Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 13 | 13 December
Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #13 – 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw 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: (including relevant portions of the chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Akimbo and SDB on audio only. No changes to SOIs. 2. Poll on Proposed Questions Greg Shatan: Development of questionnaire is ongoing. Interim report on poll about the questionnaire. Current results are for 26 answers we have first 3 questions 92% support to have these going forward (24 of 26). For the 4th question we have 15 in support and 11 against. Question supporting “sending 3 questions only” generated 22 replies 17 supported sending only 3 questions and 5 did not support. Adebunmi Akimbo: .AFIRCA court case is being tried in the US and not in an African court. Would of been better to have an African court decide this. This begs the question what should the rules be to ensure this type of situation should not happen. Greg Shatan: Not our current topic but we can get back to it later. Kavouss Arasteh: support all questions and sending all questions. Greg Shatan: This is a change in your response to the poll now making the results 15 to 11 for question 4 - is this consensus? David McAuley: could take this to the co-chairs? Paul McGrady: Greg, how are decisions made? Is it majority or consensus? There doesn't seem to be consensus on Q4, but there is a slight majority (at least of poll taker Mathieu Weill: Decision process is complex in this situation - when assessing consensus, it is best to refer to the full CCWG-Accountability. (very sensitive issue). Kavouss Arasteh: This group should not make the decision on consensus - we should report the facts (numbers) to the plenary and let them decide. Kavouss Arasteh: As the Co-Chair (MW) , pls asdvise Grec that this Group can not decide on the issue but just to report to CCWG pLENARY. Avri Doria: (audio issues), I will write it out. makes sense to report the failure to have consensus on the poll, but should not ask for them to decide as it was a procedural process. it can decide on its process. Kavouss Arasteh: We can not decide on the process avri doria: the failure was on sending the poll out at all. David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg about doing poll, especially with WS2 low participation rates Greg Shatan: Will discuss with co-chairs if this is ready for the plenary. Paul McGrady: The poll has been done - we need to report the data as it is. Kavouss Arasteh: Consistency or otherwise on Q 4 should be decided by CCWG Plenary Kavouss Arasteh: Sub Group is part of CCWG AND must report to it Kavouss Arasteh: SO/ac ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY ccwg AFTER TWO READINGS KAVOUSS Arasteh: Sorry again for cap ,forgive me Paul McGrady: @Staff, don't forget to include the rest of my comment in the notes, which is that Q4 relates to the unwinding of WS1 Accountability measures by suggesting a change of ICANN formation jurisdictions and it should serve as a chance to ask the Plenary if we should still be considering this (bad) idea 3. Discussion of Preamble (Introduction to Questions) David McAuley: Presentation of draft. Greg Shatan: Comments? Steve DelBianco [BC]: I like the preamble David McAuley: This does not include the KA and MW text I developed at their request which is: 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. Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). This seems to be non-controversial and should be accepted - any objections? Avri Doria: (unclear about the 4th question). Greg Shatan: there is divergence on question 4 but we have agreed to bring this to the plenary as suggested by MW. David McAuley: this group may wish to include the additional language I pasted in the chat. Mathieu Weill: The addition is welcome, I think, David Greg Shatan: Let us do a temperature check for sending the introduction with the additional language (some supports, no objections). Sending without the additional language (only 1 support, no objections). Objection to sending the introduction at all (no objections). Seems there is support for sending the preamble with the additional language proposed by DM. avri doria: i will abstain as i do not accept sending out the poll. 4. Review by CCWG Plenary (discussed and decided in the previous point - poll results regarding the questionnaire will be presented and discussed by the plenary) 5. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process a. How to publish/send out questionnaire Greg Shatan: should be announced by ICANN but not as a formal public comment. Any thoughts? David McAuley: We need to think about details - how long will this run and how to analyze the results - we should only consider facts and not opinions - and we should all agree on a process for doing this (still has misgivings on sending out the questionnaire). avri doria: we could ask icann to create a poll heading somewhere? Paul McGrady: Any comment period of less than 30 days will get us in hot water avri doria: if polls ae becoming part of ICANN practice, they should have a spot on the main ICANN pages Philip Corwin: Agree that question 4 seeks opinions rather than facts, which is why I do not support it. Paul McGrady: @Avri - +1! Greg Shatan: 2 issues are important. avri doria: we would also have to decide