Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 28 March 2017
Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 – 28 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/g67RAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [cid:image001.png@01D2A969.FB5CAA20] Action Items: · Staff-GS – Add Christopher Wilkinson to Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff to create email address for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff-GS To send doodle poll to arrange for a meeting of the Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 13 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - (no objections) 3. Administration a) Changes to SOIs (none) b) Questions to ICANN Legal – Status (awaiting response) 4. Questionnaire Update a) Status of current responses – no new responses b) Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team i) Responsibilities (1) Updating the Subgroup on new responses and their status at each meeting (2) Proposing an evaluation framework for responses (a) Responses received will help guide creation of evaluation framework Christopher Wilkinson - I responded but my name does not seem to have been accepted. Greg Shatan - will add. (b) To be approved by the Subgroup ii) Mail list to be created iii) Meeting to be scheduled – Doodle poll to follow 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a) Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Greg Shatan - (no changes) b) Review of Summary Sheet (document) c) Review of Summaries i) Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr - ICANN used to put in a choice of law claue in its contracts which it does not do anymore. ii) State of AZ vs NTIA V2 - MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Greg Shatan - did the court rule on the jurisdiction argument (MW - no mention of it). Any questions? (none). iii) Ben Haim v. Iran – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr: there was a long discussion in the cases regarding which attachment law (state) applied Becky Burr: DC or California Mathieu Weill: I'll check the case and extract the relevant parts Becky Burr: not WOULD have, but potentially could have Becky Burr: because the plaintiffs sought the attachment in DC David McAuley (RySG): just getting wind of this discussion - in the case on screen I think coutrt applied DC law which is a tad unusual on attachment Becky Burr: so the plaintiff controlled here Becky Burr: yes, David, you and I are on the same wavelength Greg Shatan - should we add a field to the form about alternate jurisdictions. Mathieu Weill - Do not think we should theorize about this - we just do our analysis and then look at statistics they yield. Becky Burr: correct Mattieu David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mathieu Greg Shatan - Agree we should not do studies beyond what is provided in the materials. 6. AOB Greg Shatan - (none) 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan - Adjourned. Decisions (none)
Dear Colleagues, Further to our review of these cases during last week’s call, I have made some amendments to the 3 summary forms attached. These changes clarify the Choice of Law section mostly. Best Mathieu De : ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] De la part de MSSI Secretariat Envoyé : jeudi 30 mars 2017 22:26 À : CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc : ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Objet : [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 24 | 28 March 2017 Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 – 28 March 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/g67RAw A copy of the action items and notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Action Items: · Staff-GS – Add Christopher Wilkinson to Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff to create email address for Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team · Staff-GS To send doodle poll to arrange for a meeting of the Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team Notes (includes relevant text from chat): 13 Participants at start of call 1. Welcome 2. Review of Agenda Greg Shatan - (no objections) 3. Administration a) Changes to SOIs (none) b) Questions to ICANN Legal – Status (awaiting response) 4. Questionnaire Update a) Status of current responses – no new responses b) Questionnaire Review/Evaluation Team i) Responsibilities (1) Updating the Subgroup on new responses and their status at each meeting (2) Proposing an evaluation framework for responses (a) Responses received will help guide creation of evaluation framework Christopher Wilkinson - I responded but my name does not seem to have been accepted. Greg Shatan - will add. (b) To be approved by the Subgroup ii) Mail list to be created iii) Meeting to be scheduled – Doodle poll to follow 5. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation a) Review of Sign-up sheet (document) Greg Shatan - (no changes) b) Review of Summary Sheet (document) c) Review of Summaries i) Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr - ICANN used to put in a choice of law claue in its contracts which it does not do anymore. ii) State of AZ vs NTIA V2 - MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Greg Shatan - did the court rule on the jurisdiction argument (MW - no mention of it). Any questions? (none). iii) Ben Haim v. Iran – MW Mathieu Weill - (presentation of summary sheet). Did not feel comfortable filling in the "choice of law/gov. law" field. Becky Burr: there was a long discussion in the cases regarding which attachment law (state) applied Becky Burr: DC or California Mathieu Weill: I'll check the case and extract the relevant parts Becky Burr: not WOULD have, but potentially could have Becky Burr: because the plaintiffs sought the attachment in DC David McAuley (RySG): just getting wind of this discussion - in the case on screen I think coutrt applied DC law which is a tad unusual on attachment Becky Burr: so the plaintiff controlled here Becky Burr: yes, David, you and I are on the same wavelength Greg Shatan - should we add a field to the form about alternate jurisdictions. Mathieu Weill - Do not think we should theorize about this - we just do our analysis and then look at statistics they yield. Becky Burr: correct Mattieu David McAuley (RySG): good point @Mathieu Greg Shatan - Agree we should not do studies beyond what is provided in the materials. 6. AOB Greg Shatan - (none) 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan - Adjourned. Decisions (none)
participants (2)
-
Mathieu Weill -
MSSI Secretariat