- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction - January 17th 1300UTC meeting moved.
by Bernard Turcotte Jan. 10, 2018

Jan. 10, 2018

All, As per Jorge's comment the 17 January Jurisdiction call at 1300 UTC was conflicting with a GAC call. As such the Greg has requested we move this call to 18 January 1900UTC. Corrected calendar invitations will follow. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 1

Middle East Community Members Statement on ICANN's Jurisdiction
by farzaneh badii Nov. 20, 2017

Nov. 20, 2017

Please find attached the Middle East community members statement on ICANN's jurisdiction. Farzaneh

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed Addition to Jurisdiction Subgroup Report
by Seun Ojedeji Nov. 5, 2017

Nov. 5, 2017

Good write-up. Thanks Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Nov 2, 2017 4:36 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: All, Based on the discussions in the Plenary at ICANN 60, the following task was decided: - Jurisdiction second reading of draft recommendations – Approved with 4 objections but certain edits are required. These include the proposed text from Jorge Cancio with respect to continuing the jurisdiction discussions .... Having reviewed the transcript, including Jorge's intervention, related interventions by others, and Thomas's recapitulation of this point, I have drafted the proposed language below (and also attached) to be added to the Subgroup Report, most likely at the end of the Subgroup Report. I hope that this has captured the spirit of the discussion reasonably well. Greg *FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF JURISDICTION-RELATED CONCERNS* There were a number of concerns raised in the Subgroup where the Subgroup had substantive discussions, but did not get to a point of conclusion. As an example, there were discussions of limited or partial immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion. These concerns were put on the table by different stakeholders, and for these stakeholders, these are legitimate concerns. As these concerns were not discussed to the end, there should be a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability, which was tasked to look into a limited number of issues within a limited period of time and with a limited budget. Therefore, the Subgroup suggests that a further other multistakeholder process of some kind should be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution, of these concerns. We believe that this Report, with its annexes, can be a very useful tool for further debates which will surely take place – whether in another cross-constituency effort or in a future ATRT Review, or in some other ICANN context. The appropriate forum for such discussions is beyond the mandate of the CCWG; however, we encourage the community to build on the work of the Subgroup and prior work in this area. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Proposed Addition to Jurisdiction Subgroup Report
by Greg Shatan Nov. 4, 2017

Nov. 4, 2017

All, Based on the discussions in the Plenary at ICANN 60, the following task was decided: - Jurisdiction second reading of draft recommendations – Approved with 4 objections but certain edits are required. These include the proposed text from Jorge Cancio with respect to continuing the jurisdiction discussions .... Having reviewed the transcript, including Jorge's intervention, related interventions by others, and Thomas's recapitulation of this point, I have drafted the proposed language below (and also attached) to be added to the Subgroup Report, most likely at the end of the Subgroup Report. I hope that this has captured the spirit of the discussion reasonably well. Greg *FURTHER DISCUSSIONS OF JURISDICTION-RELATED CONCERNS* There were a number of concerns raised in the Subgroup where the Subgroup had substantive discussions, but did not get to a point of conclusion. As an example, there were discussions of limited or partial immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion. These concerns were put on the table by different stakeholders, and for these stakeholders, these are legitimate concerns. As these concerns were not discussed to the end, there should be a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability, which was tasked to look into a limited number of issues within a limited period of time and with a limited budget. Therefore, the Subgroup suggests that a further other multistakeholder process of some kind should be considered to allow for further consideration, and potentially resolution, of these concerns. We believe that this Report, with its annexes, can be a very useful tool for further debates which will surely take place – whether in another cross-constituency effort or in a future ATRT Review, or in some other ICANN context. The appropriate forum for such discussions is beyond the mandate of the CCWG; however, we encourage the community to build on the work of the Subgroup and prior work in this area.

