[Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation

[Greg Shatan]

Jorge,

Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft.  You say that the
"California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome
of the Menu approach.

As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or
perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions
(e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region).

The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law
for all registry agreements.

I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the
Menu approach.  Do you mean that it is technically possible that every
registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual
outcome?  Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are
vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California"
option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law.

Please help me and the Subgroup understand better.

Thank you,

Greg

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Dear Greg,
>
>
>
> I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts
> are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could
> suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine –
> and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or
> object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been
> supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other
> subgroup participants.
>
>
>
> You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in
> the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent
> out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react
> to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
>
>
>
> I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it
> is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing
> any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected
> nor commented by anyone during more than one week.
>
>
>
> Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a
> potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word
> document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on
> September 19.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
>
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of
> Venue Provisions" Recommendation
>
>
>
> Jorge,
>
>
>
> These changes were made in my role as rapporteur.  A key aspect of the
> rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly
> supports.  Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground"
> prematurely.  In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point
> where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated.  You
> will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options.
>
>
>
> I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for
> offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common
> ground.  However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at
> this time.  Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open.  (I don't
> believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your
> suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by
> me, to reflect where we stand in our process.)  This in no way prevents the
> group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup
> can find common ground.  It merely reflects that we have not already done
> so.
>
>
>
> I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an
> open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of
> letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when
> needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very
> specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion
> open.  I'm sorry that was not clear to you.
>
>
>
> In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a
> recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common
> ground, although this itself would be a "result").  We can also discuss
> whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing
> so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you
> did with the "California" option).  I hope we can move through this
> rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that
> reflects a finding of common ground in the group.
>
>
>
> I hope this clarifies matters.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> In the pdf this is not clear.
>
> Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they
> personal contributions?
>
> I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in
> order to avoid any misunderstandings.
>
> I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that
> clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the
> group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go
> forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed.
>
> I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his
> initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I
> saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to
> my suggestions.
>
> Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes
> or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly
> identify your edits as your personal opinion.
>
> best
>
> Jorge
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ
> An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of
> Venue Provisions" Recommendation
>
> Jorge,
>
> Yes.  This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the
> changes in Word.
>
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> The changes in "red ink" are from you?
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ
> An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
>
> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue
> Provisions" Recommendation
>
> All,
>
> Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF
> formats, found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing (please
> make all changes in SUGGEST mode).
>
> Please review and be prepared to discuss.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170927/f9cd9ee5/attachment-0001.html>