Hi Greg,

Thanks for your response to my email. 

With respect to the first point, at least we can agree that we are happy to be discussing substance, regardless of our different viewpoints about timing. ;-)

In regard to point 3, I note that the suggested approach also includes a "scoping" step. As I said during yesterday's call, we would initially list all those areas in which ICANN's operations are directly or indirectly affected by national jurisdictions and then, as a following step, evaluate which areas represent problems/issues that we need to assess and make recommendations on. This is precisely the moment where we would be scoping our work, i.e. selecting those aspects of jurisdiction we would like to work on while rejecting others. 

Finally, to point 4, I would say that need legal experts early in our work in order to help us identifying all those different jurisdictional layers. Remember that during WS1 we have made an initial effort to list some of these layers, but I guess we can come further and with more precise results if we are supported by legal experts, both in California/US law and international private law. Happy to discuss this further. 

Kind regards,

Pedro    

 
De: Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Enviado: quarta-feira, 14 de setembro de 2016 15:46
Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Cc: MSSI Secretariat; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #2_8 September 2016

Pedro,

Thanks for your email.  I hope you will be able to make today's call.  A few quick responses below.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

Once again, sorry for missing last week's call. I will do my best to be present in our meeting on Wednesday, although I'm currently in a work-intensive assignment outside of Brasília (untill next weekend).  

In reading the notes below I gladly noticed that we have finally started discussing substance.

​I'm not sure why you say "finally." We started discussing substance on our first call.  We did plow through a fair amount of process on that call, but that is necessary and in my experience typical of "kick-off" calls.  I'll ascribe this to your enthusiasm....​

 
I also observed there are uncertainties with respect to the definition of a work plan. Like Milton Mueller, I am concerned about the excessive amount of time we may take in establishing a work plan and the consequently reduced timespan for substantive discussion and writing of recommendations. In my personal view, dedicated effort should be made during the next three weeks (i.e. untill end of September) to elaborate and agree on a detailled schedule and work process so that we can properly jump into substance from October onwards.

​This is the plan that was outlined on the call and reflected on the second page of the agenda, so I'm glad to see that you are on board with our plan.​
 

To that end, I would humbly recall the suggestion I have presented in Helsinki (see slides attached), which consists of a neutral and fact-based approach to tackle this multi-faceted issue of jurisdiction. 

​Thank you for your suggested approach.  I think we need to define the scope/focus/purpose of this subgroup before we start putting together scenarios of the type in (2).  For the sake of clarity, I would suggest we not call efforts at identifying ICANN's contacts with national jurisdictions "scenarios".​
 

In sum, the approach consists of the following steps:   

(1) Putting together a list of scenarios (areas) where ICANN has to abide to national jurisdictions; 
(2) Evaluation whether identified scenarios (areas) represent concerns vis-à-vis ICANN’s global mission; 
(3) Identification of plausible alternatives; 
(4) Drafting of recommendations;

​Do you see this as being applicable in any way to the "Gap Analysis" that we need to conduct?  As I see it, the "Gap Analysis" relates to the effect of "jurisdiction" (in one or more senses of the word) on the Accountability WS1 proposal (and I would suggest, on the CWG Stewardship proposal as well).  ​
 

In fact, the discussion initiated during last week's call about the legal nature of ICANN's remote offices and hubs is already a good start to achieve the goal of step 1. I believe we should pursue this kind of discussion and deepen it with the help of legal experts. 

​We will need to discuss how and what kind of legal experts we should seek.​
 

Kind regards,

Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
 
Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil

  

De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] em nome de MSSI Secretariat [mssi-secretariat@icann.org]
Enviado: sábado, 10 de setembro de 2016 5:50
Para: CCWG-Accountability
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Assunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #2_8 September 2016

Hello all,

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #2 – 8 September 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/YhKsAw

 

A copy of the notes may be found below.

 

Thank you.

 

With kind regards,

Brenda Brewer 

MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant

ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

 

Notes

Welcome/Admin

Tatiana Tropina audio only for the moment.

No changes to SOIs.

Document: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61608546&preview=/61608546/61611662/CopyofWS2JurisdictionStaffIssuesPaper.pdf

•  Meeting Time Rotation

Greg Shatan: will rotate between 1300 and 1900 slots leaving aside the 0500. May vary days of the week but will avoid 1900 on Friday.

Kavouss Arasteh: could we shift 1900 to 2000?

Bernard Turcotte: Schedule will be reviewed with change to daylight savings later in the fall.

•  Work Plan and Schedule Overview (attached). Looking to have a deliverable complete in February 2017. 