on what constitutued fact and what constituted opinion. i bet we have divergence on that. David McAuley (RySG): possibly so Avri Philip Corwin: If we start putting poll questions out for 30 days public comment then this WG will take years to complete. Steve DelBianco [BC]: One lesson learned by the SO/AC Accountability questionnaire: please put numbers on each question so that respondents can designate their response precisely avri doria: i argue for a broader notion of fact, as the definition of fact is often based on social - cultural - political pov, Wale Bakare: As we are seeking public inputs, i believe these are opinions and facts. Greg Shatan: When we say facts, we mean actual experiences that have occurred. David McAuley (RySG): @Avri - these are the things we need to discuss/agree. I think I would disagree with you but it depends. Paul McGrady: factual claims are the best we will get, not accuracy-vetted "facts", I'm afraid. Mathieu Weill: The document Influence of ICANN's existing jurisdiction could help classify the input - experiences, concerns, comments etc. Greg Shatan: very helpful MW. Reminder that we need to work on that document. Steve DelBianco: We took several weeks to decide on the SOAC acct questions which have been sent out. That sub-group will determine if the answers to our questions are valid. what is most important is not the actual question but the answers. David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Steve and the opinions we might get would take us beyond dispute-resolution-based jurisdictional inquiry avri doria: i hope we are not trying to prevent answers that we cn then judge. David McAuley (RySG): beyond, that is Greg Shatan: the SOAC acct. questions received 2 readings and approval by the plenary - which has set a standard. Although our questions our not finalized we would benefit from plenary input. Adjourned.
Hi All Since the call notes show no opposition to sending out the preamble as such, I, who could not attend the call, will like to put on record my opposition to mentioning one part of the group's jurisdiction related mandate and not others. This refers to the following part of the proposed preamble. "Specifically, it asked the subgroup to engage in: Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, namely: “Can ICANN’s accountability be enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions?” The CCWG-Accountability anticipates focusing on the question of applicable law for contracts and dispute settlements. [Final Report, paragraph 234]" ENDS Mandate of the group is a serious issue and should not be played around with. The full mandate mentioned in annex 12 applies, and the above to me appears to be a kind of 'creeping acquisition' exercise to circumscribe the mandate in a manner that suits certain interests, basically those who prefer the jurisdictional status quo and do not want this issues examined and addressed by the 'community'. Lets take and decide issues on merit, of public interest, of justice, equality, democracy, and the such. Let issues not get decided by which parties have the most resources, including time, to invest in these so-called 'open processes' . Obviously, the most well-resourced will have the most resources and time. Governance and policy spaces are meant more to side with those who otherwise have less means and resources, not to augment the power of who already are better off in this matter. That is the tragedy of open multistakeholder processes that are not framed within democratic principles and concepts. Public interest is not the sum of private interests that can assemble, and elbow out others, on a designated space/ table, it is meant to be a different, much higher, thing. parminder On Wednesday 14 December 2016 06:08 AM, MSSI Secretariat wrote:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #13* – 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw
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: (including relevant portions of the chat):*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Akimbo and SDB on audio only. No changes to SOIs.
*2. Poll on Proposed Questions*
Greg Shatan: Development of questionnaire is ongoing. Interim report on poll about the questionnaire. Current results are for 26 answers we have first 3 questions 92% support to have these going forward (24 of 26). For the 4th question we have 15 in support and 11 against. Question supporting “sending 3 questions only” generated 22 replies 17 supported sending only 3 questions and 5 did not support.
Adebunmi Akimbo: .AFIRCA court case is being tried in the US and not in an African court. Would of been better to have an African court decide this. This begs the question what should the rules be to ensure this type of situation should not happen.
Greg Shatan: Not our current topic but we can get back to it later.
Kavouss Arasteh: support all questions and sending all questions.
Greg Shatan: This is a change in your response to the poll now making the results 15 to 11 for question 4 - is this consensus?
David McAuley: could take this to the co-chairs?
Paul McGrady: Greg, how are decisions made? Is it majority or consensus? There doesn't seem to be consensus on Q4, but there is a slight majority (at least of poll taker
Mathieu Weill: Decision process is complex in this situation - when assessing consensus, it is best to refer to the full CCWG-Accountability. (very sensitive issue).
