- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Apologies for upcoming meeting
by Bartlett Morgan June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

Dear all, Apologies in advance for missing the upcoming meeting. I have to attend to a an urgent matter in Court. - Bartlett

1 0

Agenda for June 14 Meeting of Jurisdiction Subgroup
by Greg Shatan June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

All, Attached is the agenda for tomorrow's Jurisdiction Subgroup call at 13:00 UTC. Documents to follow. Greg

2 2

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
by Kavouss Arasteh June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear All, It was not, > The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement > I do not agree with this question. > Regards > Kavouss > > > 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < > thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br>: > >> Greg, >> >> Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's >> call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Thiago >> >> >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc >> es(a)icann.org] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org >> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 >> Para: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 >> >> Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to >> ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> ws2-jurisdiction-owner(a)icann.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than >> "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 >> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> >> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented >> Message-ID: >> <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail. >> gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Please see attached. >>

7 13

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
by Kavouss Arasteh June 11, 2017

June 11, 2017

Dear All, Consensus is consensus without any adjective. I disagree to add an adjective ,like soft or rough or relative or .... to it. This is an invention by a specific group of people and does not have any valid and legitimate basis. I hope people in their reply respect others withourt recourse to any irony.Regards Kavouss 2017-06-11 0:19 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Paul, > I know you since many many years and in particular during your particular > position in WS1 > Regards. > Kavouss > > > > 2017-06-10 23:32 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ > redbranchconsulting.com>: > >> Nope you are perfectly reasonable. But in this instance I think your >> perception is incorrect. I could write the next post from the other side >> myself if I had to. We aren't talking past each other -- we just disagree. >> >> To put it simply, you proposed an elegant compromise. Most of the >> majority are willing to accept it. So let's just do it. >> >> Paul >> >> Paul Rosenzweig >> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 >> www.redbranchconsulting.com >> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 >> 097CA066684 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc >> es(a)icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria >> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 4:06 PM >> To: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) >> >> Hi, >> >> Well that is the impression I have. When I see responses to the various >> positions I think I am seeing people talk past each other. >> >> But I accept that you may not see me as a reasonable person. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 10-Jun-17 15:54, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: >> > I don't think that after a year anyone can reasonably say that the >> minority position here has not been heard, understood and considered. It >> just hasn't carried the day. >> > >> > Paul >> > >> > Paul Rosenzweig >> > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 >> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 >> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 >> > www.redbranchconsulting.com >> > My PGP Key: >> > https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06668 >> > 4 >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org >> > [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria >> > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 2:06 PM >> > To: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group >> consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when >> you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle. >> > >> > Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no >> minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully >> considered. >> > >> > Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also >> appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and >> considered feel we are not there yet. >> > >> > Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout >> the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet >> reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the >> >> call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas >> >> (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It >> >> is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed. >> >> >> >> I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day >> >> would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward >> >> at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with >> >> minority objection from the representatives of several governments) >> >> then we should just close the group out altogether. >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this >> >> contentious group, which has been quite patient. >> >> >> >> Paul Rosenzweig >> >> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com >> >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 >> >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 >> >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 >> >> www.redbranchconsulting.com >> >> My PGP Key: >> >> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA0666 >> >> 8 >> >> 4 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org >> >> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz >> >> Jardim Oliveira >> >> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM >> >> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >> >> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) >> >> >> >> Dear Greg, >> >> >> >> It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the >> >> group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. >> >> People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their >> >> mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that >> >> the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected >> >> some degree of consensus within the group. >> >> >> >> May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion >> >> to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His >> >> proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss >> >> the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante >> position in abstract. >> >> >> >> As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not >> >> supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised >> >> work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will >> >> identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each >> >> issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group >> >> should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that >> >> requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in >> >> the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change >> >> to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are >> the issues to be discussed by the group. >> >> >> >> My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions >> >> that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet >> >> point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction >> >> is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated >> >> in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are >> >> possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and >> >> international law immunities, even though it remains a private >> organisation governed by Swiss law. >> >> >> >> My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. >> >> There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the >> >> mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the >> >> Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we >> >> should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any >> >> question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, >> >> only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions >> >> on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent >> possible remedies.. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Thiago >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> >> De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: >> >> sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 >> >> Para: Kavouss Arasteh >> >> Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction >> >> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) >> >> >> >> Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to >> >> assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a >> >> number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so >> >> we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, >> >> some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup >> before. >> >> >> >> >> >> Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, >> >> I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question >> >> is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since >> >> there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be >> >> the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to >> >> share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an >> >> alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh >> >> <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Greg, >> >> Dear All, It was not, >> >> The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement >> >> I do not agree with this question. >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh >> >> <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear All, It was not, >> >> The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement >> >> I do not agree with this question. >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> >> >> >> 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira >> >> <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >> >: >> >> >> >> >> >> Greg, >> >> >> >> Help me with this. Was this question you wanted >> to discuss at >> >> today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before >> >> today's call? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Thiago >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> >> De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org >> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> >> >> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org >> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de >> >> ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org >> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> >> >> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 >> >> Para: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> >> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 >> >> >> >> Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to >> >> ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> >> >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide >> Web, visit >> >> >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> >> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or >> body 'help' to >> >> ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org >> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> >> >> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> >> ws2-jurisdiction-owner(a)icann.org >> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> >> >> >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so >> it is more >> >> specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." >> >> >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> >> >> 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> - >> >> >> >> Message: 1 >> >> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 >> >> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >> >> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >> >> Cc: "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> >> >> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented >> >> Message-ID: >> >> >> >> <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g(a)mail.gmail.com >> >> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71 >> g(a)mail.gmail.com >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> >> >> Please see attached. >> >>

