[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-staff_acct] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #6_ 05 October 2016

Wed Oct 5 21:15:22 UTC 2016

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup, Meeting #6 -
05 October 2016 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/RQi4Aw

A copy of the notes may be found below.

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Yvette Guigneaux
Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094
yvette.guigneaux at icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux at icann.org> | www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

________________________________

WS2 - Jursidiction Subgroup Meeting #6 | Wednesday, 05 October 16| 13:00 UTC

Notes (including relevant parts of chat):

20 participants at the start of the meeting.

1.            Welcome

*        Greg Shatan: No changes.
2.            Scope of our Work

*        Greg Shatan: I believe we have not yet settled the scope of our work. We can look at the EFFECTS of the place of incorporation.

*        Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Is there any new proposal on the scope of our work? We still have Annex 12 approved by the community in Marrakech - that should be our basis...

*        David McAuley: Annex 12, paragraph 30 seems pretty clear: At this point WS2's focus should be on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues - in that effort we should include confirming and assessing not the "gap" but the "gap analysis" -meaning, IMO, the provisions we have put in place for dispute resolutions - will they/do they work?

*        Jean-Jacques Subrenat: For item 3 on our agenda, I will refer to a document of which I was a co-author, "Improving Institutional Confidence of ICANN", see archive.icann.org/en/psc/iic/improving-confidence-ne.pdf

*        Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel the discussion on scope gets us into a circle... until we do not tackle the issues potentially under the scope agreed in Marrakech we won't see whether they are or not off-limits

*        Tatiana Tropina: It feels quite good - you miss the couple of calls due to the tight travel schedule, and here we go - moving headquarters, not moving headquarters. My opinion stays the same - this is completely out of scope.

*        Tatiana Tropina: Jorge, a rare case when I agree with you :D

*        David McAuley: Our job is to look at alternatives vs dispute resolution period.

*        Jean-Jacques Subrenat: 1) In "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008-09, I as one of the co-authors had proposed the notion of "additional jurisdiction", rather than "alternative jurisdiction". This was important: ICANN Headquarters would not change, but jurisdiction could be added for non-contract aspects.

*        Phil Corwin: vs arguing if it is in scope - does it make any sense discussing this possibility given there are no gaps, we have spent much money and time on making this under California law. Looking at alternates would be a significant undertaking which would long expensive and arduous. Agree with DM vs our scope.  I agree with one of the previous speakers (David?) that we could agree to distinguish 2 things, contract-related items (US/California jurisdiction) and other items (conflict resolution, etc).

*        Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I agree with David and Phil  here

*        Greg Shatan: PC and DM seem like logical conclusions. Worth noting that the gNSO council has passed a condition on the CCWG budget that it could not support work in the CCWG wrt moving ICANN's location of incorporation.

*        Jorge Cancio: I wish to reiterate relative to scope - we have a scope from WS1 recommendation 12 - we should live with the AMBIGUITY for the moment. It would be more efficient to go to specific discussions and then we will see if there are issues that are out of scope. To have this scope beforehand is putting the cart before the horse.

*        Greg Shatan: PC's remarks have moved us past scope to the realism of moving ICANN. What are your thoughts on this JC.

*        Jorge Cancio: This is scope. (car analogy).

*        Greg Shatan: since the remit of this group is 9 months it would seem unrealistic to think we would change the engine on the car in that time. (reads JJS comments from chat because of audio issues).

*        Pedro da Silva: My comment is in line with JC - at this point of time this does not make sense and it is probable that when we complete our analysis of issues we will have the same conclusion but it will be stronger -so we should not deal with this at this point.

*        Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: Denmark is of the view that it is not within our scope to recommend moving ICANN's Place of Incorporation or Headquarters Location from California. But if anybody can point to potential problems, we might look into means to address such problems without changing ICANN's place of incorporation.

*        David McAuley: As a member of IRP there are issues that are related to IRP and touch on Jurisdiction.

*        Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): @David: thanks, hope that we keep efforts in parallel well coordinated...

*        Greg Shatan: straw vote for this or not.

*        Tijani Ben Jemaa: uncomfortable with this.

*        Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): For the reasons given I step away from such a straw poll

*        Greg Shatan: many of our participants are arguing for this which is why I am bringing this up. Many green ticks no objections.

*        Jean-Jacques Subrenat 2: @Greg: I agree that "moving the headquarters out of California" is not an urgent matter. We should examine what ADDITIONAL jurisdictions could achieve, for specific purposes.

*        Greg Shatan: We have now covered points 2 and 3 in the agenda. Let us move to item 5.
3.            Is the Possibility of Moving ICANN's Place of Incorporation or  Headquarters Location from California   in Scope?

*        (see previous point)
4.            Confirming and Assessing the Gap
                 Analysis
a.            "Gap" analyzed in Work Stream 1
b.           Result of Gap Analysis in Work Stream 1
c.            How should we confirm the WorkStream 1
                 Gap Analysis?

*        (Skipped)
5.            Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction

*        Greg Shatan: Presentation of the slide on Multiple Layers.

*        Jean-Jacques Subrenat: (continuing issues) Multiple layers is interesting but what are the purposes of having additional jurisdictions (additional vs alternate). Second remark (dropped audio),

*        Greg Shatan: Why are we not using Adobe audio JJS - most use it for visual but audio is on phone because of quality issues. Any comments on the slide?

*        Pedro da Silva: This is a good start. and how we should start our work. Would like a week to comment on this to see if we need to add to this. After that we could look at each of these as to how they affect the work of ICANN.

*        Phil Corwin: There is a difference between types of contracts - registries and registrars should probably be under US law just for uniformity. Other parties such as real estate in other countries is another issue.

*        Jean-Jacques Subrenat 2: @Greg: I suggest we use "additional jurisdictions" to avoid confusion about wanting to change headquarters or not. I was also saying it would be useful to examine several tasks where an additional jurisdiction would be useful, e.g. hiring people outside the US (employment, insurance, taxes).

*        Greg Shatan: A third category could be for the choice of law for enforcing the decisions of the Empowered Community. Encourage everyone to read JC's email. Contracts with contracted parties are silent on choice of law or venue - we should confirm this. Let us look and comment on the slide in Google doc for comments. Next meeting 1900UTC Monday. Adjourned.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161005/35a0217d/attachment-0001.html>