Kavouss Arasteh: This group should not make the decision on consensus - we should report the facts (numbers) to the plenary and let them decide.
Kavouss Arasteh: As the Co-Chair (MW) , pls asdvise Grec that this Group can not decide on the issue but just to report to CCWG pLENARY.
Avri Doria: (audio issues), I will write it out. makes sense to report the failure to have consensus on the poll, but should not ask for them to decide as it was a procedural process. it can decide on its process.
Kavouss Arasteh: We can not decide on the process
avri doria: the failure was on sending the poll out at all.
David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg about doing poll, especially with WS2 low participation rates
Greg Shatan: Will discuss with co-chairs if this is ready for the plenary.
Paul McGrady: The poll has been done - we need to report the data as it is.
Kavouss Arasteh: Consistency or otherwise on Q 4 should be decided by CCWG Plenary
Kavouss Arasteh: Sub Group is part of CCWG AND must report to it
Kavouss Arasteh: SO/ac ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY ccwg AFTER TWO READINGS
KAVOUSS Arasteh: Sorry again for cap ,forgive me
Paul McGrady: @Staff, don't forget to include the rest of my comment in the notes, which is that Q4 relates to the unwinding of WS1 Accountability measures by suggesting a change of ICANN formation jurisdictions and it should serve as a chance to ask the Plenary if we should still be considering this (bad) idea
*3. Discussion of Preamble (Introduction to Questions)*
David McAuley: Presentation of draft.
Greg Shatan: Comments?
Steve DelBianco [BC]: I like the preamble
David McAuley: This does not include the KA and MW text I developed at their request which is: 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.
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). This seems to be non-controversial and should be accepted - any objections?
Avri Doria: (unclear about the 4th question).
Greg Shatan: there is divergence on question 4 but we have agreed to bring this to the plenary as suggested by MW.
David McAuley: this group may wish to include the additional language I pasted in the chat.
Mathieu Weill: The addition is welcome, I think, David
Greg Shatan: Let us do a temperature check for sending the introduction with the additional language (some supports, no objections). Sending without the additional language (only 1 support, no objections). Objection to sending the introduction at all (no objections). Seems there is support for sending the preamble with the additional language proposed by DM.
avri doria: i will abstain as i do not accept sending out the poll.
*4. Review by CCWG Plenary*
(discussed and decided in the previous point - poll results regarding the questionnaire will be presented and discussed by the plenary)
*5. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process*
*a. How to publish/send out questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: should be announced by ICANN but not as a formal public comment. Any thoughts?
David McAuley: We need to think about details - how long will this run and how to analyze the results - we should only consider facts and not opinions - and we should all agree on a process for doing this (still has misgivings on sending out the questionnaire).
avri doria: we could ask icann to create a poll heading somewhere?
Paul McGrady: Any comment period of less than 30 days will get us in hot water
avri doria: if polls ae becoming part of ICANN practice, they should have a spot on the main ICANN pages
Philip Corwin: Agree that question 4 seeks opinions rather than facts, which is why I do not support it.
Paul McGrady: @Avri - +1!
Greg Shatan: 2 issues are important.
avri doria: we would also have to decide on what constitutued fact and what constituted opinion. i bet we have divergence on that.
David McAuley (RySG): possibly so Avri
Philip Corwin: If we start putting poll questions out for 30 days public comment then this WG will take years to complete.
Steve DelBianco [BC]: One lesson learned by the SO/AC Accountability questionnaire: please put numbers on each question so that respondents can designate their response precisely
avri doria: i argue for a broader notion of fact, as the definition of fact is often based on social - cultural - political pov,
Wale Bakare: As we are seeking public inputs, i believe these are opinions and facts.
Greg Shatan: When we say facts, we mean actual experiences that have occurred.
David McAuley (RySG): @Avri - these are the things we need to discuss/agree. I think I would disagree with you but it depends.
Paul McGrady: factual claims are the best we will get, not accuracy-vetted "facts", I'm afraid.
Mathieu Weill: The document Influence of ICANN's existing jurisdiction could help classify the input - experiences, concerns, comments etc.
Greg Shatan: very helpful MW. Reminder that we need to work on that document.
Steve DelBianco: We took several weeks to decide on the SOAC acct questions which have been sent out. That sub-group will determine if the answers to our questions are valid. what is most important is not the actual question but the answers.