3 2

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Paul Rosenzweig)
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira June 9, 2017

June 9, 2017

Dear Paul, On the contrary, it seems to me that what is preventing us from getting to the substantive discussions is precisely this drive from this vocal group of individuals to reopen the mandate debate. A proposal was clearly put forth by Jorge to keep moving forward and only come back to the mandate debate to seek guidance for controversial cases. I myself seconded this and other did too. But this seems to have been completely ignored by the rapporteur, as much as he seems to be ignoring from time to time the contribution of others. In fact, I find it quite disturbing that the inclusion in our agenda of the mandate question has come from the rapporteur when no one else was calling for it, at least twice, and now at a point in time where we were about to engage in substantive discussions the subgroup had no problem in agreeing was for us to examine. Let us get on with the issues we already identified as part of our mandate, we have pointed to two in our last call. I'd sure be more than delighted to be reading contributions from yourself and others that are not simply this mantra that sounds to me like "this shouldn't be discussed because I don't want and have no interest in discussing it". Please understand interest as you will. Best, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org Enviada em: quarta-feira, 7 de junho de 2017 18:53 Para: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 13 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner(a)icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Paul Rosenzweig) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 17:52:48 -0400 From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> To: "'Greg Shatan'" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda Message-ID: <014501d2dfd8$67c13150$374393f0$(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I fully support David?s statement of the mandate?s jurisdiction. It is depressing indeed that a vocal minority of people continue to seek an expansion when it is neither required by our mandate nor supported by a majority of our subgroup. The continued insistence of some on relitigating issues over and over again is both delaying important work and, frankly, providing an excellent example of the way the ?heckler?s veto? works in multi-stakeholder processes. I have been silent on this list because there is absolutely nothing new that has been said in the last 3 months that isn?t exactly what was said before hand. Like Nigel, I think we should bury this dead horse instead of beating it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:35 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda All, This discussion is specifically called for in our revised Work Plan and Schedule, which was approved by the Subgroup in April. In Section 4 (Work Plan and Schedule Going Forward) subsection 4(d) states: d. Subgroup revisits issue of Scope of the Subgroup i. Previous discussions on scope should be reviewed prior to discussion ii. Any lists of proposed issues should be reviewed 1. Proposed issues should be acknowledged even if there is no consensus iii. New inputs or views should be solicited iv. Ample work should be done on the list v. This should not be a complete rehash of prior discussions vi. Group should discuss scope and come to a decision on the Scope of the Subgroup and the questions to be answered by the Subgroup vii. Agenda for Scope meeting should be circulated approximately 7 days in advance to promote maximum participation viii. A deliverable should be prepared reflecting the deliberations and outcome We are up to this point in our Work Plan. It's also worth a reminder of the Work Plan's approach to "issues": 1. GENERAL APPROACH a. The Subgroup will identify Issues before it goes on to explore Remedies. b. There must be broad agreement in the Subgroup that a proposed issue is in fact an Issue and that the Issue is one that falls within the remit of the Subgroup. c. For each Issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies. 1. The group should not discuss a Remedy until an Issue has been identified that requires discussion of that Remedy. 2. The Subgroup needs to consider how a proposed remedy would resolve the Issue (or fail to resolve the Issue or even make it worse).. 3. The Subgroup also needs to consider the effects and consequences of the Remedy. 4. The Subgroup needs to consider how the Potential Remedy would enhance ICANN?s accountability (or have no effect on ICANN?s accountability or even hamper ICANN?s accountability). Under 1(b), the group must consider and agree that a proposed issue is "one that falls within the remit of the Subgroup." Without a common understanding of the "remit of the Subgroup," this step cannot be adequately completed. This is a most practical reason why the mandate and scope of the Subgroup needs to be clarified. I agree with Jorge, up to a point, that "we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations." This is found in the Charter, in the Final Proposal and in the Transition Bylaw (which were collected in pertinent part in the document I circulated a couple of weeks ago). Unfortunately, we have not yet arrived at a common understanding