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61608546&preview=/61608546/61611660/Jurisdiction%20Agenda%20and%20Overview%20for%20Meeting%202.pdf

Greg Shatan: This work plan assumes we are a Complex project. Presentation of the slide.

Milton Mueller: this schedule seems unrealistic to me. We take 2.5 months to develop a work plan and don't talk substance until December, then we complete our "deliverable" in only one month?

David McAuley: We may be able to get into substance by asking participants to contribute to a gap analysis between the accountability framework that is being implemented vs its applicability vs jurisdictions.

Greg Shatan: Need a rolling list of action items. The first item should be this gap analysis.

Farzaneh Badii: Greg as to gap analysis you say in the doc that: I think there was a general conclusion that ICANN's current jurisdiction didn't result in any significant "gaps" 
relating to ICANN accountability. Whether there is a formal "gap analysis" is another question, and one we need to explore.

David McAuley: Do not remember any formal gap analysis from WS1. This is about the settlement of disputes jursidiction.

Kavouss Arasteh: there was no formal conclusion in WS1 that there was no gap.

 Kavouss Arasteh:  was  NOTa general conclusion that ICANN's current jurisdiction didn't result in any significant "gaps" relating to ICANN accountability. Whether there is a 
formal "gap analysis" is another question, and one we need to explore.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): We had very general discussions - that is what we did... 

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): anyway what is on the ws1 final papers is what represents our agreements...

David McAuley: agree w/Kavouss re gap - we have to check

•  Plan to Develop Detailed Work Plan & Schedule

        •  Plan for September/October (see attached)

        •  Suggestions for overall Work Plan

        •  Our Goal is a Deliverable 

•  Discussion of Scope

        •  Do we begin with Scope?

                 •  Jordan Carter lightning talk suggested being “upfront about our interests”

        •  Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper, as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup)

Kavouss Arasteh:  Not in favor of Applicable Law?

Greg Shatan: no issue since it is in Annex 12.

David McAuley: disputes should include legal actions vs ICANN in various jurisdictions?

Milton Mueller: so jurisdictional effects on two distinct things: 1) accountability mechanisms; 2) actual operation of policies (whatever that means) And by 2) we are referring 
primarily to dispute resolution

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): At the same time we said that this refers "primarily" to 1) settlement of disputes, including choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws, what disputes "within ICANN" means could also be useful.

Greg Shatan: Within ICANN implies actors within ICANN but it would seem undluly restrictive to say this only includes ICANN's internal dispute resolution processes. 

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): within ICANN  I guess covers all parties affected by ICANN decisions and which may bring an internal claim against it.

Kavouss Arasteh: why NOT NECESSARILY?

David McAuley: From WS1 recollection the NECESSARILY comes in if the gap analysis notes that the accountability mechanisms are broken (material problem) because of jurisdiction.

Edward Morris: My recollection is the same as David's

David McAuley: Thanks Kavouss, and I think that is part of our task. Good question you asked.

Milton Mueller: I think many of these points could be best pursued on the list, in writing

David McAuley: +1 Milton

Avri Doria: so ICANN is only incorporated in one place and these lesser 'registrations' do not affect jurisdiction? Registrations and their relation to incorporation are essentially different with respect to jurisdictional obligations? Is so where are jurisdictional issues related to multiple registrations dealt with?

Vinay Kesari: Agree with Paul. I think ICANN has gone on record stating specifically that local offices are subject to local laws on issues such as employment.

Kavouss Arasteh: best to use both email list and Google doc. As to this question is it not too detailed at this time?

Avri Doria: what is the status of the ICANN presence in non-US jurisdiction?

Greg Shatan: Action Item - this should be answered by ICANN legal.

Samantha Eisner: We have to adhere to laws that allow us to have offices in different locations but I can confirm that we have not incorporated in any other location

Samantha Eisner: ICANN typically is a "branch" location or a registered foreign office equivalent 

Jeff Neuman: I would like to know the difference between "Engagement Centers", "HUBs", "Offices", etc/

Avri Doria: Not incorporated? Also not registered as some sort of company?

Jeff Neuman: Is there a way to get those definitions from ICANN staff?

Jeff Neuman: I have to admit I never understood Fadi's distinctions

Samantha Eisner: Yes, Jeff

Greg Shatan: Will start the next version of the google doc and circulate.

Vinay Kesari: Hi Avri, many countries (India for example) allow a foreign company to set up a 
representative/ branch office locally. This is not a separate legal entity, can't sue/ be sued. But it 
requires a registration

        •  Creation of Scope Document?

•  Other Potential Inputs to our Work

        •  More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks

        •  Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope)

        •  Experts/Legal Advice 

•  AOB

•  Adjourn

Greg Shatan: Adjourned

 


_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction