[Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law

Mon Sep 11 14:48:21 UTC 2017

All,

As many of you are already aware, ICANN does in fact have defined
"Geographic Regions," and has had these in place since at least 2000.
These are widely used in various ICANN processes.

These are currently enshrined and defined as "Geographic Regions" in
Section 7.5 of the ICANN Bylaws.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article7

Section 7.5 reads, in pertinent part:

As used in these Bylaws, each of the following is considered to be a
"*Geographic
Region*": (a) Europe; (b) Asia/Australia/Pacific; (c) Latin
America/Caribbean islands; (d) Africa; and (e) North America. The specific
countries included in each Geographic Region shall be determined by the
Board, and this *Section 7.5* shall be reviewed by the Board from time to
time (and in any event at least once every three years) to determine
whether any change is appropriate, taking account of the evolution of the
Internet.

These were most recently studied in a CCWG, which issued a report in 2015,
after 4 years of work.
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/geo-regions-2015-12-23-en

A list of countries, with their corresponding ICANN Geographic Regions, may
be found here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/regions (I assume they may be
found elsewhere, as well, but this is where I found them).

While these groupings may be considered "subjective" (and the CCWG's Final
Report discusses this point), I don't think it can be said that "there is
no agreed definition of region" for ICANN purposes.

I hope this information helps ground the discussion in fact.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I also think that Bekie's idea is interesting and worth pursuing. A
> registry or registrar in contracts with ICANN should have the possibility
> to choose jurisdiction in California or in the ICANN region they belong to
> of their choice - ideally, there should be several possibilities for
> “regional jurisdiction, so e.g. European registries and registrars could
> choose between Swiss, Dutch or Danish or some other law.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Finn
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af *Schweighofer Erich
> *Sendt:* 11. september 2017 07:20
> *Til:* Kavouss Arasteh; Burr, Becky; ws2-jurisdiction
> *Emne:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I would support Beck Burr. It makes good sense to recommand regional
> arbitration courts that know the ICANN system and are established in
> jurisdictions with only necessary interference in arbitation (e.g. due
> process, transparency, rule of law).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Erich
>
>
>
> *Von: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> *Gesendet: *Montag, 11. September 2017 07:12
> *An: *Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at team.neustar>; ws2-jurisdiction
> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Betreff: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law
>
>
>
> Dear Beckie
>
> Thanks for your views to which I totally disagree as a) thgere is no
> regional jurisdiction and b) there is no agreed definition of region. It is
> Strange that such a competent person like you taking about Something which
> does  not  exist t and can not exist as region is a term totally
> subjdective and can in no way be used for jurisdiction
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Burr, Becky via Ws2-jurisdiction <
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> wrote:
>
> FWIW, punitive damages are not usually permitted in contract disputes – I
> wonder why ICANN includes them at all.
>
>
>
> Also, rather than requiring ICANN to agree to submit to the jurisdiction
> of every country where it has a relationship with a registry or registrar,
> is it worth considering regional jurisdiction?  Contracts with European
> registries and registrars could specify Swiss or Dutch or some other law,
> etc.?
>
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW DC 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932 <(202)%20533-2932>  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367
> <(202)%20352-6367>
>
>
>
> *Follow Neustar:* LinkedIn */* Twitter
> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary.
> ------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this email message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this email message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
>
>
> *From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Date: *Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:19 PM
> *To: *"ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] issues on applicable law
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Here are, for your convenience, the two issues I have tried to briefly
> explain during today’s conference call, for your consideration.
>
>
>
> As said, the main thought is to reduce uncertainty, and clarify that the
> parties to the registry agreements have an effective freedom to choose the
> applicable law and to apply a principle of subsidiarity that may reduce
> potential conflicts with the national laws where they are based.
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> 1.    *Issue: *The law applicable to the Registry Agreement has been
> identified as being the main issue:
>
>
>