of what that mandate is. Annex 12 cannot be read in isolation from the Charter, the Final Proposal, the Bylaw, all of which are "higher level" documents. It is precisely because we are discussing substantive issues that we need to clarify our understanding of the mandate we've been given. The mandate cannot be ascertained by reference to what the group has taken up in discussions at any point in time. Rather, the mandate has to be applied to proposed issues as stated in 1(b) above. If we all agreed on the scope dictated by the Charter, Final Proposal and Bylaw, this would be an easy exercise. However, we have never quite resolved this most basic question. Here is one proposed understanding of our mandate and scope, proposed by David McAuley back in December: [W]e have a mandate for a narrow approach. I say that because the source documents and the larger context in which we are operating, IMO, direct us there (although the source documents may not be as clear as one would like). The bylaw basically says look to the Final Report. On jurisdiction, Annex 12 of the Final Report says much by way of background, and its language regarding ?layers of jurisdiction? is really just an acknowledgement. The operative paragraph, in my opinion, is paragraph 30 which begins, ?At this point in the CCWG-Accountability?s work, ...? I think reference to ?this point? is recognition that what came before, i.e., solidly grounding the accountability measures on California law, is an important precedent to our work, as it must be. Paragraph 30 also goes on to say, ?Consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will focus on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction ?? The gap ? analysis and identifying potential alternatives are to take place in that context. And there is a larger context in which we operate, with two particular aspects that appear quite important. First, we just spent years and millions of dollars basing ICANN accountability on California law principles. Why would we throw that away? (It?s worth noting as well that California law has demonstrated over 18 years that it actually has allowed ICANN to operate without undo disruption.) And the second aspect is timing/capacity ? we are WS2, not the UN. We can address gaps, if they are found, in dispute-resolution issues stemming from jurisdiction. We cannot grant ICANN immunity or enact a treaty, nor do we have the depth, experience, and time to come up with plausibly based recommendations in such regard. There are fair questions being raised that are appropriate for other forums ? I personally think we, however, should focus on WS2 as constituted in Annex 12. ? If this can serve as a statement of our mandate, or at least the basis for such statement, that would help us move past this point. However, it's not up to me to make that judgment. ?What are people's thoughts or other formulations (based on the "foundational documents")?? ?Greg? On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> > wrote: Dear Greg, I'm not sure there is a need to come back to discussions we already had on the Subgroup's mandate (and in fact I saw no one else proposing this, at least not before you included it yourself as an item in our agenda). An illustration that there is no such a need is that we will be discussing substantive issues in our upcoming calls, which the Subgroup agreed to as it had no difficulty in seeing them as within our mandate: the impact of OFAC sanctions in ICANN's operations, for example, and the ability of US courts to interfere with the allocation of ccTLDs (upon a suggestion by Tatiana Tropina, which others and I seconded, and which encountered no objection from within the Subgroup as I understand). Jorge's proposed approach is very sensible, I believe is in line with what the Subgroup said it'd be doing in our upcoming calls, and I fully support it. Perhaps only where "there would be a question of in/out scope" "vis-?-vis a given case", as identified and supported by a reasonable portion of the Subgroup, should we come back to the mandate discussion for specific guidance. But again, the mandate is set out in the foundational documents and we all have had an opportunity to read them. Best, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: segunda-feira, 5 de junho de 2017 09:00 Para: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Greg Shatan) 2. Re: Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> ) 3. Re: Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Kavouss Arasteh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:39:25 +0000 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda Message-ID: <CA+aOHUSKwbzuxXL-F1riN4j8SVjZhVWUsDmEYBLrYaAVKHtqKA(a)mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUSKwbzuxXL-F1riN4j8SVjZhVWUsDmEYBLrYaAVKHtqKA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" All, I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes: 1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope. 2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks. 3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents. 4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope". 5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour. 6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be. Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion. Thank you. Greg

