- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 21 November
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #10 – 21 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pJDDAw A copy of the action items and notes 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: * Milton and CW to draft a few questions for review by the group. * Everyone to go to our 2 Documents. Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Back - Vinay Kesari 2.Setting the Scene - Vinay Kesari Kavouss Arasteh: I am not optimistic of the results we can achieve here - did not understand the introduction. We are widening the subject instead of focusing. Vinay Kesari: Agree with KA - we need to focus on our core task without removing any possible outcomes. Greg Shatan: Agree. We do not need to identify solutions to problems that have not been identified. Note: discussions surrounding Jorge Cancio’s suggestion of a consultation/questionnaire generated most of the traffic in the chat and this should be read in conjunction with these notes. 3.Work Plan Greg Shatan: will have to redo after this meeting. It seems early for a public consultation. Vidushi Marda: I am new to the group - where are we vs jurisdiction of incorporation. Greg Shatan: best to catch up reading transcripts and the email lists. Jurisdiction of incorporation is not off the table but we have agreed to only consider it if it comes up as the only solution to a given issue. Jorge Cancio: I was proposing a fact finding exercise especially those who have contracts or those who could be considered materially harmed. Greg Shatan: We need more factual information from concerned parties. We need to get a small group working on the list to begin designing this. David McAuley: This should be about getting facts and not opinions. Tijani Ben Jemaa: what are the points we have difficulty to get to consensus on. Greg Shatan: I see it differently - this is about getting factual information from users. Kavouss Arasteh: I have no idea what is a stress test and was not very useful in WS1. What surveys, about what, why? Few people would reply to what I understand what we are talking about - this is not what we have said we would work on. We need to focus on applicability of jurisdiction of contracts. Greg Shatan: We are not looking for legal opinions or theories. What we are discussing is getting real facts from contracted parties - things that have happened. It is in our mandate to get facts. Kavouss Arasteh: you are focusing on the past - under the new rules there may be new issues. Greg Shatan: KA this is certainly not the objective - but we could really use facts from the past. Vinay Kesari: Agree with GS. We only know information that is public. The questions would allow us to possibly identify facts that are not currently in the public domain. Greg Shatan: temperature check on doing the questionnaire - general support for it. Could we have volunteers to prepare the questions in the chat. We would need a draft for Monday - CW, MM - this is our drafting group which will return the questions to this group with their draft. 4.Document and Discussion: “The Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdictions (Governing Law and Venue) Relating to Resolution of Disputes” Greg Shatan: we need to get back to working on these documents. especially focused on Disputes involving ICANN 5.Document and Discussion: “Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction” Greg Shatan: needs further review and comments from all participants. 6.Suggestion: Reading List Greg Shatan: We should set up a reading list on our Wiki. Kavouss Arasteh: What do we mean by influence? Andrea Brambilla: (govt of Canada) supports the request for a questionnaire. All the work of WS1 is based on current ICANN jurisdiction and this should not be disturbed - it is more important to reinforce accountability. 7.Possible Use of Experts Greg Shatan: refers to the use of legal. If we have questions we need to submit these to the legal comm. but we are not there yet. 8.AOB Greg Shatan: Any other business? (none). 9. Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned.

