<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I tend to agree with Kavouss. I feel that the questions raised by Rahul are out of scope. They may be interesting questions, and they may have something to do with "jurisdiction" in one or more of its many meanings, but I don't think it is on point with the issues of ICANN's accountability. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I also support Matthieu's summary list.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg Shatan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear All,</div><div>I think we are going to far and too unnecessary sphere!</div><div>I think Mathew,s resume is far enough</div><div>We should think of various alternatives and options for question we raise and other elements such as timing, implementation and so on</div><div>We should avoid collection of impossible issues for study.</div><div>It might be good to ask colleagues proposing additional questions to also suggest alternative solutions for those questions.</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 20 Mar 2015, at 18:08, Rahul Sharma <<a href="mailto:wisdom.stoic@gmail.com" target="_blank">wisdom.stoic@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">In addition to the below pointers identified by Mathieu, I would like to add a few more questions for discussion:<div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">- place and jurisdiction of incorporation</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">- jurisdiction of places of physical presence</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">- governing law for contracts</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">- ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">- tax system</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"></div><div><br></div><div><ul><li>What laws should determine what domain names (including TLDs) are acceptable (example of '.xxx' domain)?</li><li>What laws determine whether domains from a particular region can be cancelled?</li><li>What laws should determine whether IP addresses or domain names are property or not? Should the local court decision be enforceable across the globe?</li><li>What laws should govern <span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">whether </span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">domain</span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"> seizure can take place based on local court decisions citing IP infringement?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">What laws should determine whether citizens of a particular nation states can apply for gTLDs or not</span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">?</span></li></ul></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Rahul Sharma</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 March 2015 at 02:25, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Carlos, Dear Greg, Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
I fully agree that we need to focus our work on work stream 1 issue,
as was recalled during our last meeting. Still, it is important
however that we can explain why a specific topic was considered
relevant for a work stream. <br>
<br>
Carlos, from your message, I understand that you suggest to identify
the various layers of the jurisdiction issue. My understanding is
that the following layers are mentioned in your messages : <br>
- place and jurisdiction of incorporation<br>
- jurisdiction of places of physical presence<br>
- governing law for contracts<br>
- ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction<br>
- tax system<br>
<br>
I would recommend we use this framework to clarify the associated
requirements. For instance, and I stress this is just personal
brainstorming, for contracts, they need to be in a stable and
predictable legal regime. <br>
The place of incorporation should certainly be in a jurisdiction
with strong corporate governance legislation, providing efficient
accountability, but at the same time, enabling flexibility so that
the multistakeholder model can be translated into this legal
framework. <br>
Places of physical presence need to provide stable labour legal
frameworks(to hire staff), and some level of flexibility for visas
(to accomodate international staff and travel by community members)<br>
Physical presence should also take into account security concerns,
both for the sake of staff as well as for operations. <br>
<br>
This is the kind of requirement (the above list is non exhaustive
and can be challenged) we should look at to determine our next steps
on this question. <br>
<br>
I hope this helps clarify and I encourage the colleagues who brought
up this issue on the list to provide their input. <br>
<br>
best,<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
Le 18/03/2015 19:24, Greg Shatan a écrit :<div><div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I agree with Carlos
that the issue(s) of "jurisdiction" are multi-layered. It's
also important to realize that the term "jurisdiction" is used
to mean several different things (place of incorporation,
places of physical presence, governing law, ability to sue and
be sued, etc.), and discussions about jurisdiction often get
jumbled up for this reason.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">However, I think there
is a simple and more fundamental issue with regard to the
discussion of "jurisdiction" (at least in the sense of "place
of incorporation), before we even get to the substance of such
a discussion.. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It is very important
for the CCWG to focus on Work Stream 1 items, since the IANA
Transition is dependent on completion of these items.
