will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people who agree with me can take > this perspective into the f2f meeting. > > > > Dr. Milton L. Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > > > > > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- > bounces(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg > Shatan > *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29 AM > *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org > *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented > > > > Please see attached. > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

2 4

REMINDER of upcoming meeting 20 June
by Greg Shatan June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

All, This is a reminder that the next meeting of the Jurisdiction Subgroup is tomorrow, 20 June 2017 at 19:00. You should have received a calendar invite sent May 23 with the usual details. Best regards, Greg

1 0

Back to the (Proposed) Issues: New Proposed Issues Spreadsheet
by Greg Shatan June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

All, As many have said, it's time to get back to the issues. To do that, I think it would be very helpful to have in one place all of the proposed issues (i.e., things that you believe are issues or that you saw raised, e.g., in a questionnaire response or analysis of a response, in analyzing one of ICANN's litigation matters). Remember that we are looking for positive impacts as well as negative impacts, even though we're using the term "Issues." To do that, I've created a Google Drive spreadsheet entitled "List of Proposed Issues for Jurisdiction Subgroup Consideration," where each of us can submit our proposed issues. Filling out the first 4-5 columns will be sufficient for now. Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i6… As an initial matter, I would ask that you refrain from editing other people's proposed issues unless expressly invited by the submitter. Instead, use the columns further to the right to register your views. While the "accepted" issues may end up being joint creations, I'd like the initial drafts of the proposed issues to reflect the views of the submitter. Thank you for your entries. This is the first step in what should be a more focused process of working on the issues. Greg

1 1

Please sign up to review remaining ICANN Litigation Matters!
by Greg Shatan June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

All, We still have 15 unclaimed litigations that need to be summarized (last week, we had 14, so we are not going in the right direction). In a group of around 70 people that should not be as difficult as it has proven to be. Only 6 members have actually submitted summaries (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix, Avri Doria, Vidushi Marda, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, Mathieu Weill). Three members are currently working on reviews (Bartlett Morgan, Doaa Shendy, Tatiana Tropina). It would be very helpful if you (yes, you!) volunteered to summarize 1 or 2 ICANN litigation matters for the Jurisdiction Subgroup. Bonus: anyone signing up now would not need to complete this until after ICANN59. It would be good to have some more diversity in terms of SO/AC affiliation (the group above is reasonably diverse by gender and nationality). Wouldn't it be great to have the sign-up sheet filled before tomorrow's call? The sign-up sheet is here (with live links to the case files on ICANN's website): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing The blank summary sheet to copy and use is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_ u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing Please sign up today! Thanks! Greg

1 0

Litigation Summary: Ruby Glen v. ICANN
by Greg Shatan June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Thank you to Vidushi Marda, who prepared the attached summary of the case *Ruby Glen v. ICANN*. Hopefully, we can discuss this on tomorrow's call. Greg

1 0

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by MSSI Secretariat June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw A copy of the action items and raw caption 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 (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614I…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> Decisions: * Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Action Items: * (none) Requests: * (none)

8 19