2 1

Fwd: ¿Mutual Accountability Round Table?
by CW Mail Nov. 22, 2016

Nov. 22, 2016

Begin forwarded message: > From: CW Mail <mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Subject: ¿Mutual Accountability Round Table? > Date: 21 Nov 2016 19:14:08 GMT+01:00 > To: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org>, "ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> > > >> << The idea of mutual accountability is that multiple actors are accountable to each other. How might this work in ICANN? It would be necessary to carve out a space within the various forms of accountability undertaken within ICANN that are of the principal-agent variety. So where the new Community Powers construct the community as a principal who calls the Board as agent to account, a line of mutual accountability would enable all ICANN structures to call one another to account. So one could imagine a Mutual Accountability Roundtable that meets at each ICANN meeting, perhaps replacing the current Public Forum. The form would be a roundtable of the Board, CEO, and all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, represented by their chairpersons. The roundtable would designate a chairperson for the roundtable from year to year who would be responsible for facilitating each Mutual Accountability Roundtable. Each Roundtable may pick one or two key topics to examine. Each participant could give an account of how his or her constituency addressed the issue, indicating what worked and didn’t work. This could be followed by a discussion on how to improve matters of performance. The purpose would be to create a space for mutual accountability as well as a learning space for improvement.>> > > > Good evening: > > Allow me to express a certain hesitation, if not reservation, about the concept described above. Without being pedantic, we need to reflect upon the meaning of words. > > 1. The original Round Table had the benefit of a famous King. Whereas we do not need Kings or Queens; even a one-year Chair would be quite an Ask. Especially the first year. > On the other hand we have been working very well recently with panels of Co-Chairs, and I do not see why that should not continue in this context. > > 2. SO/AC accountability is, rightly, mainly about the accountability of each entity to its membership, broadly defined. In my view, in practice that is usually going to be about how representatives are appointed and how policy positions (not necessarily 'decisions') are reached. > > To extend that concept to mutual accountability of the SOs & ACs "to each other", is perhaps a step too far: (a) it is not clear how that might be implemented and (b) it would appear to introduce an element of conflict of interest - however mild - between SO/AC representatives' accountability to her/his membership and their accountability "to each other". > > 3. I think that the principal issue is not mutual SO/AC accountability, but rather mutual transparency. Thus for example, should I be representing an SO/AC (which I am not), I should be quite confident of my own accountability to my membership. What I would really need to know is the nature of my counterparts', among the other SO/ACs, accountability to their membership. And I would be uncomfortable should I feel that SO/AC representatives' accountability "to each other" was undermining their accountability to their memberships. Because that would increase the risks of capture. Naturally, should I request transparency from my counterparts, they would expect reciprocity. Thus, 'Mutual Transparency'. > > I trust that Willie Currie, among other colleagues do not feel that I am splitting hairs. > > Regards > > CW > > >

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 21 November
by wafa DAHMANI Nov. 22, 2016

Nov. 22, 2016

Thank you will go through and my appologies for not attending yesterday From: "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> To: "CCWG Accountability" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Sent: Monday, 21 November, 2016 23:01:25 Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 10 | 21 November Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #10 – 21 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/pJDDAw A copy of the action items and notes 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: * Milton and CW to draft a few questions for review by the group. * Everyone to go to our 2 Documents. Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Back - Vinay Kesari 2.Setting the Scene - Vinay Kesari Kavouss Arasteh: I am not optimistic of the results we can achieve here - did not understand the introduction. We are widening the subject instead of focusing. Vinay Kesari: Agree with KA - we need to focus on our core task without removing any possible outcomes. Greg Shatan: Agree. We do not need to identify solutions to problems that have not been identified. Note: discussions surrounding Jorge Cancio’s suggestion of a consultation/questionnaire generated most of the traffic in the chat and this should be read in conjunction with these notes. 3.Work Plan Greg Shatan: will have to redo after this meeting. It seems early for a public consultation. Vidushi Marda: I am new to the group - where are we vs jurisdiction of incorporation. Greg Shatan: best to catch up reading transcripts and the email lists. Jurisdiction of incorporation is not off the table but we have agreed to only consider it if it comes up as the only solution to a given issue. Jorge Cancio: I was proposing a fact finding exercise especially those who have contracts or those who could be considered materially harmed. Greg Shatan: We need more factual information from concerned parties. We need to get a small group working on the list to begin designing this. David McAuley: This should be about getting facts and not opinions. Tijani Ben Jemaa: what are the points we have difficulty to get to consensus on. Greg Shatan: I see it differently - this is about getting factual information from users. Kavouss Arasteh: I have no idea what is a stress test and was not very useful in WS1. What surveys, about what, why? Few people would reply to what I understand what we are talking about - this is not what we have said we would work on. We need to focus on applicability of jurisdiction of contracts. Greg Shatan: We are not looking for legal opinions or theories. What we are discussing is getting real facts from contracted parties - things that have happened. It is in our mandate to get facts. Kavouss Arasteh: you are focusing on the past - under the new rules there may be new issues. Greg Shatan: KA this is certainly not the objective - but we could really use facts from the past. Vinay Kesari: Agree with GS. We only know information that is public. The questions would allow us to possibly identify facts that are not currently in the public domain. Greg Shatan: temperature check on doing the questionnaire - general support for it. Could we have volunteers to prepare the questions in the chat. We would need a draft for Monday - CW, MM - this is our drafting group which will return the questions to this group with their draft. 4.Document and Discussion: “The Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdictions (Governing Law and Venue) Relating to Resolution of Disputes” Greg Shatan: we need to get back to working on these documents. especially focused on Disputes involving ICANN 5.Document and Discussion: “Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction” Greg Shatan: needs further review and comments from all participants. 6.Suggestion: Reading List Greg Shatan: We should set up a reading list on our Wiki. Kavouss Arasteh: What do we mean by influence? Andrea Brambilla: (govt of Canada) supports the request for a questionnaire. All the work of WS1 is based on current ICANN jurisdiction and this should not be disturbed - it is more important to reinforce accountability. 7.Possible Use of Experts Greg Shatan: refers to the use of legal. If we have questions we need to submit these to the legal comm. but we are not there yet. 8.AOB Greg Shatan: Any other business? (none). 9. Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Copies of "Influence of Existing Jurisdictions" document
by Greg Shatan Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

Here are copies of the Google Doc as it currently stands.