David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Steve and the opinions we might get would take us beyond dispute-resolution-based jurisdictional inquiry
avri doria: i hope we are not trying to prevent answers that we cn then judge.
David McAuley (RySG): beyond, that is
Greg Shatan: the SOAC acct. questions received 2 readings and approval by the plenary - which has set a standard. Although our questions our not finalized we would benefit from plenary input. Adjourned.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Parminder, Thank you for your views. Are you suggesting that all of the text in Annex 12 should be brought into the preamble? Greg On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:06 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Hi All
Since the call notes show no opposition to sending out the preamble as such, I, who could not attend the call, will like to put on record my opposition to mentioning one part of the group's jurisdiction related mandate and not others. This refers to the following part of the proposed preamble.
"Specifically, it asked the subgroup to engage in: Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, namely: “Can ICANN’s accountability be enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions?” The CCWG-Accountability anticipates focusing on the question of applicable law for contracts and dispute settlements. [Final Report, paragraph 234]"
ENDS
Mandate of the group is a serious issue and should not be played around with. The full mandate mentioned in annex 12 applies, and the above to me appears to be a kind of 'creeping acquisition' exercise to circumscribe the mandate in a manner that suits certain interests, basically those who prefer the jurisdictional status quo and do not want this issues examined and addressed by the 'community'.
Lets take and decide issues on merit, of public interest, of justice, equality, democracy, and the such. Let issues not get decided by which parties have the most resources, including time, to invest in these so-called 'open processes' . Obviously, the most well-resourced will have the most resources and time. Governance and policy spaces are meant more to side with those who otherwise have less means and resources, not to augment the power of who already are better off in this matter. That is the tragedy of open multistakeholder processes that are not framed within democratic principles and concepts. Public interest is not the sum of private interests that can assemble, and elbow out others, on a designated space/ table, it is meant to be a different, much higher, thing.
parminder
On Wednesday 14 December 2016 06:08 AM, MSSI Secretariat wrote:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #13* – 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw
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: (including relevant portions of the chat):*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Akimbo and SDB on audio only. No changes to SOIs.
*2. Poll on Proposed Questions*
Greg Shatan: Development of questionnaire is ongoing. Interim report on poll about the questionnaire. Current results are for 26 answers we have first 3 questions 92% support to have these going forward (24 of 26). For the 4th question we have 15 in support and 11 against. Question supporting “sending 3 questions only” generated 22 replies 17 supported sending only 3 questions and 5 did not support.
Adebunmi Akimbo: .AFIRCA court case is being tried in the US and not in an African court. Would of been better to have an African court decide this. This begs the question what should the rules be to ensure this type of situation should not happen.
Greg Shatan: Not our current topic but we can get back to it later.
Kavouss Arasteh: support all questions and sending all questions.
Greg Shatan: This is a change in your response to the poll now making the results 15 to 11 for question 4 - is this consensus?
David McAuley: could take this to the co-chairs?
Paul McGrady: Greg, how are decisions made? Is it majority or consensus? There doesn't seem to be consensus on Q4, but there is a slight majority (at least of poll taker
Mathieu Weill: Decision process is complex in this situation - when assessing consensus, it is best to refer to the full CCWG-Accountability. (very sensitive issue).
Kavouss Arasteh: This group should not make the decision on consensus - we should report the facts (numbers) to the plenary and let them decide.
Kavouss Arasteh: As the Co-Chair (MW) , pls asdvise Grec that this Group can not decide on the issue but just to report to CCWG pLENARY.
Avri Doria: (audio issues), I will write it out. makes sense to report the failure to have consensus on the poll, but should not ask for them to decide as it was a procedural process. it can decide on its process.
Kavouss Arasteh: We can not decide on the process
avri doria: the failure was on sending the poll out at all.
David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg about doing poll, especially with WS2 low participation rates
Greg Shatan: Will discuss with co-chairs if this is ready for the plenary.
Paul McGrady: The poll has been done - we need to report the data as it is.
