- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Greg Shatan Jan. 22, 2017

Jan. 22, 2017

All, We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6. Following a wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining the draft questionnaire. I encourage those who missed the call to review the recording and notes. Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the Preamble and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final discussion on our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00). Question 2 had no revisions suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested. The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents) and also in text below. *Please review this version of the Preamble and Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments for this portion.* We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose of the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire, a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself. With these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had left on the call. Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary conclusions on Question 4. The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current version) are in the second draft document (Word and PDF). Please look at the alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for Question 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you could support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) is "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in order to support it.* We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please provide your thoughts and responses before then. Thank you. Greg *VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW* *PREAMBLE* The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2 accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s deliberations. As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/…> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of policies. To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider and respond to the following specific questions. In this regard, the subgroup is asking for concrete, factual submissions (positive, negative, or neutral) that will help ensure that the subgroup’s deliberations are informed, fact-based, and address real issues. The subgroup is interested in all types of jurisdiction-related factual experiences, not just those involving actual disputes/court cases. *QUESTION 1* Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. *QUESTION 2* Has ICANN's jurisdiction* affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. *QUESTION 3* Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions above? If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links. Please provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party accounts such as news reports; please do not provide your own version of events. ------------------------------ [1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31. * For this Questionnaire, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.

19 57

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 20 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 22, 2017

