- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Agenda and Materials for Today's Meeting @ 19:00
by Greg Shatan Jan. 30, 2017

Jan. 30, 2017

All, My apologies for not sending all of these sooner. Here is the agenda for today. I am re-sending the Powerpoint/PDF of Hypothetical #1 (circulated 27 January), along with a new Word/PDF version of the same hypothetical (the text is identical). As previously indicated, we will discuss this on today's call. I look forward to today's call. Greg

2 1

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Greg Shatan Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

I tend to agree for the most part with Tatiana. We have been asked to "confirm that [the Human Rights subgroup] it has completed developing the Human Rights FOI per Annex 12." This can't be a rubber stamp. We need to satisfy ourselves that this FoI really reflects *how* and *that *we have considered each of the following: · Consider which specific Human Rights conventions or other instruments, if any, should be used by ICANN in interpreting and implementing the Human Rights Bylaw. · Consider the policies and frameworks, if any, that ICANN needs to develop or enhance in order to fulfill its commitment to respect Human Rights. · Consistent with ICANN’s existing processes and protocols, consider how these new frameworks should be discussed and drafted to ensure broad multistakeholder involvement in the process. · Consider what effect, if any, this Bylaw would have on ICANN’s consideration of advice given by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). · Consider how, if at all, this Bylaw will affect how ICANN’s operations are carried out. · Consider how the interpretation and implementation of this Bylaw will interact with existing and future ICANN policies and procedures. Do we want "consider" to be synonymous with "duly take into account" which can be satisfied by reviewing and considering an element (say, a public comment) and then deciding that nothing will be as a result of that review? At the very least, we need to make sure we did the "review and consider" part. If no changes need to be made in the FoI on a given point, then we should be able to say why we came to that conclusion. *We need to have a substantial discussion to determine whether the FoI reflects that we have considered each of these elements, and reflects the outcome of that consideration.* *Until we do this, I strongly question whether the Framework of Interpretation document is ready for Public Comment.* If we decided that separate documents/annexes/etc. were needed, then perhaps this could be put out for comment. But I question that as well. Those really are parts of the FoI package, and would also need to be put out for Public Comment before the Bylaw graduates from "dormant" status. Wouldn't it be better to have the whole package out there at once? As an alternative, we could put the FoI out for a second set of comments while putting the added pieces out for first comments (and possibly only comments). Also, the determination of the Co-Chairs was that we follow Annex 12, rather than Annex 6. Annex 12 calls for a single integrated document reflecting all considerations. Annex 6 calls for follow-on documents. Since we are going with Annex 12 any additional material needed to reflect our "consideration" *must be in the FoI itself.* One last point. I think that the open-ended invitation to " develop suggestions for ICANN implementing the HR FOI " goes beyond our mandate. The only implementation advice we should be giving would be as a result of "considering" the 6 bullet points above. One could say there is an express or implied element of implementation (or more accuerately "implementation guidance," which is not quite the same thing) in each of these bullet points. A textual analysis of the Bylaw, no matter how excellent it is, does not satisfy any of these points. And going beyond these points into an unfettered discussion of suggestions for Implementation would be going too far. So, I'm sorry to say, we're not there yet. Greg On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, do find inline: > > On Jan 26, 2017 2:11 PM, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" < > leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > Considering these and other factors the Co-Chairs would recommend that the > Human Rights sub-group confirm that it has completed developing the Human > Rights FOI per Annex 12 of the CCWG-Accountability WS1 Recommendations. > > > SO: Exact question that I have been asking as well, which also implies > that it's not helpful to put the draft FoI to public comment without > getting clear response on the point above! > > > > Should the sub-group feel that it should develop suggestions for ICANN > implementing the HR FOI based on its work to date the Co-Chairs would be > amenable to this and would invite the HR sub-group to submit any such > suggestions to the plenary for consideration by early May 2017, if there > was no objection from the plenary. > > > SO: May I ask the Co-Chairs to clarify what part of the WS1 report > mandates the HR subgroup to carry out the task above or is this WS2 > assigning a new task to the subgroup?. Like I have said, it seem to me that > all HR needed to produce was the FoI and they just need to confirm if the > draft they sent was done is consideration of Annex 12 period! > > Regards > > > Best regards, > > > Thomas, Mathieu and León > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >

2 1

PLEASE DISREGARD: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Scope of mandate on HR FOI
by Greg Shatan Jan. 27, 2017

Jan. 27, 2017

Jurisdiction Subgroup: Please disregard the email just sent to our list with the above subject. That was not intended for the group. Thank you for understanding. Greg

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

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 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… 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/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… Greg Shatan: - 4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… 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.

