- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Please Respond: Survey of the ICANN Ombudsman Office
by MSSI Secretariat April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of the Rapporteur for WS2 Subgroup 'Ombudsman', Sébastien Bachollet, we would like to encourage you and your peers to participate in the survey<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> on the ICANN Ombudsman Office. The survey will take approximately 5-10min. The survey<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> is part of the ongoing assessment of the ICANN Ombudsman Office and it has been designed in cooperation with the WS2 Subgroup 'Ombudsman'. The survey<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> is available in 6 UN languages and links to the translations, as well as instructions on how to respond to the non-English versions, are provided on the survey wiki page<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. If you have questions on the assessment of the Ombudsman Office, including the survey, please contact reviews(a)icann.org<mailto:reviews@icann.org>. Best wishes, MSSI Link to the survey: http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/3462816/ICANN[surveygizmo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.surveygizmo.com_s3_…> Link to the survey wiki page with translations: https://community.icann.org/x/vc3RAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> ________________________________ Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMFAw…> [cid:image001.png@01D2B1E5.FA31A3B0]

1 0

Pool.com case summary
by Mathieu Weill April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

Dear Colleagues, Here is another summary form for the Pool.com vs ICANN case. Its an interesting case because it was the only one documented as submitted in front of a non-US court. However it was settled before it reached the decision stage. 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 *****************************

9 26

Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction: A Reminder
by Greg Shatan April 8, 2017

April 8, 2017

All, I think it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the "Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction" set out in Work Stream 1. It would also be helpful to be accurate, specific and clear which layer one is referring to when talking about "jurisdiction," or the effect(s) of "jurisdiction." The word "jurisdiction" is being used very loosely in some of our discussions. It is not particularly helpful to use the term "jurisdiction" vaguely or ambiguously, or as if it were a monolithic concept. Here is a summary of the "Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction," adapted from the Subgroup's working document of the same name (underlined text is the suggested short name for the layer): *MULTIPLE LAYERS OF JURISDICTION* 1. *Jurisdiction of Incorporation*. a. The jurisdiction in which an entity is legally incorporated. 2. *Jurisdiction of Headquarters Location.* a. The jurisdiction in which an entity’s headquarters is physically located. 3. *Jurisdiction of other places of physical presence.* a. Other places where an entity maintains an ongoing physical presence sufficient to subject the entity and its actions to some or all of the laws of that jurisdiction (as Incorporation and Headquarters Jurisdiction do). b. This may also determine whether an entity can be subject to suit in the courts of that jurisdiction (i.e., “*personal jurisdiction*”). 4. *Jurisdiction for the law to be used in interpretation of contracts, etc. (Governing Law/Choice of Law) and actions of the Empowered Community.* a. The jurisdiction whose laws will be used to interpret the rights and responsibilities of parties to a contract, whether in the normal course of business or during a dispute (e.g., litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution mechanism). b. More broadly, the substantive law to be applied during a litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution mechanism. c. In matters involving agreements, the governing law may have been specified in the agreement (e.g., in a “choice of law” clause). d. If no governing law is specified or in non-contract cases, the governing law will be determined by the judge, panel or other decision-maker using principles of “conflicts of laws”, typically after submissions by the parties. 5. *Jurisdiction for the physical location of litigation of disputes (Venue)*. a. The forum in which the dispute will be heard: i) The type of proceeding (e.g., litigation (including the type of court), arbitration (including the provider/rules), IRP, etc.). ii) The provider of that proceeding (e.g., Federal or national court, state or local court, an arbitration provider, etc.). iii) The physical location (if any) in which the proceeding will take place (e.g., the country, state/province, city, etc.). iv) A separate but related concept is “*subject matter jurisdiction*” (i.e., whether the court or other forum has the power to hear a case about a particular type of subject matter) 6. *Relationships with national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues.* a. This “layer” was listed as one of the layers of jurisdiction in Annex 12. 7. *Meeting NTIA requirements.* a. This “layer” was listed as one of the layers of jurisdiction in Annex 12. We should make a conspicuous effort to relate any discussions of "jurisdiction" back to the specific "layer(s)" of jurisdiction we are referring to. This will help us have more effective discussions and to produce more useful output from those discussions. Greg

2 2

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Questions to ICANN Legal
by Bernard Turcotte April 7, 2017

April 7, 2017

All, Update from Sam on the Jurisdiction legal questions. Cheers B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 11:38 AM Subject: Re: [Ext] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Questions to ICANN Legal To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>, "ACCT-Staff ( acct-staff(a)icann.org)" <acct-staff(a)icann.org> Bernie - Can you please confirm to the group that the responses are being finalized and we expect them to be provided by next Monday. — Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 <(310)%20578-8631>