Jan. 22, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #17 – 20 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/zKXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst. 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> Notes (including relevant parts of chat): (21 Participants at start of call) 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (no actions). 2. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: There has been some exchange on the list. No support for a “fill in the box” format. we should expect free form input which should be sent to an email address. Unclear to whom it should be sent. Kavouss Arasteh: Concerned regarding your response to FB question. I disagree with your views on this - you cannot judge on this or anything. We need an real a question. Greg Shatan: the answer sent was discussed with the co-chairs and was made in good faith. David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg’s e-mail comment that these are hard to answer in abstract was right – may be better to wait for actual answers to deal with this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed David Chirstopher Wilkinson: need to have this translated into all the ICANN languages. The competition group should have a good list of email addresses. Greg Shatan: ask for staff to have the questionnaire translated. Farzaneh Badii: if we translate, does that mean that we receive answers in 6 language? and then should be translated in to English for analysis? Kavouss Arasteh: Would ask the co-chairs the respond to FB's question. Greg Shatan: KA if you have a request of the co-chairs you should make the request directly. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Getting back to the questionnaire - wrt the translation - sometimes ALAC uses more than just the official languages. The costs for doing this both ways should not be much when considering ICANN language services which are excellent. Greg Shatan: Agree - small cost of language services well worth it. Farzaneh Badii: well, can we translate these questions in to a language that is not a UN language? Kavouss Arasteh: I formally request you Greg to ask co-chair to provide their answer to Frzaneh question in a formal and official manner signed by one of them on behalf of co-chairs on the mailing list Greg Shatan: where should we publish it? Kavouss Arasteh: please respond to my chat request. As to languages the 6 is fine and where to publish I am open if it is widely distributed. As to timing would request 1 month past Copenhagen meeting. Greg Shatan: KA if you wish to raise this with the co-chairs please do so directly. Kavouss Arasteh: cO-chairs need to be alerted through you for formal reply and not indirect reply Kavouss Arasteh: Deadline ,30 day<s after ICANN MEETING IN cOPENHAGWEN Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe yes as we often do it's just a matter of small cost some time extra if not specifically an internal languages one like Portuguese for example if it is anemone 'obscure' language ( and. APAC has plenty of these) they would need to outsource with additional cost and delay on delivery... a small risk if we get in a response Greg Shatan: Timing - 2 weeks after Copenhagen sufficient? where should publicize it. ICANN PC page with a link? David McAuley (RySG): the practical reason Greg mentioned makes sense for putting on comment page CW: I have seen precedent for publishing EN first and other languages shortly aftwerwards as and when Trads. are available. 3. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire Greg Shatan: KA has suggested 30 days after Copenhagen. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes plenty of precedence but ensure closing dates are equitable. CW David McAuley (RySG): 60 days from posting David McAuley - Let us just pick a number of days required. Phil Corwin: No set position but we need to provide fair opportunity for comment. Mid- April seems far away. Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: 60 days Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes all assuming 60 Tatiana Tropina: 60 days from posting, yes. Wale Bakare: 60 days from posting, when is posting? Bear in mind of ICANN58, why not after the meeting for 30 days? Kavouss Arateh: Why are we rushing not allowing people proper occastion to comment. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes but if translation takes it to publish time later than En the response time is still equitable Philip Corwin: How long can it take to translate a brief preamble and four short questions? We are not talking about a 100 page report. Wale Bakare: For sufficiency vis-a-viz translation to EN, why not pegged at 90 days irrespective? Greg Shatan: KA request about allowing govts to consult with each other so they can go back home and then produce and answer. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Understand KA request. Farzaneh Badii: well I would be more worried about the difficulty of reaching out to people who might be really affected by ICANN jurisdiction Philip Corwin: I fully support adequate time for any interested party to read the questions in a major language and have adequate time to respond. That needs to be balanced against the fact that we need to review and discuss the answers and determine their relevance and import for our work, and if the closing date is mid-April that means we don't see answers until a quarter of a year from now. Greg Shatan: Really only talking about two weeks of difference. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Greg we are talking a 2w difference Kavouss Arasteh: text says 30 should be corrected. Greg Shatan: temp. check on April 13 - split. April 1 (3 for 2 against). Let us remember that responses can be made late and considered. Let’s take this to the list. Philip Corwin: Given that standard ICANN response time on a major policy proposal is 40 days, I think 40 days after publication in all languages is sufficient for 4 questions Philip Corwin: I co-chair a PDP WG that is about to publish a 100+ page report for comment, and that only gets the standard 40 days. 4. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en Greg Shatan: Doing this would be very good and allow us to consider issues wrt Jurisdiction of disputes. David McAuley: support this but would suggest we ask Jones Day to come and present to us on this topic which could really help us. Greg Shatan: Good suggestion. Kavouss Arateh: Good suggestion. Greg Shatan: Some suggestions from Mathieu Weill - identify the Jurisdiction the case was brought in, the type of claim, the rate of success, temporary relief and duration of the process. Jones day could help with this. Any other comments on how to get this done. Kavouss Arasteh: These are good ideas let us proceed. David McAuley: After Jones day - a smaller group of us could go through summaries fairly efficiently. Greg Shatan: we should create a small group to manage this work. Will get vol. from the list. David McAuley (RySG): I would volunteer Kavouss Arateh: would volunteer but cannot type much with operation on hand. Avri Doria: can help. Phil Corwin: will participate. 5. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… (no time for this item) 6. AOB (none) 7. Adjourn Next call on 24 JAN. 1300

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Subgroup: Expense Request for Questionnaire Translation
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 21, 2017