> The Registry Agreement contains no provision relative to the choice of
> jurisdiction, the applicable law consequently not being defined by the
> Agreement.
>
> This creates great legal uncertainty and a potential issue as regards the
> jurisdiction given that it would be the prerogative of the arbitrators or
> the judges having jurisdiction -who could come from a US Court- to
> determine what law governs the relationship between ICANN and the registry.
>
> Pursuant to the current business practice, the applicable law is that of
> the party that provides the service in question, i.e. ICANN, a priori. A
> registry should therefore expect the potentially applicable law to be the
> law of the State of California.
>
> The applicable law further determines the faculty of ICANN to claim
> punitive or exemplary damages (i.e. under US law, damages highly surpassing
> the damage actually suffered, in order to punish a behavior), in the event
> the registry were to breach the contract in a deliberate and repeated
> manner (section 5.2 of the Registry Agreement.) This well-established
> institution of Common Law is non-existent under Swiss law, which follows
> the principle of compensation (damages are used to repair the damage but
> cannot enrich the claimant,) and should be considered to be contrary to
> public order. Were the Swiss law to apply to the Agreement, such damages
> would not be granted. Following the principles of the institutions typical
> to the Common Law provided for in the Registry Agreement poses issues of
> compatibility with other legal orders and suggests that Californian law
> would -a priori- apply to the Registry Agreement.
>
>
>
> *Possible solutions:*
>
>
>
> The applicable law should be determined on the basis of the legitimate
> expectations which the parties may have in terms of applicable law. It is
> understandable and appropriate that the fundamental provisions or duties
> contained in the Registry Agreement should apply equally to all registries
> around the world and be therefore interpreted in a uniform way.
>
>
>
> Beyond a few provisions and duties which are absolutely fundamental, it
> would be judicious and consistent with a legitimate expectation that the
> contractual relationship between ICANN and a registry be subject to the
> national law of the latter. The foregoing is all the more reasonable given
> that the manager of a generic domain (TLD) is delegated broad powers, as it
> is within its scope to establish the purpose of the domain, the
> eligibility, or the terms of the assignment of domain names, not to mention
> that it has great freedom as to the way in which a domain is actually
> managed.
>
>
>
> There already exist special provisions for registries that are
> IGO/Governmental entities (section 7.16 registry agreement): if
> international law is at stake, there is a procedure (mediation and
> arbitration ex 5.2.) to resolve disputes between the registry and ICANN –
> this special provision could be extended:
>
> -           To other registries that are not IGOs/Public authorities
>
> -           To cover not only “international law obligations” but also
> national law obligations
>
>
>
>
>
> 2.    *Issue: **arbitration clause*
>
>
>
> With regard to territorial jurisdiction, the arbitration clause (section
> 5.2 of the Registry Agreement entitled "Arbitration text for
> intergovernmental organizations or governmental entities") has allowed the
> ".swiss" registry to submit itself to the arbitration of the International
> Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva,
> Switzerland. This provision also provides for some flexibilities restricted
> to IGOs or governmental entities as regards the competent court.
>
>
>
> However these flexibilities are not open to all registry operators.
>
>
>
> *Possible solutions:*
>
>
>
> It would be wise in our opinion:
>
> - to also allow private registries to decide on the choice of their
> arbitration/competent court;
>
> - to broaden the possibilities of choice for all registries (by principle,
> to choose an arbitration recognized in each country.)
>
>
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> Hope this may be considered.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Jorge Cancio *
>
>
>
> International Relations
>
> Federal Department of the Environment,
> Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC
>
> Federal Office of Communications OFCOM
>
> Zukunftstrasse 44, CH 2501 Biel
>
> Tel. +41 58 460 54 58 <+41%2058%20460%2054%2058> (direct)
>
> Tel. +41 32 327 55 11 <+41%2032%20327%2055%2011> (office)
>
> Fax +41 58 460 54 66 <+41%2058%20460%2054%2066>
>
> mailto: jorge.cancio at bakom.admin.ch
>
> www.bakom.admin.ch
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bakom.admin.ch_&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WCjv7z0Nza1tNJQJiHnGUpHMklTqTn52IfIOcBKzBtw&s=3nEqt43-48p3-o5fgYdwVLwTOmyBSWh5nAGRz6Iegyo&e=>
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01D2F585.7A604270]
>
>
>
> Igf2017.swiss
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__igf2017.swiss_&d=DwMFAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=WCjv7z0Nza1tNJQJiHnGUpHMklTqTn52IfIOcBKzBtw&s=0es-R80LxKqpCDNcQ2Rk6O0ALSAJloNeMjjkepYX-Qk&e=>
>
> info at igf2017.swiss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170911/715b483e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12299 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170911/715b483e/image001-0001.png>