Kavouss Arasteh: Consistency or otherwise on Q 4 should be decided by CCWG Plenary
Kavouss Arasteh: Sub Group is part of CCWG AND must report to it
Kavouss Arasteh: SO/ac ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY ccwg AFTER TWO READINGS
KAVOUSS Arasteh: Sorry again for cap ,forgive me
Paul McGrady: @Staff, don't forget to include the rest of my comment in the notes, which is that Q4 relates to the unwinding of WS1 Accountability measures by suggesting a change of ICANN formation jurisdictions and it should serve as a chance to ask the Plenary if we should still be considering this (bad) idea
*3. Discussion of Preamble (Introduction to Questions)*
David McAuley: Presentation of draft.
Greg Shatan: Comments?
Steve DelBianco [BC]: I like the preamble
David McAuley: This does not include the KA and MW text I developed at their request which is: 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.
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). This seems to be non-controversial and should be accepted - any objections?
Avri Doria: (unclear about the 4th question).
Greg Shatan: there is divergence on question 4 but we have agreed to bring this to the plenary as suggested by MW.
David McAuley: this group may wish to include the additional language I pasted in the chat.
Mathieu Weill: The addition is welcome, I think, David
Greg Shatan: Let us do a temperature check for sending the introduction with the additional language (some supports, no objections). Sending without the additional language (only 1 support, no objections). Objection to sending the introduction at all (no objections). Seems there is support for sending the preamble with the additional language proposed by DM.
avri doria: i will abstain as i do not accept sending out the poll.
*4. Review by CCWG Plenary*
(discussed and decided in the previous point - poll results regarding the questionnaire will be presented and discussed by the plenary)
*5. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process*
*a. How to publish/send out questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: should be announced by ICANN but not as a formal public comment. Any thoughts?
David McAuley: We need to think about details - how long will this run and how to analyze the results - we should only consider facts and not opinions - and we should all agree on a process for doing this (still has misgivings on sending out the questionnaire).
avri doria: we could ask icann to create a poll heading somewhere?
Paul McGrady: Any comment period of less than 30 days will get us in hot water
avri doria: if polls ae becoming part of ICANN practice, they should have a spot on the main ICANN pages
Philip Corwin: Agree that question 4 seeks opinions rather than facts, which is why I do not support it.
Paul McGrady: @Avri - +1!
Greg Shatan: 2 issues are important.
avri doria: we would also have to decide on what constitutued fact and what constituted opinion. i bet we have divergence on that.
David McAuley (RySG): possibly so Avri
Philip Corwin: If we start putting poll questions out for 30 days public comment then this WG will take years to complete.
Steve DelBianco [BC]: One lesson learned by the SO/AC Accountability questionnaire: please put numbers on each question so that respondents can designate their response precisely
avri doria: i argue for a broader notion of fact, as the definition of fact is often based on social - cultural - political pov,
Wale Bakare: As we are seeking public inputs, i believe these are opinions and facts.
Greg Shatan: When we say facts, we mean actual experiences that have occurred.
David McAuley (RySG): @Avri - these are the things we need to discuss/agree. I think I would disagree with you but it depends.
Paul McGrady: factual claims are the best we will get, not accuracy-vetted "facts", I'm afraid.
Mathieu Weill: The document Influence of ICANN's existing jurisdiction could help classify the input - experiences, concerns, comments etc.
Greg Shatan: very helpful MW. Reminder that we need to work on that document.
Steve DelBianco: We took several weeks to decide on the SOAC acct questions which have been sent out. That sub-group will determine if the answers to our questions are valid. what is most important is not the actual question but the answers.
David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Steve and the opinions we might get would take us beyond dispute-resolution-based jurisdictional inquiry
avri doria: i hope we are not trying to prevent answers that we cn then judge.
David McAuley (RySG): beyond, that is
Greg Shatan: the SOAC acct. questions received 2 readings and approval by the plenary - which has set a standard. Although our questions our not finalized we would benefit from plenary input. Adjourned.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Thursday 15 December 2016 08:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Parminder,
Thank you for your views. Are you suggesting that all of the text in Annex 12 should be brought into the preamble?