2 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 25 | 04 April 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 4, 2017

April 4, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #25 – 04 April 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/TL-RAw A copy of the agenda and notes may be found below. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux (MSSI) Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives Projects & Operations Assistant. ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org Cell: +1-310-460-8432 Skype: yvette.guigneaux.icann www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> [cid:image002.png@01D2ACD1.B5AB4B10] ________________________________ Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #25 04 April 2017 @ 19:00 UTC This meeting will be recorded. Please mute your phone when not speaking by pressing *6 (star 6) *6 will also unmute. Apologies: Paul Rosenzweig, Andreea Brambilla, Avri Doria Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda (2 minutes) 3. Administration (1 minute) a. Changes to SOIs b. Identify Audio Only and Phone Number Participants 4. Status of Questions to ICANN Legal 5. Review of decisions and action items from last call (2 minutes) a. Decisions – none b. Action Items: - Add Christopher Wilkinson to Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team (GSS/Staff) (completed) - Create email address/list for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team (Staff) (completed) - Create email address/list for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team (Staff) (completed) 6. Update on Questionnaire (2 minutes) a. No new submissions 7. Review of ICANN’s past and current litigation a. Pool.com (MW) b. Updated reviews (MW) 8. Review of Working Method (30 minutes) a. Current approach to work b. Issues and Concerns 9. AOB 10. Next meeting 11 April 1300UTC 11. Adjourned Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 1. Welcome Greg is running a few minutes late, the call will start momentarily. 2. Review of Agenda No changes to agenda. 3. Administration a. Changes to SOIs No changes to SOIs. b. Identify Audio Only and Phone Number Participants Kavouss Arasteh will be out of the AC room for the last 10 min of the call. Seun Ojedeji on audio. 4. Status of Questions to ICANN Legal Bernie - Sam is actively working on this request. Staff will follow-up this week. 5. Review of decisions and action items from last call a. Decisions: none b. Action Items: - Add Christopher Wilkinson to Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team (GSS/Staff) (completed) - Create email address/list for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team (Staff) (completed) - Create email address/list for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team (Staff) (completed) 6. Update on Questionnaire a. No new submissions Greg - It's not too late to promote the questionnaire or respond to the questionnaire. 7. Review of ICANN’s past and current litigation David McAuley - started working on namespace case. Bernie - sign up sheet can be found at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> a. Pool.com (MW) Mathieu Weill (MW) presented review of pool.com litigation. Greg - Seun had some comments on the mailing list earlier today, but is not connected right now. David McAuley - I take it this case was not appealed? MW - no, it was dropped. Greg - was it dropped because the parties settled? MW - I think there was a settlement, but that's my interpretation, there is no mention of that in the case. Kavouss - was the case dropped by the court? what would have happened if it had not been dropped? MW - Ottawa is a city in Ontario, in Canada. I cannot say what would have happened if the case had not been dropped. Greg - the plaintiff must have dropped it, the court would have dismissed it, court cannot drop it, only the plaintiff can. David - I believe this subject is part of the questions that were sent to ICANN Legal. Kavouss - I hope we can find a case outside of the US where the case was not dropped. Greg - that was the only case that was outside of the US, all others listed are in the US. MW - confirming what Greg indicated. That in itself is an interesting finding. Kavouss - could we look into cases where the plaintiff is a non US? Mathieu Weill: Non US Plaintiff are useful to look at indeed. Such as DitAfrica ? Kavouss - do we have cases in countries where ICANN doesn't have offices? Greg - I believe we should get answer to that question from ICANN Legal. b. Updated reviews (MW) 8. Review of Working Method a. Current approach to work Kavouss - the people who raise the concerns that our working methods are not taking us anywhere should attend the calls so we can discuss. We also need answers from ICANN Legal in order to move the work forward. DM - looking at past litigations, and the questionnaire, all this seems to be very sensible and legitimate. Seun - It's not necessarily a complete exercise that we are doing. We are only looking at past experiences. MW - this conversation highlights the need to clarify the various tracks of work that we are currently working on. Past litigations is one, questions to ICANN Legal is another, and the questionnaire is a 3rd. We have been requested to provide an update to the plenary of what we are currently working on, and what the next steps will be. Greg - I don't think that any of the work that we are doing is intended to create the impression that we fill time. We still need to clarify the mandate of the group, but we have taken steps to find the facts. Our working method is to look for issues, and then to find remedies. Seun - yes, but for now we have only been looking for issues in the past, we have not looked into potential issues in the future. Mathieu Weill: Potential issues in the future is a definition of Risks. Greg - looking for potential issues is not part of our mandate. Greg - I will prepare a status of where we are, and will submit it to the mailing list. MW - maybe we could invite the persons who commented on the mailing list to join us in the next subgroup call. Greg - good suggestion, let's do that. b. Issues and Concerns 9. AOB None raised. 10. Next meeting 11 April 1300UTC 11. Adjourned