3 4

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #34 - 8 June 2017
by MSSI Secretariat June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #34– 8 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/FSDwAw 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@01D2E071.65F22520] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Action Items: * Staff to prepare form letter/email for rapporteur wrt to decision this week * GS – Circulate new draft of question to sub-group based on input from discussion prior to next meeting. 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/66068501/Jurisdiction_0608…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068501/Jurisdiction_0608…> Decisions: * (none) Requests: * (none) Documents Presented * QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068501/QUESTION%20ON%20S…>

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner(a)icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff(a)icann.org" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please see attached.

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Dear Greg, I'm not sure there is a need to come back to discussions we already had on the Subgroup's mandate (and in fact I saw no one else proposing this, at least not before you included it yourself as an item in our agenda). An illustration that there is no such a need is that we will be discussing substantive issues in our upcoming calls, which the Subgroup agreed to as it had no difficulty in seeing them as within our mandate: the impact of OFAC sanctions in ICANN's operations, for example, and the ability of US courts to interfere with the allocation of ccTLDs (upon a suggestion by Tatiana Tropina, which others and I seconded, and which encountered no objection from within the Subgroup as I understand). Jorge's proposed approach is very sensible, I believe is in line with what the Subgroup said it'd be doing in our upcoming calls, and I fully support it. Perhaps only where "there would be a question of in/out scope" "vis-à-vis a given case", as identified and supported by a reasonable portion of the Subgroup, should we come back to the mandate discussion for specific guidance. But again, the mandate is set out in the foundational documents and we all have had an opportunity to read them. Best, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org Enviada em: segunda-feira, 5 de junho de 2017 09:00 Para: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request(a)icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner(a)icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Greg Shatan) 2. Re: Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch) 3. Re: Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda (Kavouss Arasteh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 21:39:25 +0000 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda Message-ID: <CA+aOHUSKwbzuxXL-F1riN4j8SVjZhVWUsDmEYBLrYaAVKHtqKA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" All, I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes: 1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope. 2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks. 3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents. 4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope". 5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour. 6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be. Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion. Thank you. Greg

5 4

Documents for Jurisdiction Subgroup Call on 8 June 2017 at 13:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

All, Here are the documents for the upcoming call. Greg >

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Automatische Antwort: Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
by Kavouss Arasteh June 7, 2017

June 7, 2017

"In one of your earlier mail , you have indicated that " In rem Jurisdiction dictates that the domain name is located in the United States " Is it for specific case or as a general Rule? Pls provide supporting materials Cheers Kavouss 2017-06-05 12:46 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>: > I'm out of the office until June 15, inter alia, attending external > meetings. Emails will not be forwarded. I will only be able to access my > server from time to time. > > For urgent matters please contact our secretariat at ir(a)bakom.admin.ch or +41 > 58 460 59 39 >

3 2