3 2

2nd reading of jurisdiction sub group report
by parminder Nov. 4, 2017

Nov. 4, 2017

Greg It is unfortunate that among the few and very weak arguments that you put forward today in the f3f meeting about why customised immunity was never officially discussed in the sub-group you said that this was because it was offered as remedy without showing the issues that it addressed.... This, as I said during the meeting, is a shockingly false statement, and I said that I would provide evidence for it. You came back and stood by your statement. And so, the evidence as I promised is below. You set up a google doc on influence of existing jurisdiction on ICANN (link to it follows) to collect the issues that needed to be addressed, right.... One of the first entries made on it was mine, and it was extensively commented upon (most extensively by yourself).... This was close to the start of the process, near the middle of 2016. The entry on various issues I made was as follows. (cut paste form the doc begins) 1. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its policies –like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions. 2. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries). 3. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries. 4. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public. 5. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property laws. 6. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement, and conditions under it. (ENDS) This entry with many comments is still visible in this doc that you developed, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… All these are directly issues that point towards customised immunity as the remedy -- and lest there be any doubt the connection was explicitly made in group's email discussions. Many of these issues were again underlined by a statement made, in Nov 2016 at Hyderabad ICANN, by nearly all Indian NGOs active in IG area and supported by two largest global coalitions in this area. Pl see http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf . The statement connects these issues to customised immunity as a possible remedy, providing full details. This statement was posted on sub -group's list and discussed. Then during the public comment period (response to the questionnaire, pl see the corresponding ICANN page) many inputs once again raised important issues and linked them to customized immunity as a possible solution.... It is most shocking now at the end of the process to hear from the sub group's chair that customised immunity was always being proposed without showing the issues that it could remedy -- AND THAT WAS THE REASON IT NEVER GOT AN OFFICIAL SLOT FOR DISCUSSION. Greg, you must either disprove what I am saying here, and saying it with documented evidence, or withdraw your statement that undermines the large amount of work that so many of us did, and indeed the whole sub group's working..... We cannot let such false statements to be recorded as the historical records of this group's work, and the transcript of today's f2f meeting is supposed to go as a record annexed to the final report.. Our problem is; there was just too much prejudice, and people, including prominently the process heads/ chairs, were simply not listening to many us, they were tuned out even before the deliberative process begun!! This is not a consultative and participative process, this is something made to look like one.... Look forward to your response parminder sss

3 5

Fwd: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations
by Kavouss Arasteh Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

Dear Co Chair, Good moning to you and to all CCWG urther to the discussions took place at the last CCWG Plenary , ,please finad attached a copy of correspondence received from Steve DelBianco who has kindly prepared the attached draft of three Stress Test the principle of their need to be attached / ome efernced in the CCWG Report on the Jurisdiction and find the most appropriate modality to include them in the outcome of the Jurisdiction activities ,as appropriate. Pls kindly consider them and put thenm into the agenda of the CCWG F2F meeting for approval Regards Kavouss ----- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM Subject: Re: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr < langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> Dear Steve Thank you very much for yr kind actions and effort covering Groso Modo the case Thus should be discussed and approved tomorrow before decisions being taken on the second reading Tks again Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:43, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: Kavouss, As we discussed, I have drafted 3 stress tests relevant to the sanctions recommendation in the latest Jurisdiction report. (attached). If you find this is helpful, you could circulate to the plenary for broader review. Regards, Steve — Steve DelBianco President & CEO NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <(703)%20615-6206> <Stress Tests for WS2 Jurisdiction report [draft v1].pdf> <Stress Tests for WS2 Jurisdiction report [draft v1].docx>

2 1

Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Oct. 26, 2017

Oct. 26, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: acct-staff(a)icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur

9 22

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear Jurisdiction Subgroup, Please see the following email sent to the list by a non-subscriber. FROM: y.elanskaya(a)minsvyaz.ru SUBJECT: RE: [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint RECEIVED: Thu Oct 19 13:45:50 2017 Dear all, Russia fully supports Brazil’s proposal. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that the Subgroup Jurisdiction’s recommendations do not address our expectations for the solution of ICANN jurisdiction challenges and only partly could mitigate some risks but the absence of which makes the whole report unacceptable to us. Best regards, Yulia Elanskaya Deputy Director of International Cooperation Department Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D348DA.CD4AD420] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Okay that's helpful information Milton. Thanks Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 18, 2017 10:03 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: Seun said: If I may, how does our recommendation serve as improvement from the status quo? I mean what category of applicants will start to feel the positive impact of our recommendation? The answer is that SDNs are a very small number of people who are singled out for sanctions (e.g., a known war criminal), whereas most sanctions apply to all nationals of the sanctioned country; e.g. all registrars, all registry applicants and all domain name registrants. So there is a huge improvement if sanctions are removed from ordinary domain name registrants but a few SDNs are excepted. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
by Greg Shatan Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. *During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.* I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan *Rapporteur*

3 5