1 0

Agenda for Jurisdiction Meeting #25; Documents
by Greg Shatan April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

All, Attached is the Agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup meeting at 05:00 UTC, along with accompanying documents. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 28 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat April 3, 2017

April 3, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 – 28 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/g67RAw 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@01D2A969.FB5CAA20] Action Items: · Staff-GS – Add Christopher Wilkinson to Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff to create email address for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff-GS To send doodle poll to arrange for a meeting of the Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 13 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - (no objections) 3. Administration a) Changes to SOIs (none) b) Questions to ICANN Legal – Status (awaiting response) 4. Questionnaire Update a) Status of current responses – no new responses b) Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team i) Responsibilities (1) Updating the Subgroup on new responses and their status at each meeting (2) Proposing an evaluation framework for responses (a) Responses received will help guide creation of evaluation framework Christopher Wilkinson - I responded but my name does not seem to have been accepted. Greg Shatan - will add. (b) To be approved by the Subgroup ii) Mail list to be created iii) Meeting to be scheduled – Doodle poll to follow 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a) Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Greg Shatan - (no changes) b) Review of Summary Sheet (document) c) Review of Summaries i) Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr - ICANN used to put in a choice of law claue in its contracts which it does not do anymore. ii) State of AZ vs NTIA V2 - MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Greg Shatan - did the court rule on the jurisdiction argument (MW - no mention of it). Any questions? (none). iii) Ben Haim v. Iran – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr: there was a long discussion in the cases regarding which attachment law (state) applied Becky Burr: DC or California Mathieu Weill: I'll check the case and extract the relevant parts Becky Burr: not WOULD have, but potentially could have Becky Burr: because the plaintiffs sought the attachment in DC David McAuley (RySG): just getting wind of this discussion - in the case on screen I think coutrt applied DC law which is a tad unusual on attachment Becky Burr: so the plaintiff controlled here Becky Burr: yes, David, you and I are on the same wavelength Greg Shatan - should we add a field to the form about alternate jurisdictions. Mathieu Weill - Do not think we should theorize about this - we just do our analysis and then look at statistics they yield. Becky Burr: correct Mattieu David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mathieu Greg Shatan - Agree we should not do studies beyond what is provided in the materials. 6. AOB Greg Shatan - (none) 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan - Adjourned. Decisions (none)

2 1

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24
by Greg Shatan March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

All: Here is the agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 19:00 UTC today. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com

4 3

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting-20170322 REVISED Agenda
by Greg Shatan March 28, 2017

March 28, 2017

All, Attached is a revised agenda (also below) and supporting documents for the upcoming call. *CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2* *Jurisdiction Subgroup, Meeting #23* *March 22, 2017, 13:00 UTC* *AGENDA* 1 Welcome 2 Review of Agenda 3 Administration (5 minutes) 3.1 Questions to ICANN Legal – Status 3.2 Hypotheticals document and “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Clarify that active work is suspended until ICANN Legal responds to the questions and the litigation review is complete, but the documents are still open for contributions. 4 Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes) 4.1 Review of Sign-up sheet (document) 4.2 Review of Summaries 4.2.1 Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document) 4.2.2 State of Arizona vs NTIA V2 - MW (document) 4.2.3 Ben Haim v. Iran…. – MW (document) 4.2.4 DCA v. ICANN - DM (document) 4.2.5 DCA V. ICANN – Appellate Court - DM (document) 5 Questionnaire Update (10 minutes) 5.1 Review and Evaluation Team - Update 5.1.1 Team is responsible for updating the subgroup 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. 5.1.2 Composition of the review team 5.1.3 Review Team – Next steps. 5.2 Status of current responses (document) 6 AOB 7 Adjourn Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > The next meeting of the Jurisdiction subgroup will be 22 March 13:00 UTC. > Please find attached the agenda for the meeting. Related materials may be > found in Bernie's email of February 28. Please read the case summaries and > be prepared to discuss them at the meeting. Updated tracking sheets will > be distributed later this evening, EDT. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > >

1 1

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 22 March 2017
by MSSI Secretariat March 23, 2017

