[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Action Items for CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting 05 March

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sat Mar 7 03:53:17 UTC 2015


Kavouss,

I believe that the "alternatives" being referred to are alternative
jurisdictions.  And the admonition to "Respect the jurisdiction concern"
was a response by one member to other members who were of the opinion that
the jurisdiction issue should be removed, cut down or made less of a
priority.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

On Friday, March 6, 2015, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
> Thank you all foryour valuable contribution.
> The notion of having similar law firm for both CCWG and CWG is a good one
> since several topics are commom in both group in a near similar manner but
> not iodentical
> The identification of being a link between accountability and
> jurisdiction seems appropriate . Identification of mechanisms that would
> eventually be implemented under certain jurisdictions  is also seems to be
> a positive step - It is not clear what it dies mean " *we would need to
> think about alternatives. Respect the jurisdiction concern"*
>
>
>
> 2015-03-07 2:30 GMT+01:00 Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>>:
>
>> Dear legal sub-team colleagues,
>>
>> I wonder whether we might need to consider doing this in stages?
>>
>> The document as it is steps out a decent set of questions that have been
>> raised by the community, but there is a limit to what firms can do in the
>> time before we have to consult on our proposals.
>>
>> As such I would be relaxed if we sought first responses on a basic
>> question about whether we can have mechanisms that constrain the ICANN
>> Board, and then if a second set of legal advice is sought after that?
>>
>> Happy to hear how this is going to work at our call next week.
>>
>> bests
>> Jordan
>>
>> On 7 March 2015 at 07:19, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brenda.brewer at icann.org');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Action Items and Notes for the *CCWG Accountability LEGAL SubTeam*
>>> call on 05 March will be available here:
>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891283
>>> *Action Items*
>>>
>>> *ACTION ITEM: Include Robin in conversations with law firms.*
>>>
>>> *ACTION ITEM: Provide time slots to Leon to hold call with law firm on
>>> Monday, 9 March.*
>>>
>>> *ACTION ITEM: Robin to refine document before call with law firm for
>>> discussion. *
>>> *Notes*
>>>
>>> *Update on selection process of Law Firm:*
>>>
>>> - Several calls took place with shortlisted candidates.
>>>
>>> - 8 law firms at the beginning of process.
>>>
>>> - 3 shortlisted firms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Feedback:*
>>>
>>> - These decisions should be made by legal team. Who decides which law
>>> firms get shortlisted?
>>>
>>> --> CCWG jumped in to catch up with CWG.
>>>
>>> ---> It is the CWG process - Leon liaised for the CCWG legal committee -
>>> process has been ongoing for few weeks. If CCWG likes firm the CWG hires,
>>> CCWG could use them. Could hire a different firm if not satisfactory but
>>> this would have impact on costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *//Recording was paused due to identification of firms that we do not
>>> yet have authority to release more broadly at this time//*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Firm the CWG hires is not necessarily going to be the one the CCWG
>>> will hire.
>>>
>>> ACTION ITEM: Include Robin in conversations with law firms.
>>>
>>> ACTION ITEM: Provide time slots to Leon to hold call with law firm on
>>> Monday, 9 March.
>>>
>>> - While we have been discussing terms of engagement with candidate, we
>>> have not engaged candidate. There have been discussions on whether it is
>>> appropriate to handle both CWG and CCWG. Law firms were asked if saw
>>> conflict: none of the firms detected issue-based conflicts and confirmed
>>> they would have resources to support both projects. We did not presuppose
>>> CCWG work, did not share documents, but ensured availability of resources
>>> and that there is no CoI.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> //Recording was paused due to identification of firms that we do not yet
>>> have authority to release more broadly at this time//
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Review of legal scoping document*
>>>
>>> Suggestions that this document should be shortened.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Feedback:*
>>>
>>> - We should not take section on concerns and proposals out of document.
>>> Context is needed. Pushback from community if we don't include their
>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> --> Let lawyers expand on initial proposal.
>>>
>>> --> Clarify that these are not the only items we would consider.
>>>
>>> - The document is not too long. Do not waste too much time on editing
>>> the document. It is straightforward. Put jurisdiction on hold. Immunity is
>>> contrary to accountability.
>>>
>>> - Leave all questions that have been proposed in the document - they
>>> reflect genuine concerns from the stakeholders. Jurisdiction is a real
>>> concern. There is a link between accountability and jurisdiction. We are
>>> debating mechanisms that would eventually be implemented under certain
>>> jurisdictions - we would need to think about alternatives. Respect the
>>> jurisdiction concern.
>>>
>>> --> This raises question of: is this WS1 or WS2? To date, it is
>>> considered WS2 due to the time this would require to implement and in light
>>> of declaration from Fadi at hearing. If WS1, this might derail the whole
>>> process.
>>>
>>> --> Lot of pressure on group - we need to ask the question of
>>> jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> --> It is important to get feedback on jurisdiction and to ask
>>> questions. Some of the answers will show that US California jurisdictions
>>> are very strong for accountability and rule of law and offer increasing
>>> amount of flexibility for different methods of accountability. But if
>>> available in other jurisdictions, it should be known. We may return to
>>> jurisdiction discussions in CWG as well.
>>>
>>> --> Discussion about jurisdictional concerns regarding review panels is
>>> certainly an issue. Suggestion that Advisors' guidance be sought.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Conclusion*:
>>>
>>> - Keep document structure as it is.
>>>
>>> - Nothing in the document as it is will be taken out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Panel of experts could be extremely helpful and should be mentioned to
>>> law firms – it is a resource that could be used.
>>>
>>> - Lee Bygrave's guidance could be useful – his participation in Istanbul
>>> meeting is tentative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Proposed Goals*
>>>
>>> Proposed goals: How can we protect ICANN from being prone to capture?
>>> How can we protect ICANN from antitrust law in US?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Feedback*
>>>
>>> - Antitrust review of potential mechanism would be desirable at some
>>> point in process.
>>>
>>> - Concerns about legal subteam coming up with new goals for the CCWG: it
>>> is not appropriate.
>>>
>>> --> We should address mechanisms to prevent the whole system to be prone
>>> to capture. Any change in jurisdiction might affect the whole organization
>>> and its stakeholders regarding effect of antitrust law.
>>>
>>> - Antitrust is not a goal but a byproduct. Capture is a concern across
>>> other communities.
>>>
>>> We are waiting to receive WP1, WP2, ST-PT conclusions.
>>>
>>> ACTION ITEM: Robin to refine document before call with law firm for
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> END
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Brenda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan at internetnz.net.nz');>
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150306/8d819cee/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150306/8d819cee/image001.gif>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list