Jan. 21, 2017

Dear Greg I support Farzaneh for translation into Persian(Farsi) due to the fact that among over 130 Millions speaking that language a very limited are using Other languages than Persian. To have a more wider outreach,as Farzaneh mentioned, the translation would enable more interested persons to comments through their respected communities 2017-01-21 8:10 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear Joel, > Thank you very Much for your explanation. > I am quite familiar with translation since decades. > I support Farzaneh for translation into Persian(Farsi) due to the fact > that among over 130 Millions speaking that language a very limited are > using Other languages than Persian. To have a more wider outreach,as > Farzaneh mentioned, the translation would enable more interested persons to > comments through their respected communities > Kavouss > > 2017-01-21 8:04 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> >> 2017-01-21 2:13 GMT+01:00 Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder(a)opus1.com>: >> >>> Kavouss: >>> >>> Each UN agency has its own set of languages. There is not a single "UN >>> official language" set. There are also distinctions between official >>> languages, working languages, and other types of language sets (such as >>> being used for translation to achieve a wider audience for publications). >>> >>> jms >>> >>> >>> On 1/20/17 5:58 PM, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Greg. >>>> >>>> I would very much like to translate these questions into Farsi. We might >>>> be able to reach out to more people and understand if ICANN's >>>> jurisdiction affect the users or not, if the questions are in the >>>> language of those who we suspect might be affected. I could translate >>>> them myself but I have taken up too many tasks and I don't think I will >>>> get the time to translate the answers. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 Jan 2017 15:50, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com >>>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> UN official lâchage is six. >>>> If there is money , no problem to translate it to Indian 8 over a >>>> billion people speaking and more than US internautes >>>> But I do not under stand other language for translation on the >>>> expense of CCWG. >>>> Those who wish to have translation , they could do it themsleves >>>> Regards >>>> KAVOUSS . >>>> >>>> 2017-01-20 21:21 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com >>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: >>>> >>>> Dear Co-Chairs, >>>> >>>> At today's meeting of the Jurisdiction Subgroup, the Group >>>> decided to request that the Questionnaire (attached) be >>>> translated by the ICANN Language Service. At a minimum, the >>>> Questionnaire would be translated into the 6 ICANN working >>>> languages; if the ICANN Language Service has the capability to >>>> translate into other languages, it is possible that the Subgroup >>>> may wish to have the Questionnaire translated into one or more >>>> additional languages. >>>> >>>> It is expected that some costs will be allocated to the CCWG for >>>> performing this service. Therefore, on behalf of the Subgroup, >>>> I am seeking your approval to incur the expense of translation. >>>> These costs are not expected to be material. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this >>>> request. In any event, I will seek an estimate of time and >>>> costs from Language Services. >>>> >>>> Thank you for considering this request. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Greg Shatan >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c >>>> ommunity >>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- >>>> community> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c >>>> ommunity >>>> <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 >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 >>> Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 >>> jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms >>> >> >> >

3 8

Jurisdiction Subgroup: Expense Request for Questionnaire Translation
by Greg Shatan Jan. 21, 2017

Jan. 21, 2017

Dear Co-Chairs, At today's meeting of the Jurisdiction Subgroup, the Group decided to request that the Questionnaire (attached) be translated by the ICANN Language Service. At a minimum, the Questionnaire would be translated into the 6 ICANN working languages; if the ICANN Language Service has the capability to translate into other languages, it is possible that the Subgroup may wish to have the Questionnaire translated into one or more additional languages. It is expected that some costs will be allocated to the CCWG for performing this service. Therefore, on behalf of the Subgroup, I am seeking your approval to incur the expense of translation. These costs are not expected to be material. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this request. In any event, I will seek an estimate of time and costs from Language Services. Thank you for considering this request. Best regards, Greg Shatan

3 2

Farzaneh's Question
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

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, Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, As you recall, I did ask Greg to provide a formal reply to > Farzaneh Question which deserved to be replied. > I hope Grec , in his presentation would refer to the matter an reply, if > his response would not be convincing I will raise the matter and request > the CO-CHAIRS to formally respond in a satisfactory manner. > Regards > Kavouss > > >

4 7

Final Questionnaire
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

All, I'm recirculating the final questionnaire so you will have it available during our upcoming call, if need be. Greg

1 0

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #17, 20 January 2017, 19:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

All: Here is the agenda and documents for the upcoming subgroup meeting at 19:00 UTC on 20 January 2017. The agenda has links to the Google Doc and to the page of ICANN's website where its prior and current litigations are listed. The current state of the Google Doc is also attached in Word and PDF for those who may not be able to access the Google Doc, or simply prefer a different format. Greg

3 2

Jurisdiction Questionnaire: Next Steps
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