Discussion of ICANN's place of incorporation is a Work Stream
2 item and should not be dealt with in any depth until Work
Stream 1 is complete.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Put another way, the
place of incorporation of ICANN will not be changing before
the IANA Transition, and thus the possibility of such changes
has no place in Work Stream 1. Furthermore, if the CCCWG were
to advance any plan as part of Work Stream 1 to change the
place of incorporation of ICANN after the IANA Transition,
this would be rejected by the NTIA and thus would be an
immense waste of time.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is not to say that
discussions of "jurisdiction" (in all of its meanings and
layers) should not take place. Quite the contrary. These are
valid and important topics, and they should be given a full
and complete airing. We just need to prioritize our work
appropriately.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg Shatan</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Carlos
Raúl Gutiérrez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org" target="_blank">crg@isoc-cr.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear Mathieu,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>thank you for this invitation to comment. First of
all I have to make a disclaimer that I`m not a lawyer
and I feel that we a have a superb group of
knowledgeable and expert lawyers around this issue and I
have little to add to their discussions. Sometimes i’m
even afraid to open my mouth and get hit back with a
strong legal defence attitude, as recently happened to
me trying to make sense of the freedom of expression the
way I understand it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So let me talk of my personal perception on how this
issue has been handled, which has not been satisfactory
from my perspective. And my excuses to all readers if
I’m off the mark again.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The DNS is more global than ever, in different
languages and scripts, with many new contracts in
the languages (and jurisdictions?) of the new
players in new areas of the World. And I think this
is very good for the globalisation of the Internet
and in response of the search for competition,
consumer trust and consumer choice, which for me are
not only one of the 4 values of the AoC, but one of
the most promising in terms of the future
development of the Internet.</li>
<li>Every time the jurisdiction of the corporation
itself is mentioned, I get the feeling that we get
into a rather negative/defensive mode from different
sides, particularly if people are sitting in front
of lawmakers. When I started studying public finance
and taxation long time ago all important global US
corporations where based in Delaware (of all
places). Today some of the most important users of
the DNS are based in Luxembourg or Ireland to the
chagrin of US Tax authorities. From my perspective
until we don’t get an harmonised global tax system,
private initiatives will be looking for the best
balance between where do you business with whom,
under or away from what jurisdiction. The recent
case of a Hong Kong Bank subsidiary in Switzerland
is a cautionary tele to keep in mind.</li>
<li>Then we have the scaremongers who worry not a bout
watching soccer games, but about all the money its
federation makes and does not get taxed and
governed. i.e.FIFA.</li>
</ul>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Obviously between those extreme points of view is
difficult to have an effective discussion on the
"issue of jurisdiction” as you call it, without
explaining if we are talking about the narrow issues
of the global DNS contracts the Board has to sign, or
about the day to day operations of the Corporation, or
the global accountability and transparency standards
under which ALL (as per NetMundial Statement, section
Roadmap) Internet entities should work, so that the
systems remains as it is today (and ICANNs luck to
draw the ticket and become the guinea pig).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So my request is to please make clear on which
layer are we talking about the jurisdiction issue and
why is there a need for a change. For example</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Is the jurisdiction hindering the globalisation
of the DNS because of legal paperwork?</li>
<li>Is the jurisdiction hindering the operations of
the corporation, from security and stability,
COSTS (particularly for review and redress), tax,
human resources, and other operational concerns?</li>
<li>Is the jurisdiction hindering the global public
good in terms of access (including cost of access
for users), human rights, freedom of expression,
competition, etc.?</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And you don’t have the 3 layers I have proposed,
you can choose 6 different ones, but make it clear
from the outset for the benefit of the "legally
challenged", so there is wider participation in this
very interesting discussion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best luck in Istambul </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><span>Carlos
Raúl Gutiérrez</span><br>
<span>_____________________</span><br>
<br>
<span>email: </span><a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org" target="_blank">crg@isoc-cr.org</a><br>
<span>Skype: carlos.raulg</span><br>
<span><a href="tel:%2B506%208335%202487" value="+50683352487" target="_blank">+506 8335
2487</a> (cel)</span><br>
<span><a href="tel:%2B506%204000%202000" value="+50640002000" target="_blank">+506 4000
2000</a> (home)</span><br>
<span><a href="tel:%2B506%202290%203678" value="+50622903678" target="_blank">+506 2290
3678</a> (fax)</span><br>
<span>_____________________</span><br>
<span>Apartado 1571-1000</span><br>
<div><span>San Jose, COSTA RICA</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Mar 18, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Mathieu Weill
<<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
During our call yesterday we decided to engage
with you to gather input on a requirement
based approach to the issue of jurisdiction
which has been raised.<br>
<br>
So far this issue has been raised when
discussing some of the stress tests, the
incorporation of the AoC into the Bylaws, as
well as in generic discussions.<br>
<br>
What we are looking for to ensure we keep our
discussion at the level of accountability and
root it into stakeholder expectations, are
descriptions of accountability requirements
that lead you (or some of you) to raise the
question of jurisdiction. Topics such as
applicable jurisdiction of Icann contracts
have been raised so far for instance.<br>
<br>
Thank you in advance for contributing to
shaping this important aspect of our work.
responses are expected before March 20th so
that we can organize work in Istanbul.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
-- <br>
*****************************<br>
Mathieu WEILL<br>
AFNIC - directeur général<br>
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1
39 30 83 06</a><br>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><br>
Twitter : @mathieuweill<br>
*****************************<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>