Greg You can just mention the mandate "as described in Annex 12", which then can be annexed or linked in to the questionnaire (as in fact it already is). Or we can have a more balanced set of excerpts that do not make it look like we are supposed to look only at applicable law for contracts (private law) and not at application of public law of the US on ICANN, which as you would have seen is what has worried most people here. (Incidentally, despite repeated requests, I have not seen a clear and precise formulation of the 'problem' that is faced with regard to the application of contracts related law, or private law, and the kind of resolutions that are possible. Anyone? We are just told, that is what we should be doing, focussing on contract law, but what exactly we should be doing here? I just suspect that their either is not a real problem here, or if there indeed is one, there are some easy resolutions for it, and not so much to discuss about. But I may be wrong. I havent thought too much in this direction. ) Thanks, parminder
Greg
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:06 PM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:
Hi All
Since the call notes show no opposition to sending out the preamble as such, I, who could not attend the call, will like to put on record my opposition to mentioning one part of the group's jurisdiction related mandate and not others. This refers to the following part of the proposed preamble.
"Specifically, it asked the subgroup to engage in: Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, namely: “Can ICANN’s accountability be enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions?” The CCWG-Accountability anticipates focusing on the question of applicable law for contracts and dispute settlements. [Final Report, paragraph 234]"
ENDS
Mandate of the group is a serious issue and should not be played around with. The full mandate mentioned in annex 12 applies, and the above to me appears to be a kind of 'creeping acquisition' exercise to circumscribe the mandate in a manner that suits certain interests, basically those who prefer the jurisdictional status quo and do not want this issues examined and addressed by the 'community'.
Lets take and decide issues on merit, of public interest, of justice, equality, democracy, and the such. Let issues not get decided by which parties have the most resources, including time, to invest in these so-called 'open processes' . Obviously, the most well-resourced will have the most resources and time. Governance and policy spaces are meant more to side with those who otherwise have less means and resources, not to augment the power of who already are better off in this matter. That is the tragedy of open multistakeholder processes that are not framed within democratic principles and concepts. Public interest is not the sum of private interests that can assemble, and elbow out others, on a designated space/ table, it is meant to be a different, much higher, thing.
parminder
On Wednesday 14 December 2016 06:08 AM, MSSI Secretariat wrote:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #13* – 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw <https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw>
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: (including relevant portions of the chat):*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: Akimbo and SDB on audio only. No changes to SOIs.
*2. Poll on Proposed Questions*
Greg Shatan: Development of questionnaire is ongoing. Interim report on poll about the questionnaire. Current results are for 26 answers we have first 3 questions 92% support to have these going forward (24 of 26). For the 4th question we have 15 in support and 11 against. Question supporting “sending 3 questions only” generated 22 replies 17 supported sending only 3 questions and 5 did not support.
Adebunmi Akimbo: .AFIRCA court case is being tried in the US and not in an African court. Would of been better to have an African court decide this. This begs the question what should the rules be to ensure this type of situation should not happen.
Greg Shatan: Not our current topic but we can get back to it later.
Kavouss Arasteh: support all questions and sending all questions.
Greg Shatan: This is a change in your response to the poll now making the results 15 to 11 for question 4 - is this consensus?
David McAuley: could take this to the co-chairs?
Paul McGrady: Greg, how are decisions made? Is it majority or consensus? There doesn't seem to be consensus on Q4, but there is a slight majority (at least of poll taker
Mathieu Weill: Decision process is complex in this situation - when assessing consensus, it is best to refer to the full CCWG-Accountability. (very sensitive issue).
Kavouss Arasteh: This group should not make the decision on consensus - we should report the facts (numbers) to the plenary and let them decide.
Kavouss Arasteh: As the Co-Chair (MW) , pls asdvise Grec that this Group can not decide on the issue but just to report to CCWG pLENARY.
Avri Doria: (audio issues), I will write it out. makes sense to report the failure to have consensus on the poll, but should not ask for them to decide as it was a procedural process. it can decide on its process.
Kavouss Arasteh: We can not decide on the process
avri doria: the failure was on sending the poll out at all.
David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg about doing poll, especially with WS2 low participation rates
Greg Shatan: Will discuss with co-chairs if this is ready for the plenary.
Paul McGrady: The poll has been done - we need to report the data as it is.
Kavouss Arasteh: Consistency or otherwise on Q 4 should be decided by CCWG Plenary
Kavouss Arasteh: Sub Group is part of CCWG AND must report to it
Kavouss Arasteh: SO/ac ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY ccwg AFTER TWO READINGS
KAVOUSS Arasteh: Sorry again for cap ,forgive me
Paul McGrady: @Staff, don't forget to include the rest of my comment in the notes, which is that Q4 relates to the unwinding of WS1 Accountability measures by suggesting a change of ICANN formation jurisdictions and it should serve as a chance to ask the Plenary if we should still be considering this (bad) idea
*3. Discussion of Preamble (Introduction to Questions)*
David McAuley: Presentation of draft.