March 23, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #23 – 22 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/O6vRAw 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@01D2A3BB.DE89CB70] Action Items: * GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them. * GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system. * GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire. Notes (Including relevant parts of chat): 16 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome Greg Shatan - Changes to SOIs? (none). Audio Only? (none) 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - No objections 3. Administration 3.1 Questions to ICANN Legal – Status Greg Shatan - ICANN Legal has acknowledged reception but has not provided the requested estimate yet (understandable vs ICANN58). If no news by Monday next week will follow up with them. Action item – GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them. 3.2 Hypotheticals document and “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Clarify that active work is suspended until ICANN Legal responds to the questions and the litigation review is complete, but the documents are still open for contributions. Greg Shatan - Restating this for any that were not on the last call. 4. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes) 4.1 Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Greg Shatan - Some new people have signed up. David McAuley: I will do two more cases - probably next week 4.2 Review of Summaries 4.2.1 Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document) Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today. 4.2.2 State of Arizona vs NTIA V2 - MW (document) Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today. 4.2.3 Ben Haim v. Iran…. – MW (document) Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today. 4.2.4 DCA v. ICANN - DM (document) David McAuley - (Presentation of summary document). Jurisdiction not a significant part of this case. 4.2.5 DCA V. ICANN – Appellate Court - DM (document) David McAuley - (Presentation of summary document). 9th circuit for this case. Jurisdiction probably not a major consideration in this case. Important to note that an IRP was active in the middle of these cases. avri doria: diversity jurisdiction: how does that work? i guess i can go look it up. Greg Shatan: I'll ask David to expand a bit on the diversity issue. avri doria: ie. how do multiple jurisdiction affect things in Federal cases? is that a significant thing in itself? Greg Shatan - DM could you explain the Diversity Jurisdiction court issue. David McAuley - by statute federal courts can hear state cases where the parties are different jurisdiction. The entry of ZACR ended perfect diversity Greg Shatan: Avri, the "diverse" citizenship of the parties is the basis of diversity jurisdiction. avri doria: is the litigant choice limited to US courts? avri doria: what kind of claims? being subject to a different set of laws? if i am the only one confused by the implications and what is allowed as a claim, i will go study up. avri doria: i think the degree to which there is flexibility on the claims an laws used may be a signification juridical factor in our work. thanks for the education. avri doria: Could they have gone, e.g., a court in Kenya to litigate? Kavouss Arasteh - All these courts in the US make this confusing for some of us. Would be appreciated if we could get a description how the system works. Second no such presentation for other cases. Have looked at some of these cases it seems that have been overly simplified. Greg Shatan - re KA questions we will present a summary for each case. As to over simplification we are focusing on jurisdiction. As to the first question a simple version there are 2 parallel systems Federal and State but both are ruled by the same laws. The Federal system has 3 levels the highest one being the US supreme court. Kavouss Arasteh: Greg, thanks,may you please provide a tutorial description of the legal jurisdiction process in USA David McAuley - re diversity jurisdiction for federal courts - in many cases they still apply state law. Greg Shatan - re AD question vs bringing case in Kenya - maybe -depends on many considerations. David McAuley: now that ICANN has an office in Kenya I think the answer would be yes - as of the date that office opened Becky Burr: agree with David, but isn't there an argument that the harm occurs in Kenya? David McAuley: fair point Becky David McAuley: At bottom, in the DCA cases I don't think jurisdiction is a paramount issue David McAuley: in fact the case is still ongoing in Cal. state court Kavouss Arasteh: Still the hierarchy of state court, Appeal court ,which usually at the same state , and when federal courts are called for and when supreme court would be involved are not clear Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we might need to look into forum shopping strategies employed regularly - in order to understand what jurisdictions are preferred by whom - depending on what is what your objectives are (an injunction in a specific territory; damages; blocking a decision... etc) Kavouss Arasteh: The relation between three layers in State courts, on the one hand, and federal court on the other hand and finally the role of supreme courts need to be further elaborated and documented Greg Shatan - re: KA will post some information on this. Action Item – GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system. avri doria: what i think is important to this group is the flexibility allowed in the current jurisdiction. be interesting to see if this is leveraged in any of the other cases. Kavouss Arasteh - why two entries for DCA. David McAuley 2: Greg gave right reason - but it was ICANN's listing of litigation is where the split occurred. 5. Questionnaire Update 5.1 Review and Evaluation Team - Update Greg Shatan - ICANN 58 overtook the evaluation team and we will have to get this started. Action Item – GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire. 5.1.1 Team is responsible for updating the subgroup 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. 5.1.2 Composition of the review team Greg Shatan - still looking volunteers if you have not done so yet. Erich Schweighofer: I will help in the questionnaire review. Tatiana Tropina: Greg, I already volunteered to help with the questionnaire review, can confirm again that I will help 5.1.3 Review Team – Next steps. 5.2 Status of current responses Greg Shatan - no new responses since February 22nd - this is not atypical. any questions? (none). Remind everyone should publicize it to their lists. 6. AOB (none). 7. Adjourn Decisions (none) Action Items: · GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them. · GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system. · GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire.

1 0