[Ws2-jurisdiction] Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
Paul McGrady
policy at paulmcgrady.com
Wed Aug 24 22:34:31 UTC 2016
Thanks Pedro. What would be the purpose of the second document since the
Staff paper is succinct?
Regards,
Paul
Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
policy at paulmcgrady.com
From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:45 PM
To: 'Paul McGrady' <policy at paulmcgrady.com>; 'Perez Galindo, Rafael'
<RPEREZGA at minetur.es>; 'Karen Mulberry' <karen.mulberry at icann.org>;
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Cc: acct-staff at icann.org; thomas at rickert.net
Subject: RES: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
Dear Paul,
Respectfully, even though you may find little in the paper that you dont
agree with, others may have a completely different view.
Anyway, instead of arguing whether staff comments should be part of the main
body or an annex, I would rather suggest that we prepare a separate document
named "ICANN staff contribution to WS2 Jurisdiction discussion" which would
be utilized as an additional input to our work. The main reference should
however remain the Jurisdiction portion of the WS1 report.
Kind regards,
Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)
Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Division of Information Society (DI)
Ministry of External Relations - Brazil
T: + 55 61 2030-6609
-----Mensagem original-----
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Paul McGrady
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2016 12:54
Para: 'Perez Galindo, Rafael'; 'Karen Mulberry'; Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> ; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Cc: acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> ; thomas at rickert.net
<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
Thanks Rafael,
I respectfully disagree. A well-written, thoughtful Staff paper on the
subject should inform our dialogue on this topic and should not be merely
annexed away. It doesnt mean we have to agree with everything written in
the paper, of course (although I find precious little in the paper that I
dont agree with). But, we need not discard it either.
Best,
Paul
Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com> policy at paulmcgrady.com
From: <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Perez Galindo,
Rafael
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:18 AM
To: Karen Mulberry < <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org>
karen.mulberry at icann.org>; <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch; <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Cc: <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org;
<mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
Agree. Staff-written paragraphs about e.g. ICANN operational ability should
not be the basis for discussions, but left as an annex, if needed.
We should kick off discussions on the sole basis of the very text agreed by
the CCWG by consensus in WS1.
Best
Rafael
De: <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Karen Mulberry
Enviado el: martes, 23 de agosto de 2016 18:32
Para: <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch;
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
CC: <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org;
<mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net
Asunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
Jorge,
The Subgroup is free to use the information as it wishes, the intention was
to provide some background from WS1 discussions and references to the
subgroup as it starts its work.
Karen Mulberry
Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives
ICANN
From: " <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <
<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:22 AM
To: Karen Mulberry < <mailto:karen.mulberry at icann.org>
karen.mulberry at icann.org>, " <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org" < <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Cc: ACCT-Staff < <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org>,
"Thomas Rickert ( <mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net)" <
<mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net>
Subject: AW: Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
Thanks for this information.
I wonder whether we are allowed to make comments to the staff document. A
change/edit modus would probably be helpful.
As a general remark, I feel that staff comments/opinions should be clearly
labeled as such and distinguished from what was agreed in the ws1 paper
(i.e. Annex 12), where we said basically the following:
In the summary (points 2 and 5)
Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, namely: Can ICANNs
accountability be
enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions? The
CCWG-Accountability
anticipates focusing on the question of applicable law for contracts and
dispute
settlements.
And in the topic development (starting at point 25):
25 Jurisdiction
26 Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANNs accountability processes
are structured and
operationalized. The fact that ICANN is incorporated under the laws of the
U.S. State of
California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence
of certain accountability
mechanisms. It also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability
mechanisms it can
adopt.
27 The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, very relevant for the
CCWG-Accountability.
ICANN is a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated in California
and subject to
applicable California state laws, applicable U.S. federal laws and both
state and federal court
jurisdiction. ICANN is subject to a provision in paragraph eight1 of the
Affirmation of
Commitments, signed in 2009 between ICANN and the U.S. Government.
28 ICANNs Bylaws (Article XVIII) also state that its principal offices
shall be in California.
29 The CCWG-Accountability has acknowledged that jurisdiction is a
multi-layered issue and has
identified the following "layers:
· Place and jurisdiction of incorporation and operations, including
governance of internal
affairs, tax system, human resources, etc.
· Jurisdiction of places of physical presence.
· Governing law for contracts with registrars and registries and the ability
to sue and be
sued in a specific jurisdiction about contractual relationships.
· Ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction for action or
inaction of staff and for
redress and review of Board action or inaction, including as relates to IRP
outcomes and
other accountability and transparency issues, including the Affirmation of
Commitments.
· Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic
issues (ccTLDs
managers, protected names either for international institutions or country
and other
geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression.
· Meeting NTIA requirements.
30 At this point in the CCWG-Accountabilitys work, the main issues that
need to be investigated
within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN´s existing
jurisdiction may have on the
actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers
primarily to the process
for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of
jurisdiction and of the
applicable laws, but not necessarily the location where ICANN is
incorporated:
· Consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will focus on the
settlement of dispute
jurisdiction issues and include:
o Confirming and assessing the gap analysis, clarifying all concerns
regarding the
multi-layer jurisdiction issue.
o Identifying potential alternatives and benchmarking their ability to match
all
CCWG-Accountability requirements using the current framework.
o Consider potential Work Stream 2 recommendations based on the conclusions
of
this analysis.
31 A specific Subgroup of the CCWG-Accountability will be formed to
undertake this work.
As I commented also in another subgroup, I feel that we should start exactly
where we left the different issues in ws1 (i.e. the final report), and not
try to reword, selectively quote and/or reorder what was decided then.
Hope this is helpful
Regards
Jorge
Von: <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Karen Mulberry
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. August 2016 17:56
An: <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Cc: ACCT-Staff < <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> acct-staff at icann.org>; Thomas
Rickert ( <mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net) <
<mailto:thomas at rickert.net> thomas at rickert.net>
Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staff paper on jurisdiction posted
I wanted to let you know that the staff paper on Jurisdiction has been
posted at <https://community.icann.org/x/khWOAw>
https://community.icann.org/x/khWOAw
Karen Mulberry
Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives
ICANN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160824/0b6a3a98/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list