<div dir="ltr"><div>dEAR gREG,</div><div>I have already raised in two communications few questions which are still valid, even though some people ,in a recent peer communication has surprisingly told me believe that I have not raised any question at all during the entire period, which is unfair to say so as I have been very active and raised several questions .However, that is their views for which I do not care. .</div><div>I may send some explanations in regard with some of them if the time permits.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:57 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="DE-CH" vlink="#954F72" link="#0563C1">
<div class="m_3992214368383743598WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Dear Greg and all,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Here is my feedback:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>-<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">The “.swiss” input into the questionnaire still stands, which identifies issues and also some possible solutions.
(see attached)<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>-<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">In addition, I would like to recall the following inputs I made to the “influence document” (which I found here:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>display/WEIA/Jurisdiction</a>):<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">“ICANNs main agreements (with registries and registrars) are generally silent on applicable law. This silence may be construed differently by different courts in different
jurisdictions, although I feel there is a natural tendency in courts to apply its own laws if the agreement is silent and there are internal/national rules that tilt into a certain direction. This means that the choice of applicable law may be limited nowadays
in practice, which in principle may disadvantage stakeholders not familiar with the implicit choice of law.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">At the same time, registry agreements for IGO/Governmental entities have some flexibilities built in as to applicable law or, to be more precise, as to conflicts arising
from diverging obligations coming from the agreement with ICANN and the international law obligations. This is reflected for instance in section 7.16 of the model registry agreement.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="background:yellow;color:rgb(60,120,216)">This flexibility could be extended to other registries confronted with similar conflicts, not only with international law, but also
when confronted with conflicts stemming from national law.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background:yellow"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="background:yellow"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="background:yellow;color:rgb(60,120,216)">The flexibility could also take the form of a more wider recognition of freedom to choose the applicable law for the parties in the
main agreements ICANN has.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">The material you mention has, at least at first glance, some relevant rules of choice of law that in a foreigners eye seem to clearly tilt for the "forum" jurisdiction
(for instance the "government interest analysis test").</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">But, what are the rules followed by California?</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">I see that for “contracts” (most relevant to contracting parties) the second restatement is followed apparently which provides the following:</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">"d.Contract: In the first instance, the courts must give effect to the law chosen by the parties. In the absence of any such agreement, the courts are directed to the “significant
relationship” test of Section 6. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188. The contacts to take into account in determining those principles are:</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">i.the place of contracting,</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">ii.the place of negotiation of the contract,</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">iii.the place of performance,</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">iv.the location of the subject matter of the contract, and</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">v.the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties."</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">It would be interesting to know how these contact points are construed in the relation between ICANN and its contracted parties, i.e. what the place of contracting is,
the place of negotiation, place of performance, etc. - how they are intended to be construed by the contracting parties and what have been the actual analysis (if any) in the cases had up to today in disputes.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">For "torts" (I guess including cases brought for damages by materially harmed parties that are not contractually bound to ICANN) the mentioned "governmental interest analysis"
seems to apply ("California uses this test in determining the law applicable to tort claims.").
</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">This test means that "the law of the forum is presumed to apply unless a party demonstrates otherwise."</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">I feel this could be seen as a significant tilt.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">Experiences on how these rules (both on contracts and torts) apply in practice could be of interest and could be contrasted with ICANN, and registries and registrars
(and other parties) based in other jurisdictions. That fact-finding exercise would also allow us to see whether and in what instances that "tilting" occurs.</span></u><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.2pt"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(60,120,216)">A similar fact-finding should be done for what “applicable law” applies in internal mechanisms (such as the IRP).</span></u><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:53.4pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:88.2pt">
<u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>2)<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Making sure that the hearings of the IRP are location-neutral<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:88.2pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:88.2pt">
<u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span>3)<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal">
</span></span></span><u></u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">In the “multiple layers” doc, under “venue”, I had identified the following issues and solutions:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_3992214368383743598MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:88.2pt"><span lang="EN-US">“Under venue or venues: multiplicity of venues and of providers of dispute resolution mechanisms (be it judicial or arbitration). Flexibilities as to standards, election of providers,
language of proceedings, freedom to choose for the parties.]“ and “I guess that under “venue” we would need to consider the IRP and other internal redress mechanisms and how well they address the needs of a global stakeholder community, in terms of their
composition, the language of proceedings, the venue(s), the providers, etc.].”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I may have missed other important points made before, but I’m sure Secretariat could help in collating all our essential
inputs.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Kind regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Jorge
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Samstag, 12. August 2017 01:13<br>
<b>An:</b> ws2-jurisdiction <<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until <span class="m_3992214368383743598gmail-aqj"><b>11 October</b></span> to submit a
draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">In other words, we have about <b>8 weeks</b> to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach,
if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of
issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Each participant should pick <u>
one</u> issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of <span class="m_3992214368383743598gmail-aqj">23 August</span>. More specifically:</span></b><u></u><u></u></li></ul>
<ul type="disc">
<ul type="circle">
<li class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The sooner, the better</span></b><u></u><u></u></li></ul>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of <span class="m_3992214368383743598gmail-aqj"><b>16 August</b></span> and I would encourage
participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>