[Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for Suggested Revisions

Tue Feb 6 06:03:28 UTC 2018

The current consensus position of the Subgroup, as reflected in the Draft
Report, provides two options:

*The method of “choosing” from the menu also needs to be considered.  The
registry could simply be able to make a choice from the menu, or it could
be part of the registry’s negotiations with ICANN.*

*Any change would require discussion in the Subgroup (considering all
comments), followed by a consensus decision by the Subgroup to make the
change. This is part of the larger "menu" recommendation, where we provide
several options for the content of the menu. As such, we will need to look
at those options as well, to consider whether the Subgroup supports all of
these options if we change our recommendation on choice. *

*Please recall the following context for this recommendation, from the
Report:*

*Any changes to the base agreements are now determined through an amendment
procedure, detailed in each agreement (see, e.g., Art. 7.6 of the RA). It
is the understanding of this Subgroup that it cannot and would not require
ICANN to make amendments to the RA or the RAA through this Recommendation.
Not only would that go beyond the stated mandate of the CCWG, but that
would also constitute an infringement of the Bylaws (see, e.g., Sec.
1.1(d)(iv) of the Bylaws) and more specifically an infringement of the
remit of the GNSO.*

As such, the Subgroup is only "*suggesting possible changes to the
aforementioned contracts for study and consideration by ICANN the
Organization, by the GNSO and by contracted parties.*"

Greg

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <
raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I do believe this was not a matter we had the time to discuss specifically
> and it was considered somewhat last minute during the drafting and hence
> was left open.
>
> That being said it makes more sense for the choice to rest solely with the
> registry.
>
> Best,
>
> Raphael
>
>
>
> 2018-02-05 9:22 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I find these comments useful and consistent with our work on this
>> recommendation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> *Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *Im
>> Auftrag von *Finn Petersen
>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 4. Februar 2018 21:01
>> *An:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <
>> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft
>> Report for Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Greg, dear all
>>
>>
>>
>> As mentioned in the chat at the last meeting I am sending suggested
>> changes to the report in order to take into account the comments made by
>> Denmark.
>>
>>
>>
>> The purpose is – if more choices of law in the RA and RAA and also
>> choices of Venue in the RA are made available – that it then should be up
>> to Registries and Registrars to decide the applicable law and venue. It
>> should not be part of the negotiation when entering into a contract with
>> ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1)      Page 20, last line: Delete “(or at least to negotiate for)”.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2)      Page 21, 1st paragraph: Replace ”The method of “choosing” from
>> the menu also needs to be considered. The registry could simply be able to
>> make a choice from the menu, or it could be part of the registry’s
>> negotiations with ICANN.” with “The method of “choosing” from the menu also
>> needs to be considered. The Sub-group recommends that it should be up to
>> the registry to choose from the menu. It should not be part of the
>> registry’s negotiations with ICANN.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 3)      Page 25: Add the following sentence after the last bullet point
>> in the section with the title “Choice of law in Registry Agreements”: “If a
>> menu approach is implemented then it should be up the Registry to choose
>> from the menu.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope the above suggestions are helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Finn
>>
>>
>>
>> *Fra:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *På vegne af *Greg Shatan
>> *Sendt:* 31. januar 2018 06:14
>> *Til:* ws2-jurisdiction
>> *Emne:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Copy of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report
>> for Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> All.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a working copy of the Jurisdiction Subgroup's report as it was
>> put out for public comment in Google Docs at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H-8AKrebLqPFHNCyUavzgJXx
>> MkNnxo28zhG1CYdNzlI/edit?usp=sharing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any proposed revisions to the report based on the public comments will be
>> added to this document.
>>
>>
>>
>> For your convenience, I have attached Word and PDF copies of the report
>> to this email.
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to our call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
> LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
> @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20180206/fe937a03/attachment-0001.html>