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup: Agenda for Today's Meeting at 19:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

All: Attached is the agenda for today's meeting at 19:00 UTC, in both Word and PDF formats. Note that some parts of the world have returned to Standard Time, while others are still on Daylight Savings Time. Please check your local time carefully. We look forward to today's call. Best regards, Greg & Vinay

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
by policy＠paulmcgrady.com Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

3 3

Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document
by Greg Shatan Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

14 32

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
by Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Nov. 15, 2016

Nov. 15, 2016

Dear Parminder, Thank you very much for this contribution. I believe it raises important points about the debate around jurisdiction and should therefore be taken to the discussions in the WS2 subgroup. Contrary to what has been stated by other colleagues, I believe the paper you forwarded brings in new and interesting ideas that are worth evaluating, although I would have concerns with some of them. Anyway, my understanding is that we are currently in a problem assessment phase, where no possible recommendations/alternatives should be discarded beforehand. Regards, Pedro Enviado do meu smartphone Samsung Galaxy. -------- Mensagem original -------- De: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> Data: 13/11/16 17:59 (GMT-03:00) Para: policy(a)paulmcgrady.com, parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction While I don’t support the statement as a whole, I think your dismissal is too indiscriminate. I, too, would completely reject Parminder’s discredited argument that setting rules for a TLD named “pharmacy” will result in the global imposition of rules for the entire pharmaceutical sector (or book, or beauty parlors, etc.). This absurdly exaggerates the influence of TLD registries. Even if it were not based on a false assumption, the idea that because ICANN is incorporated in the US the rules its policy processes and registry operators adopt for these TLDs are somehow controlled by the US government is simply false. I also think that option #1 (incorporating ICANN under international law instead of California) was soundly rejected in WS1 and in fact is not a feasible or even coherently formulated option. Option #2, on the other hand, has some merit and certain aspects of it are worth considering. I see no fallacy in the statement, “With three different jurisdictions over these complementary functions, the possibility of any single one being … able to interfere in ICANN's global governance role will be minimized.” I think this could be considered a prudent political risk mitigation strategy. We are not going to change ICANN’s place of incorporation, and it is unlikely that we will change PTI’s place of incorporation so soon after we have stood up the new corporation. But it is not impractical to consider jurisdictional diversity the next time the RZM contract is renewed. (Note that I am characterizing an alternate jurisdiction as a ‘consideration’ and not as a ‘requirement.’ And longer term, as PTI matures they might also take into consideration the possibility of another jurisdiction. The value of this is debatable, given that PTI is a subsidiary of ICANN, but the possibility of separation was deliberately built into the design of the new arrangements. So in any separation process, jurisdictional diversity might be taken into account. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of policy(a)paulmcgrady.com Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 9:14 AM To: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction Thanks Parminder. The attachment you shared seems to be a compilation of some of the really terrible ideas which have shown up on this List from time to time. Since these terrible ideas have already been addressed and addressed and addressed on this List, I'm not sure that re-addressing them again at this time would prove useful. However, I didn't want anyone to think that silence (to the latest round of trying to push for the unraveling of WS1) was somehow assent. It isn't. We just really have to get on with the real work of this group and stop constantly reopening and re-addressing all of these fringe ideas. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> Date: Tue, November 08, 2016 7:01 pm To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All I thought this may be relevant to those on this list. Regard, parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN's US jurisdiction Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:23:40 +0530 From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org> <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, BestBitsList <bestbits(a)lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>, Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org <forum(a)justnetcoalition.org><mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org> All As you know, the issue of jurisdiction of ICANN is under consideration at ICANN's community process (in the accountability track where there is a sub group discussing this issue). ICANN is currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, from 3rd to 9th November. Today, on the last day of ICANN's Hyderabad meeting, the enclosed statement was issued by key Indian civil society organisations engaged with Internet governance issues, supported by two key global networks involved in this area. The statement expresses the urgent need for transiting ICANN from being under the jurisdiction of one country, presenting the rationale of why this is important to do. It also lists some possible options of doing so, towards beginning a serious action-oriented deliberation on this very important matter. Unlike what is often understood, the jurisdiction issue is not just a matter of sovereign prestige and self respect of the states but concerns vital matters impacting people's rights. This is especially so as the society gets more and more digitised in all areas. We welcome comments and feedback. The statement has been issued by the following Indian civil society organisations. Centre for Internet and Society<http://cis-india.org/>, Bangalore IT for Change<http://www.itforchange.net/>, Bangalore Free Software Movement of India<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Movement_of_India>, Hyderabad Society for Knowledge Commons<http://www.knowledgecommons.in/>, New Delhi Digital Empowerment Foundation<http://defindia.org/>, New Delhi Delhi Science Forum<http://www.delhiscienceforum.net/>, New Delhi Software Freedom Law Center India, New Delhi Third World Network - India<https://twnetwork.org/>, New Delhi It is supported by the following global networks: Association For Progressive Communications<https://www.apc.org/> Just Net Coalition <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>We will soon expand this effort to enlist more global support. Best, Parminder <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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-community