5 8

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Reply to farzaneh's Question
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 25, 2017

Jan. 25, 2017

Greg, Pls kindly read your message below quote *"I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:* *"Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"* *It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses.* *The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.* *Best regards,"* 2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>: > All, > > I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate > of the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs. > What I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I > expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will > get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to > do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call." > > What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., > coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs). I was not speaking on behalf of > the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I > had coordinated. > > I hope that clarifies matters. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that >> important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note >> A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of >> sub group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the >> question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf. >> It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate >> group. >> I formally and officially request you to reply to that question which I >> will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your >> rational for reply. >> This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled >> > >

3 4

Revised Litigation Summary Sheet
by Greg Shatan Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

All (but particularly the small group volunteers), As discussed on today's call, here is the revised ICANN Litigation Summary Sheet, as a Google Doc, MS Word doc and a PDF. The Google Doc link (unchanged) is https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWl… Greg

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: Chart of ICANN's Litigation
by Greg Shatan Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

All: Currently the volunteers for this project are (in the order I recorded their names): David McAuley Phil Corwin Avri Doria Doaa Shendy Mathieu Weill Adebunmi Akinbo Greg Shatan Thank you to all those who have volunteered so far. *More volunteers are still welcome!* *To assist in tracking this effort, I have created a tracking chart:* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… *Each reviewer should go to this chart, and put your name or initials in the "Reviewer(s)" column to indicate which cases you will review. The links in the chart are live, so you can move directly from the chart to each case.* Also, here's an email from David McAuley, which was sent on another thread but really relates to this thread. This email contains some good tips on working with the information on ICANN's website, and suggests that the reviewers email among themselves as to which cases they are reviewing. It also suggest that we (either the small group or the subgroup) get a presentation from Jones Day, since they have been involved in much of this litigation. I will raise this request with the Co-Chairs and the Legal Committee. Thanks Greg for getting this underway. I meant to volunteer to help but I will be unable to lead this effort due to commitments elsewhere. I also think this idea (reviewing ICANN litigation) would benefit from a presentation by Jones Day, the common element through much of this. That, of course, is easier said than done and would require ICANN’s client permission. I also want to note to prospective volunteers that ICANN, IMO, does a nice job of indicating the nature of each link in each case compilation under its litigation list. For example, a link to an order from the court is listed as ‘Order’; a court decision is listed as a ‘decision’ and describes the court (trial court, appellate court); briefs are listed as ‘briefs’ and described as opening, responsive, amicus, etc. Thus it ought to be fairly easy to navigate to the most important bits first – it is not necessarily an exercise in wading through all courts documents – seems less daunting to me than it might have been. One more point – to those of us volunteering to review this litigation list we ought to start mailing among ourselves as to which cases we are reviewing so as to avoid duplication of effort. We may find cases that need more than one set of eyes and that would be fine but maybe going in we can keep each other apprised of what we are doing. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154> Greg On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo.adebunmi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Add me to the Volunteers. > > On 23 Jan 2017 8:57 a.m., "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill(a)afnic.fr> wrote: > >> Greg, >> >> I'm happy to volunteer as well. >> >> Mathieu Weill >> --------------- >> Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style >> >> Le 22 janv. 2017 à 02:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> All, >> >> As discussed on this week's call, we are going to summarizing key >> information relating to each current and prior litigation that ICANN has >> been involved in. The ICANN site has a page listing each of these cases, >> and linking to pages where copies of the court filings can be accessed. >> The page may be found at: >> >> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en >> >> Volunteers for a small group to prepare the summaries were requested on >> the call. On the call, David McAulay, Phil Corwin and Avri Doria. More >> volunteers are needed, as there are 35 cases listed. It would probably be >> helpful if one of the volunteers also volunteered to coordinate the work. >> >> My suggestion for the categories of information to be collected is below >> (also on the attached Word document), but this is only a starting point. >> Once the information is collected, we can figure out how to chart it. >> >> Name of Case: >> >> Parties: >> >> Citizenship of Parties: >> >> Court: >> >> Choice of Law/Governing Law: >> >> Date Case Began: >> >> Date Case Ended: >> >> Causes of Action: >> >> Issues Presented: >> >> Preliminary Relief?: >> >> Outcome: >> >> Influences of Jurisdiction: >> >> >> >> >> >> <JURISDICTION SUBGROUP ICANN LITIGATION SUMMARY.docx> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >>

1 2

Agenda Documents for Call #18
by Greg Shatan Jan. 24, 2017

Jan. 24, 2017

All, I have attached the agenda and supporting documents for the upcoming meeting of the Jurisdiction Subgroup at 13:00 UTC on January 24, 2017. I look forward to our call. Greg

2 1

OFAC Application , Sanction on the use of DNS
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

Dear David, As the rapporteur of small group in sub group WS2 dealing with ICANN Litigation, pls find attached an article appreas on the Internet on the matter. We need to seriously address the issue.- Kavouss

5 6

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: Chart of ICANN's Litigation
by Greg Shatan Jan. 23, 2017

Jan. 23, 2017

All, As discussed on this week's call, we are going to summarizing key information relating to each current and prior litigation that ICANN has been involved in. The ICANN site has a page listing each of these cases, and linking to pages where copies of the court filings can be accessed. The page may be found at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Volunteers for a small group to prepare the summaries were requested on the call. On the call, David McAulay, Phil Corwin and Avri Doria. More volunteers are needed, as there are 35 cases listed. It would probably be helpful if one of the volunteers also volunteered to coordinate the work. My suggestion for the categories of information to be collected is below (also on the attached Word document), but this is only a starting point. Once the information is collected, we can figure out how to chart it. Name of Case: Parties: Citizenship of Parties: Court: Choice of Law/Governing Law: Date Case Began: Date Case Ended: Causes of Action: Issues Presented: Preliminary Relief?: Outcome: Influences of Jurisdiction:

2 1