All, As you probably know by now, the Questionnaire was approved without objection by the CCWG Plenary. A copy of the final version is attached. We now need to work on the next steps of publishing and announcing the Questionnaire. The time period the questionnaire will be open is under discussion in a different thread in the CCWG-Accountability mailing list. I urge you to contribute to that discussion. The method of publication of the Questionnaire needs to be finalized, as does the method (or methods) of submission of responses. Method: The Questionnaire could be published on a webpage of the ICANN site in text and submissions could be made by email (with the response either in email text or in attachments). Alternatively, the Questionnaire could be published as a survey, using www.surveymonkey.com or Google Forms or some other application. Survey/form inputs can help the process of aggregating the answers (e.g., Google Forms puts the answers on a spreadsheet). However, since the answers will be free text fields and links, and could include documentary attachments, a survey form may not be ideal. If we publish the Questionnaire on the ICANN website, the next question is where and how will it be published? 1. One possibility is the ICANN Public Comment page. The Public Comment page found at https://www.icann.org/public-comments describes Public Comments as follows: Public Comment is a vital element in ICANN's decision-making process whereby the community is given an opportunity to comment upon proposals initiated by a working group or staff department. This is not a Public Comment, since we are not asking for comment on a proposal. It might be misleading to announce the questionnaire on the Public Comment page and to publish it on a page formatted like a Public Comment and under the public comment taxonomy. The Public Comment pages contain a lot of additional explanatory text that is not appropriate here. 2. Another possibility is to announce the questionnaire on the IANA Stewardship & Accountability home page at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability. This page is in the home page menu on https://www.icann.org/ (as is the Public Comment page). The questionnaire can then be published under the stewardship-accountability taxonomy, and simply present the Questionnaire without other text. There may be other possibilities. Regardless, the Questionnaire can be publicized through the usual ICANN methods (e.g., News and Announcements on home page and News page ( https://www.icann.org/news) ICANN Daily Digest, annouincements sent to SOAC contacts, etc.) Please reply with any comments you may have. Thanks! Greg

8 7

Advice from Winston Churchill and Joe Biden
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

I came across two pieces of advice which I pass on for your edification and amusement. The first is a World War II memo from Winston Churchill on Brevity. A copy is below and attached. The second is an anecdote told by Joe Biden that just appeared in the New York Times, which I've excerpted below. The article is at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/magazine/joe-biden-i-wish-to-hell-id-jus… "Biden referred to a well-worn story about how, as a freshman senator, he saw Jesse Helms, the archconservative North Carolina Republican, ripping into a piece of disabilities legislation. Biden was furious about it and began attacking Helms to Mike Mansfield, the Democratic Senate majority leader. Puffing on his pipe, Mansfield asked Biden if he knew that Helms and his wife had adopted a disabled 9-year-old boy no one else would take. “*Question a man’s judgment, not his motives*,” Mansfield instructed. Biden, who was invited by Helms decades later to give his eulogy, is convinced that absorbing Mansfield’s advice is what allowed him to work with Senate Republicans during the Obama years, to negotiate the approval of the New Start nuclear-arms-reduction treaty, the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the expansion of the earned-income tax credit, among other accomplishments. His approach to Trump, he said, wouldn’t be fundamentally different. “It falls in that category,” Biden told me. “It’s one thing to say: ‘I think the proposal on the following is a serious mistake. I think it’s gonna do the following damage.’ It’s another thing to say, ‘The guy’s a f___ing idiot, and he is an egomaniac who’s a whatever.’ ” Greg

2 1

Was that progress?
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

Hello, I just went through the notes which ofcourse will not contain details of what happened but gives an idea of how things transpired in the meeting. I have to say I was quite amazed at the level of "seeming" gang-up happening in the chat. Even though I remain one of the people who believe that there is no (can be no) reason that would be strong enough to validate change of ICANN jurisdiction in near future, I support asking question that identifies problems based on facts and I also don't see any issue with asking factual possibilities as it's something that can be easily proved wrong if the test on the facts don't checkout. I was surprised and "somewhat" disappointed to observe the level of sharp opposition on just questions on the chat. I have to note that there may still be need to work on how to better determine consensus in a diverse MS community like ours were each individual have varying access to resources as I think something feels broken. Anyway, I like to pick a question posed by farzeneh below. I don't know if it was answered. I hope the response is the latter as described in her 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…" While it seem progress was achieved in sending questions 1 to 4, all I will say is that I pray wisdom for the rapporteur as he leads this diverse group. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

3 2