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document
by avri＠acm.org Nov. 15, 2016

Nov. 15, 2016

Phil, Do you believe that all residents and companies in sanctioned countries are terrorists? Should icann not support the legislate interests of people who may live under tyranny of one sort or another? And do you believe that the US is infallible on deciding who is worthy of doing business with ICANN/IANA. That is the problem with having any country or group of countries determining who ICANN can serve.ICANN and especially IANA, need to serve the world impartially. Avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message --------From: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Date: 11/15/16 09:13 (GMT+09:00) To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Cc: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>, ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document I for one do not believe criminal or terrorist organizations should be registry operators. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Farzaneh, As you say, collecting issues is important. We then need to analyze them. In the case of a new gTLD, we would need to determine whether an OFAC license would be necessary for a new gTLD applicant from a sanctioned country. I'm not at all certain that is the case. If it is, I would not jump to the conclusion that this is a "grave uncertainty." I think the italicizes language may be an exercise of caution. ICANN could not possibly say that OFAC is required to issue a license, nor can it ever promise a result from any government or other third party. Hence the caveat. ICANN has sought and received OFAC licenses in the past, not because they are "gracious" but because that's the appropriate thing to do. I have absolutely no reason to believe that ICANN would hesitate to do so in the future. One might wonder if the change in relationship and political climate would lead OFAC to be more stingy with licenses, but in the case of ICANN, I think that would be counterproductive. I'm not minimizing the concern, just saying that we need to analyze each step. Greg On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:37 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi I think collecting issues is very important. As an example, I would like to draw your attention to this paragraph in the New gTLD applicant guidebook: "Legal Compliance -- ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the SDN List). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. In any given case, however, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license." p.1-25 - gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Version 2012-06-04 The paragraph goes so far as to say that ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services even to the residents of santioned countries. ICANN is gracious enough to request for OFAC license for those not in the SDN list but it also says: OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license! Who would apply for a new gtld from sanctioned countries when facing such grave uncertainty. That's only one example. Best Farzaneh On 13 November 2016 at 13:10, avri doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: Hi, As a part time staff member for APC, which signed the letter, I figure I should add my 2 cents. I do not believe the object is to undo the work of WS1 and the establishment of the EC under California rules. That is not an APC goal and I do not think the letter proposes that. But I do believe we need to look at some of the other issues. For example the one that persists to bother me and APC, is that fact that the US can make laws that prohibit ICANN/IANA from doing business with particular countries, whether it is because of boycott or other international reasons. I know we say that has never happened, though there may be some arguments about whether it did or not, but it could happen. Another issue is that given the removal of US oversight the US government commitment made in WSIS and elsewhere to never interfere in IANA relationship with ccTLDs is meaningless. Does this commitment still hold in the current jurisdictional mix if the US government passed laws or made administrative decisions? These are the sorts of thing I think we need to find a answer/solution to. So when I look at the notion of 'immunity' that is the sort I look for. Not that I believe this can be easily achieved. Personally, I do not want to see IANA (the core of the issue and the Internet) prohibited from making a change because of US law, now or ever. I do not believe we can, or even should resolve this in WS2, but we should be aware of these problems and WS2 should recommend that further work after WS2, perhaps, be done to make sure that this and another types of errant US control are not possible. I am personally not looking for relief from the courts on contractual, accountability or EC issues as that is currently part of the accountability solution, and we have yet to see whether that works. It is going to take a few years before we have evidenc on the WS1 solution being effective. But I wonder, must that always be US courts, are there other solutions for some of these court challenges, especially those more applicable to the nationals of other nations. I think there are issues we can't ignore. So collecting the issues and figuring out what further discussion/work needs to be done on them is something that needs to be remembered and dealt with in WS2. Hence my agreement with the fact that a letter was sent indicating that there were concerns that need to be discussed and dealt with. The solution proposed in the letter where just possible avenues to explore, and even if they are impractical, we should not ignore any open issues that people might have. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction -- Farzaneh _______________________________________________ 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

