All, The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call. Greg & Vinay
Date and time of the meeting? CW On 21 Sep 2016, at 05:29, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call.
Greg & Vinay <Jurisdiction Meeting #4 Agenda.docx>_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
13:00 UTC today. You should have received an invitation from staff. Greg On Wednesday, September 21, 2016, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Date and time of the meeting?
CW
On 21 Sep 2016, at 05:29, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gregshatanipc@gmail.com');>> wrote:
All,
The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call.
Greg & Vinay <Jurisdiction Meeting #4 Agenda.docx>__________________ _____________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
As announced, the statement concerning “Solange jurisdiction”: In the ICANN context, it would mean that principles for a favourable jurisdiction are defined and “so long as” (German solange) these conditions are fulfilled, no change of jurisdiction is required. As we know, at present the U.S. / California is the best jurisdiction because the legal rules support and allow to enforce the complex accountability regime. However, alternative options should be assessed, at present from an academic point of view. I do not see indicators that the U.S. would change its jurisdiction practice concerning ICANN. For those what to know more: In the Solange judgements, the German Constitutional Court held that so long as (German<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language>: solange) EU law had a level of protection of fundamental rights substantially in concurrence with the protection required by the German constitution, the Court would no longer review specific EU acts. Best, Erich Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 05:30 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4 All, The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call. Greg & Vinay
And with this, can we say “so long” to the solange discussion? --MM From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schweighofer Erich Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:07 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4 As announced, the statement concerning “Solange jurisdiction”: In the ICANN context, it would mean that principles for a favourable jurisdiction are defined and “so long as” (German solange) these conditions are fulfilled, no change of jurisdiction is required. As we know, at present the U.S. / California is the best jurisdiction because the legal rules support and allow to enforce the complex accountability regime. However, alternative options should be assessed, at present from an academic point of view. I do not see indicators that the U.S. would change its jurisdiction practice concerning ICANN. For those what to know more: In the Solange judgements, the German Constitutional Court held that so long as (German<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language>: solange) EU law had a level of protection of fundamental rights substantially in concurrence with the protection required by the German constitution, the Court would no longer review specific EU acts. Best, Erich Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 05:30 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4 All, The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call. Greg & Vinay
Dear Erich, The problem is to establish the solange conditions . I do not know how EU respond to that. It is easy to put nice words together but difficult to implement that. I do not share your views that X jurisdiction is or is not the best Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2016, at 22:27, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
And with this, can we say “so long” to the solange discussion?
--MM
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schweighofer Erich Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:07 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4
As announced, the statement concerning “Solange jurisdiction”: In the ICANN context, it would mean that principles for a favourable jurisdiction are defined and “so long as” (German solange) these conditions are fulfilled, no change of jurisdiction is required. As we know, at present the U.S. / California is the best jurisdiction because the legal rules support and allow to enforce the complex accountability regime. However, alternative options should be assessed, at present from an academic point of view. I do not see indicators that the U.S. would change its jurisdiction practice concerning ICANN.
For those what to know more: In the Solange judgements, the German Constitutional Court held that so long as (German: solange) EU law had a level of protection of fundamental rights substantially in concurrence with the protection required by the German constitution, the Court would no longer review specific EU acts.
Best, Erich
Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 05:30 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4
All,
The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call.
Greg & Vinay _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, The start is not so difficult: it is mostly an analysis of content in the various headquarters agreements and NGO acts, with the addition of special requirements of ICANN concerning accountability: The hard core similar to the gap analysis, but broader and with some escape clause (the “Solange” part). This weekend, I studied a bit the Austrian rules in detail, others will follow. Best, Erich Von: Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2016 20:42 An: Mueller, Milton L Cc: Schweighofer Erich; Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4 Dear Erich, The problem is to establish the solange conditions . I do not know how EU respond to that. It is easy to put nice words together but difficult to implement that. I do not share your views that X jurisdiction is or is not the best Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 23 Sep 2016, at 22:27, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: And with this, can we say “so long” to the solange discussion? --MM From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schweighofer Erich Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 1:07 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4 As announced, the statement concerning “Solange jurisdiction”: In the ICANN context, it would mean that principles for a favourable jurisdiction are defined and “so long as” (German solange) these conditions are fulfilled, no change of jurisdiction is required. As we know, at present the U.S. / California is the best jurisdiction because the legal rules support and allow to enforce the complex accountability regime. However, alternative options should be assessed, at present from an academic point of view. I do not see indicators that the U.S. would change its jurisdiction practice concerning ICANN. For those what to know more: In the Solange judgements, the German Constitutional Court held that so long as (German<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language>: solange) EU law had a level of protection of fundamental rights substantially in concurrence with the protection required by the German constitution, the Court would no longer review specific EU acts. Best, Erich Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 05:30 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #4 All, The agenda for meeting #4 is attached. We look forward to the call. Greg & Vinay _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (5)
-
Arasteh -
CW Mail -
Greg Shatan -
Mueller, Milton L -
Schweighofer Erich