[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #2_8 September 2016

Sat Sep 10 19:47:57 UTC 2016

Dear All,
The statement made or the trasncript made on my behalf is WRONG
 I THEREFORE CORRECT THAT
Kavouss Arasteh:  is in favor of Applicable Law

2016-09-10 10:50 GMT+02:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>:

> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction
> Subgroup Meeting #2* – 8 September 2016 will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/YhKsAw
>
>
>
> A copy of the notes may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Brenda Brewer
>
> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
>
> ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
>
> *Notes*
>
> Welcome/Admin
>
> Tatiana Tropina audio only for the moment.
>
> No changes to SOIs.
>
> Document: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.
> action?pageId=61608546&preview=/61608546/61611662/
> CopyofWS2JurisdictionStaffIssuesPaper.pdf
>
> •  Meeting Time Rotation
>
> Greg Shatan: will rotate between 1300 and 1900 slots
> leaving aside the 0500. May vary days of the week but
> will avoid 1900 on Friday.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: could we shift 1900 to 2000?
>
> Bernard Turcotte: Schedule will be reviewed with change
> to daylight savings later in the fall.
>
> •  Work Plan and Schedule Overview (attached). Looking
> to have a deliverable complete in February 2017.
>
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=
> 61608546&preview=/61608546/61611660/Jurisdiction%
> 20Agenda%20and%20Overview%20for%20Meeting%202.pdf
>
> Greg Shatan: This work plan assumes we are a Complex
> project. Presentation of the slide.
>
> *Milton Mueller: *this schedule seems unrealistic to me. We
> take 2.5 months to develop a work plan and don't talk
> substance until December, then we complete our "deliverable" in only one
> month?
>
> David McAuley: We may be able to get into substance by
> asking participants to contribute to a gap analysis
> between the accountability framework that is being implemented vs its
> applicability vs jurisdictions.
>
> Greg Shatan: Need a rolling list of action items. The
> first item should be this gap analysis.
>
> *Farzaneh Badii: *Greg as to gap analysis you say in the
> doc that: I think there was a general conclusion that ICANN'
> s current jurisdiction didn't result in any significant "gaps"
> relating to ICANN accountability. Whether there
> is a formal "gap analysis" is another question, and one we
> need to explore.
>
> David McAuley: Do not remember any formal gap analysis from WS1. This is
> about the settlement of disputes jursidiction.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: there was no formal conclusion in WS1 that there
> was no gap.
>
>  *Kavouss Arasteh: * was  NOTa general conclusion that ICANN'
> s current jurisdiction didn't result in any significant "
> gaps" relating to ICANN accountability. Whether there is a
> formal "gap analysis" is another question, and one we need to explore.
>
> *Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): *We had very general discussions -
>  that is what we did...
>
> *Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): *anyway what is on the ws1 final
> papers is what represents our agreements...
>
> *David McAuley: *agree w/Kavouss re gap - we have to check
>
> •  Plan to Develop Detailed Work Plan & Schedule
>
>         •  Plan for September/October (see attached)
>
>         •  Suggestions for overall Work Plan
>
>         •  Our Goal is a Deliverable
>
> •  Discussion of Scope
>
>         •  Do we begin with Scope?
>
>                  •  Jordan Carter lightning talk suggested being “upfront
> about our interests”
>
>         •  Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper,
> as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup)
>
> Kavouss Arasteh:  Not in favor of Applicable Law?
>
> Greg Shatan: no issue since it is in Annex 12.
>
> David McAuley: disputes should include legal actions vs ICANN in various
> jurisdictions?
>
> *Milton Mueller: *so jurisdictional effects on two distinct things: 1)
> accountability mechanisms; 2) actual operation of policies (
> whatever that means) And by 2) we are referring
> primarily to dispute resolution
>
> *jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): *At the same time we said
> that this refers "primarily" to 1) settlement of disputes,
> including choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws,
> what disputes "within ICANN" means could also be useful.
>
> Greg Shatan: Within ICANN implies actors within ICANN but it would seem
> undluly restrictive to say this only includes ICANN's
> internal dispute resolution processes.
>
> *jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): *within ICANN  I guess
> covers all parties affected by ICANN decisions and which
> may bring an internal claim against it.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: why NOT NECESSARILY?
>
> David McAuley: From WS1 recollection the NECESSARILY
> comes in if the gap analysis notes that the accountability
> mechanisms are broken (material problem) because of jurisdiction.
>
> *Edward Morris: *My recollection is the same as David's
>
> *David McAuley: *Thanks Kavouss, and I think that is part of
> our task. Good question you asked.
>
> *Milton Mueller: *I think many of these points could be best
> pursued on the list, in writing
>
> *David McAuley: *+1 Milton
>
> *Avri Doria: *so ICANN is only incorporated in one place and
> these lesser 'registrations' do not affect jurisdiction?
> Registrations and their relation to incorporation are
> essentially different with respect to jurisdictional obligations?
> Is so where are jurisdictional issues related to multiple registrations
> dealt with?
>
> *Vinay Kesari: *Agree with Paul. I think ICANN has gone on
> record stating specifically that local offices are
> subject to local laws on issues such as employment.
>
> Kavouss Arasteh: best to use both email list and Google doc. As
> to this question is it not too detailed at this time?
>
> Avri Doria: what is the status of the ICANN presence
> in non-US jurisdiction?
>
> Greg Shatan: Action Item - this should be answered by ICANN legal.
>
> *Samantha Eisner: *We have to adhere to laws that allow us
> to have offices in different locations but I can confirm that we
> have not incorporated in any other location
>
> *Samantha Eisner: *ICANN typically is a "branch" location or a registered
> foreign office equivalent
>
> *Jeff Neuman: *I would like to know the difference between "
> Engagement Centers", "HUBs", "Offices", etc/
>
> *Avri Doria:* Not incorporated? Also not registered as some
> sort of company?
>
> *Jeff Neuman: *Is there a way to get those definitions from ICANN staff?
>
> *Jeff Neuman: *I have to admit I never understood Fadi's distinctions
>
> *Samantha Eisner:* Yes, Jeff
>
> Greg Shatan: Will start the next version of the google doc and circulate.
>
> *Vinay Kesari: *Hi Avri, many countries (India for example)
> allow a foreign company to set up a
> representative/ branch office locally. This is not a
> separate legal entity, can't sue/ be sued. But it
> requires a registration
>
>         •  Creation of Scope Document?
>
> •  Other Potential Inputs to our Work
>
>         •  More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks
>
>         •  Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope)
>
>         •  Experts/Legal Advice
>
> •  AOB
>
> •  Adjourn
>
> Greg Shatan: Adjourned
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160910/e9aa6733/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160910/e9aa6733/image001-0001.gif>