Greg Shatan: Comments?
Steve DelBianco [BC]: I like the preamble
David McAuley: This does not include the KA and MW text I developed at their request which is: 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.
Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). This seems to be non-controversial and should be accepted - any objections?
Avri Doria: (unclear about the 4th question).
Greg Shatan: there is divergence on question 4 but we have agreed to bring this to the plenary as suggested by MW.
David McAuley: this group may wish to include the additional language I pasted in the chat.
Mathieu Weill: The addition is welcome, I think, David
Greg Shatan: Let us do a temperature check for sending the introduction with the additional language (some supports, no objections). Sending without the additional language (only 1 support, no objections). Objection to sending the introduction at all (no objections). Seems there is support for sending the preamble with the additional language proposed by DM.
avri doria: i will abstain as i do not accept sending out the poll.
*4. Review by CCWG Plenary*
(discussed and decided in the previous point - poll results regarding the questionnaire will be presented and discussed by the plenary)
*5. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process*
*a. How to publish/send out questionnaire*
Greg Shatan: should be announced by ICANN but not as a formal public comment. Any thoughts?
David McAuley: We need to think about details - how long will this run and how to analyze the results - we should only consider facts and not opinions - and we should all agree on a process for doing this (still has misgivings on sending out the questionnaire).
avri doria: we could ask icann to create a poll heading somewhere?
Paul McGrady: Any comment period of less than 30 days will get us in hot water
avri doria: if polls ae becoming part of ICANN practice, they should have a spot on the main ICANN pages
Philip Corwin: Agree that question 4 seeks opinions rather than facts, which is why I do not support it.
Paul McGrady: @Avri - +1!
Greg Shatan: 2 issues are important.
avri doria: we would also have to decide on what constitutued fact and what constituted opinion. i bet we have divergence on that.
David McAuley (RySG): possibly so Avri
Philip Corwin: If we start putting poll questions out for 30 days public comment then this WG will take years to complete.
Steve DelBianco [BC]: One lesson learned by the SO/AC Accountability questionnaire: please put numbers on each question so that respondents can designate their response precisely
avri doria: i argue for a broader notion of fact, as the definition of fact is often based on social - cultural - political pov,
Wale Bakare: As we are seeking public inputs, i believe these are opinions and facts.
Greg Shatan: When we say facts, we mean actual experiences that have occurred.
David McAuley (RySG): @Avri - these are the things we need to discuss/agree. I think I would disagree with you but it depends.
Paul McGrady: factual claims are the best we will get, not accuracy-vetted "facts", I'm afraid.
Mathieu Weill: The document Influence of ICANN's existing jurisdiction could help classify the input - experiences, concerns, comments etc.
Greg Shatan: very helpful MW. Reminder that we need to work on that document.
Steve DelBianco: We took several weeks to decide on the SOAC acct questions which have been sent out. That sub-group will determine if the answers to our questions are valid. what is most important is not the actual question but the answers.
David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Steve and the opinions we might get would take us beyond dispute-resolution-based jurisdictional inquiry
avri doria: i hope we are not trying to prevent answers that we cn then judge.
David McAuley (RySG): beyond, that is
Greg Shatan: the SOAC acct. questions received 2 readings and approval by the plenary - which has set a standard. Although our questions our not finalized we would benefit from plenary input. Adjourned.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
On 14-Dec-16 19:06, parminder wrote:
Since the call notes show no opposition to sending out the preamble as such
While I missed part of the discussion due to connectivity problems, I thought that discussion of the preamble had been postponed. Did we actually walk through it? thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Avri, We did read through the preamble of the proposed questions. We skipped the preamble in the reading of the Human Rights Framework of Interpretation. Greg On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:53 AM avri doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 14-Dec-16 19:06, parminder wrote:
Since the call notes show no opposition to sending out the preamble as
such
While I missed part of the discussion due to connectivity problems, I
thought that discussion of the preamble had been postponed. Did we
actually walk through it?
thanks
avri
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
participants (4)
-
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
MSSI Secretariat -
parminder