All. There is a working copy of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's report as it was put out for public comment in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H-8AKrebLqPFHNCyUavzgJXxMkNnxo28zhG1CYdN... . Any proposed revisions to the report based on the public comments will be added to this document. For your convenience, I have attached Word and PDF copies of the report to this email. I look forward to our call. Best regards, Greg
Dear Greg, dear all As mentioned in the chat at the last meeting I am sending suggested changes to the report in order to take into account the comments made by Denmark. The purpose is – if more choices of law in the RA and RAA and also choices of Venue in the RA are made available – that it then should be up to Registries and Registrars to decide the applicable law and venue. It should not be part of the negotiation when entering into a contract with ICANN. 1) Page 20, last line: Delete “(or at least to negotiate for)”. 2) Page 21, 1st paragraph: Replace ”The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The registry could simply be able to make a choice from the menu, or it could be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.” with “The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The Sub-group recommends that it should be up to the registry to choose from the menu. It should not be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.” 3) Page 25: Add the following sentence after the last bullet point in the section with the title “Choice of law in Registry Agreements”: “If a menu approach is implemented then it should be up the Registry to choose from the menu.” I hope the above suggestions are helpful. Best, Finn Fra: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Greg Shatan Sendt: 31. januar 2018 06:14 Til: ws2-jurisdiction Emne: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions All. There is a working copy of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's report as it was put out for public comment in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H-8AKrebLqPFHNCyUavzgJXxMkNnxo28zhG1CYdN.... Any proposed revisions to the report based on the public comments will be added to this document. For your convenience, I have attached Word and PDF copies of the report to this email. I look forward to our call. Best regards, Greg
Dear all, I find these comments useful and consistent with our work on this recommendation. Kind regards Jorge Von: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Finn Petersen Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Februar 2018 21:01 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions Dear Greg, dear all As mentioned in the chat at the last meeting I am sending suggested changes to the report in order to take into account the comments made by Denmark. The purpose is – if more choices of law in the RA and RAA and also choices of Venue in the RA are made available – that it then should be up to Registries and Registrars to decide the applicable law and venue. It should not be part of the negotiation when entering into a contract with ICANN. 1) Page 20, last line: Delete “(or at least to negotiate for)”. 2) Page 21, 1st paragraph: Replace ”The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The registry could simply be able to make a choice from the menu, or it could be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.” with “The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The Sub-group recommends that it should be up to the registry to choose from the menu. It should not be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.” 3) Page 25: Add the following sentence after the last bullet point in the section with the title “Choice of law in Registry Agreements”: “If a menu approach is implemented then it should be up the Registry to choose from the menu.” I hope the above suggestions are helpful. Best, Finn Fra: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Greg Shatan Sendt: 31. januar 2018 06:14 Til: ws2-jurisdiction Emne: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions All. There is a working copy of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's report as it was put out for public comment in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H-8AKrebLqPFHNCyUavzgJXxMkNnxo28zhG1CYdN.... Any proposed revisions to the report based on the public comments will be added to this document. For your convenience, I have attached Word and PDF copies of the report to this email. I look forward to our call. Best regards, Greg
Dear all, I do believe this was not a matter we had the time to discuss specifically and it was considered somewhat last minute during the drafting and hence was left open. That being said it makes more sense for the choice to rest solely with the registry. Best, Raphael 2018-02-05 9:22 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear all,
I find these comments useful and consistent with our work on this recommendation.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Finn Petersen *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 4. Februar 2018 21:01 *An:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions
Dear Greg, dear all
As mentioned in the chat at the last meeting I am sending suggested changes to the report in order to take into account the comments made by Denmark.
The purpose is – if more choices of law in the RA and RAA and also choices of Venue in the RA are made available – that it then should be up to Registries and Registrars to decide the applicable law and venue. It should not be part of the negotiation when entering into a contract with ICANN.
1) Page 20, last line: Delete “(or at least to negotiate for)”.