3 3

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction
by Mueller, Milton L Nov. 14, 2016

Nov. 14, 2016

Forgive me, I thought I was sending this to the jurisdiction list but it went to CCWG. Forwarding now to jurisdiction From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:59 PM To: policy(a)paulmcgrady.com; parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction While I don’t support the statement as a whole, I think your dismissal is too indiscriminate. I, too, would completely reject Parminder’s discredited argument that setting rules for a TLD named “pharmacy” will result in the global imposition of rules for the entire pharmaceutical sector (or book, or beauty parlors, etc.). This absurdly exaggerates the influence of TLD registries. Even if it were not based on a false assumption, the idea that because ICANN is incorporated in the US the rules its policy processes and registry operators adopt for these TLDs are somehow controlled by the US government is simply false. I also think that option #1 (incorporating ICANN under international law instead of California) was soundly rejected in WS1 and in fact is not a feasible or even coherently formulated option. Option #2, on the other hand, has some merit and certain aspects of it are worth considering. I see no fallacy in the statement, “With three different jurisdictions over these complementary functions, the possibility of any single one being … able to interfere in ICANN's global governance role will be minimized.” I think this could be considered a prudent political risk mitigation strategy. We are not going to change ICANN’s place of incorporation, and it is unlikely that we will change PTI’s place of incorporation so soon after we have stood up the new corporation. But it is not impractical to consider jurisdictional diversity the next time the RZM contract is renewed. (Note that I am characterizing an alternate jurisdiction as a ‘consideration’ and not as a ‘requirement.’ And longer term, as PTI matures they might also take into consideration the possibility of another jurisdiction. The value of this is debatable, given that PTI is a subsidiary of ICANN, but the possibility of separation was deliberately built into the design of the new arrangements. So in any separation process, jurisdictional diversity might be taken into account. --MM From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of policy(a)paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 9:14 AM To: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>>; CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction Thanks Parminder. The attachment you shared seems to be a compilation of some of the really terrible ideas which have shown up on this List from time to time. Since these terrible ideas have already been addressed and addressed and addressed on this List, I'm not sure that re-addressing them again at this time would prove useful. However, I didn't want anyone to think that silence (to the latest round of trying to push for the unraveling of WS1) was somehow assent. It isn't. We just really have to get on with the real work of this group and stop constantly reopening and re-addressing all of these fringe ideas. Best, Paul -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: ICANN's US jurisdiction From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> Date: Tue, November 08, 2016 7:01 pm To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All I thought this may be relevant to those on this list. Regard, parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: ICANN's US jurisdiction Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:23:40 +0530 From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net> To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org> <governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org><mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org>, BestBitsList <bestbits(a)lists.bestbits.net><mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net>, Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org <forum(a)justnetcoalition.org><mailto:forum@justnetcoalition.org> All As you know, the issue of jurisdiction of ICANN is under consideration at ICANN's community process (in the accountability track where there is a sub group discussing this issue). ICANN is currently meeting in Hyderabad, India, from 3rd to 9th November. Today, on the last day of ICANN's Hyderabad meeting, the enclosed statement was issued by key Indian civil society organisations engaged with Internet governance issues, supported by two key global networks involved in this area. The statement expresses the urgent need for transiting ICANN from being under the jurisdiction of one country, presenting the rationale of why this is important to do. It also lists some possible options of doing so, towards beginning a serious action-oriented deliberation on this very important matter. Unlike what is often understood, the jurisdiction issue is not just a matter of sovereign prestige and self respect of the states but concerns vital matters impacting people's rights. This is especially so as the society gets more and more digitised in all areas. We welcome comments and feedback. The statement has been issued by the following Indian civil society organisations. Centre for Internet and Society<http://cis-india.org/>, Bangalore IT for Change<http://www.itforchange.net/>, Bangalore Free Software Movement of India<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Movement_of_India>, Hyderabad Society for Knowledge Commons<http://www.knowledgecommons.in/>, New Delhi Digital Empowerment Foundation<http://defindia.org/>, New Delhi Delhi Science Forum<http://www.delhiscienceforum.net/>, New Delhi Software Freedom Law Center India, New Delhi Third World Network - India<https://twnetwork.org/>, New Delhi It is supported by the following global networks: Association For Progressive Communications<https://www.apc.org/> Just Net Coalition <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/>We will soon expand this effort to enlist more global support. Best, Parminder <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> <http://justnetcoalition.org/> ________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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-community

1 0