[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 30 January

Wed Feb 1 16:26:41 UTC 2017

Hi,
there will be CCWG-Accountability-WS2 face-to-face Plenary Meeting at
ICANN58 on 10 March. All subgroups discussions - readings, questions would
take place there.

Regards,
Wale

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Benedicto Fonseca Filho <
benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

> Dear Brenda,
> Dear all,
>
> Thank you.
>
> Is the WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup planning to meet on the margins of ICANN
> 58?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Benedicto
>
>
> *Benedicto Fonseca Filho*
> *Director, Department of Scientific and Technological Themes*
> *Ministry of External Relations*
> *Phone: (+5561) 2030-9164 <+55%2061%202030-9164>/9165*
>
> ------------------------------
> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] em nome de MSSI
> Secretariat [mssi-secretariat at icann.org]
> *Enviado:* terça-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2017 11:24
> *Para:* CCWG Accountability
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Assunto:* [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2
> Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 19 | 30 January
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction
> Subgroup Meeting #19* – 30 January 2017 will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/14PRAw
>
>
>
>  A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Brenda Brewer
>
> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
>
> ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> ·
>
> ·         Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments on the list
>
> ·         Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases
> (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
>
> ·         MW has completed his 2 cases.
>
> ·         Re draft question from DM on possibility of ICANN being sued in
> other jurisdictions – sub-group should review and post comment if any this
> week.
>
>
>
> *Notes (including relevant portions of chat):*
>
> *1.  Welcome*
>
> Greg Shatan: (15 participants at start of call). No changes to SOIs.
>
> *2.  Questionnaire         *
>
> *          a.   Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire*
>
>         Greg Shatan: Great deal of discussion. Some requesting 30 days
> after the ICANN58 meeting. Would suggest closing 7 April with no extensions
> possible - as a middle ground. Any comments?
>
> Bernard Turcotte: Reminder that KA has requested 30 days after ICANN 58.
>
> Greg Shatan: yes 7 April would be a compromise.
>
> Avri Doria: sure, give all the time people need.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): I ilke the idea of not extending and looking at
> replies as they come in
>
> John Laprise: the longer the better to allow participation and knowledge
> of the issue.
>
> Greg Shatan: Good points, we have a lot of work to do in the meantime so
> no reason not to extend. Also, we can ask people to respond early and the
> group can consider these as they come in. As such would suggest closing 17
> April which is 30 days after ICANN 58 closes.
>
> Mathieu Weill: A quick work plan note: Mid Apr is 2 months away from
> Johannesburg. Might be difficult to be in a position to have a 1st reading
> by then
>
> David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu
>
> Mathieu Weill: Not that it is a deadline, but it's important to manage
> expectations on timeline
>
> Greg Shatan:(decision) No objections. So, the questionnaire will be taking
> responses until 17 April which is 30 days after ICANN58 and there will be
> no extensions.
>
> Avri Doria: if we work with the replies coming in, then finishing up after
> the 17th might be quick.  and we can make a plea for early responses
> because of the schedule.
>
> *3.    Hypothetical #1 (taken from “Influence of ICANN’s Existing
> Jurisdiction” document, Section C )*
>
> Greg Shatan: This is what I think is the heart of our work. (going through
> the document).
>
> David McAuley: A difficulties I am having is understanding WHAT WENT
> WRONG. Otherwise
>
> Avri Doria: does the nationality of the plaintiff feed in any complexity?
>
> Philip Corwin: On point 4, if the ruling is against ICANN and ICANN
> belives the ruling to be erroneous, it has a right of appeal.
>
> Mathieu Weill: Who is judging on correctly or wrongly decided?
>
> Avri Doria: it is a possible good thing to mark all the points in the
> hypotheticals where some action by ICANN and its Board & EC
>
> Philip Corwin: IMH< the key consideration is that ICANN is HQ'd in a
> jurisdiction with a clear commitment to the rule of law, and that any party
> with standing can initiate litigation regardless of their home jurisdiction.
>
> Avri Doria: Philip sometimes easier said than done
>
> Mathieu Weill: We should check how many litigations in court were
> initiated by parties outside the US (to check how Phil's requirement
> translates into practice)
>
> Avri Doria: As long as someone from the 7 countries does not need to
> appear in court, it might be ok.
>
> Philip Corwin: @Avri--challenges of bringing litigation, especially costs,
> are hardly unique to US
>
> Wale Bakare: Would the decision different in either case?
>
> Avri Doria: i don't know, but i understand some view a physical presence
> as sometimes preferable in terms of making an appeal.
>
> Wale Bakare: In physical's emotions can get involved and perhaps could
> impact on the decision
>
> Avri Doria: often a good thing
>
> Philip Corwin: regardless of the governing law, the court's ruling might
> be pro-ICANN from one judge and anti-ICANN from another. There is no way to
> guarantee 100% consistency in any judicial forum. That's why there are
> rights of appeal.
>
> Avri Doria: they are part of the equation
>
> Mathieu Weill: Having ICANN accountable to other governing laws might
> actually bring additional accountability, for instance related to privacy
>
> Mathieu Weill: This is a great list of factors to compare jurisdiction if
> need be
>
> David McAuley: It might help if we segment questions in 2 ways - Corporate
> Governance questions and Everything else.
>
> Greg Shatan: This could be a template for looking at things.
>
> *4.  Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation         *
>
> *          a.
> Litigations: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en>       *
>
> *          b.  Draft Summary
> Form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing>
>  *
>
>                Greg Shatan: Kudos to MW for being the first to complete
> his.
>
>        David McAuley (RySG): Thanks for that Mathieu - I need to get
> active on my reviews
>
>        Philip Corwin: Facts are often in dispute in litigation, with the
> court being the ultimate finder of facts. It finds the facts, and then it
> applies the relevant law.
>
>        Mathieu Weill: GS will wait for your update to the forms.
>
>        Greg Shatan: Will do.
>
> *          c.  Sign-Up
> Sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing>*
>
> *5   “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section
> C
> a.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing>*
>
>           Greg Shatan: We need to look to other hypotheticals that go to
> this question. KA has suggested a list of questions earlier in the year.
>
> *6.  AOB*
>
> Greg Shatan: DM has drafted question for ICANN Legal. Will consider this
> week.
>
> *7.  Adjourn*
>
> *Decisions:*
>
> ·
>
> ·         Time period for responding to questionnaire will be until 17
> April with no extensions.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170201/74aebe99/attachment-0001.html>