2) Page 21, 1st paragraph: Replace ”The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The registry could simply be able to make a choice from the menu, or it could be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.” with “The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The Sub-group recommends that it should be up to the registry to choose from the menu. It should not be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.”
3) Page 25: Add the following sentence after the last bullet point in the section with the title “Choice of law in Registry Agreements”: “If a menu approach is implemented then it should be up the Registry to choose from the menu.”
I hope the above suggestions are helpful.
Best,
Finn
*Fra:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *På vegne af *Greg Shatan *Sendt:* 31. januar 2018 06:14 *Til:* ws2-jurisdiction *Emne:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions
All.
There is a working copy of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's report as it was put out for public comment in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/ document/d/1H-8AKrebLqPFHNCyUavzgJXxMkNnxo28zhG1CYdNzlI/edit?usp=sharing.
Any proposed revisions to the report based on the public comments will be added to this document.
For your convenience, I have attached Word and PDF copies of the report to this email.
I look forward to our call.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112>
The current consensus position of the Subgroup, as reflected in the Draft Report, provides two options: *The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The registry could simply be able to make a choice from the menu, or it could be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.* *Any change would require discussion in the Subgroup (considering all comments), followed by a consensus decision by the Subgroup to make the change. This is part of the larger "menu" recommendation, where we provide several options for the content of the menu. As such, we will need to look at those options as well, to consider whether the Subgroup supports all of these options if we change our recommendation on choice. * *Please recall the following context for this recommendation, from the Report:* *Any changes to the base agreements are now determined through an amendment procedure, detailed in each agreement (see, e.g., Art. 7.6 of the RA). It is the understanding of this Subgroup that it cannot and would not require ICANN to make amendments to the RA or the RAA through this Recommendation. Not only would that go beyond the stated mandate of the CCWG, but that would also constitute an infringement of the Bylaws (see, e.g., Sec. 1.1(d)(iv) of the Bylaws) and more specifically an infringement of the remit of the GNSO.* As such, the Subgroup is only "*suggesting possible changes to the aforementioned contracts for study and consideration by ICANN the Organization, by the GNSO and by contracted parties.*" Greg On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all,
I do believe this was not a matter we had the time to discuss specifically and it was considered somewhat last minute during the drafting and hence was left open.
That being said it makes more sense for the choice to rest solely with the registry.
Best,
Raphael
2018-02-05 9:22 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear all,
I find these comments useful and consistent with our work on this recommendation.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Finn Petersen *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 4. Februar 2018 21:01 *An:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions
Dear Greg, dear all
As mentioned in the chat at the last meeting I am sending suggested changes to the report in order to take into account the comments made by Denmark.
The purpose is – if more choices of law in the RA and RAA and also choices of Venue in the RA are made available – that it then should be up to Registries and Registrars to decide the applicable law and venue. It should not be part of the negotiation when entering into a contract with ICANN.
1) Page 20, last line: Delete “(or at least to negotiate for)”.
2) Page 21, 1st paragraph: Replace ”The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The registry could simply be able to make a choice from the menu, or it could be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.” with “The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered. The Sub-group recommends that it should be up to the registry to choose from the menu. It should not be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.”
3) Page 25: Add the following sentence after the last bullet point in the section with the title “Choice of law in Registry Agreements”: “If a menu approach is implemented then it should be up the Registry to choose from the menu.”
I hope the above suggestions are helpful.
Best,
Finn
*Fra:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *På vegne af *Greg Shatan *Sendt:* 31. januar 2018 06:14 *Til:* ws2-jurisdiction *Emne:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions
All.
There is a working copy of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's report as it was put out for public comment in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H-8AKrebLqPFHNCyUavzgJXx MkNnxo28zhG1CYdNzlI/edit?usp=sharing.
Any proposed revisions to the report based on the public comments will be added to this document.
For your convenience, I have attached Word and PDF copies of the report to this email.
I look forward to our call.
Best regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112>
participants (4)
-
Finn Petersen -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX