[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings, transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #3 - 14 Sept

Tue Sep 20 09:03:35 UTC 2016

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #3 – 14 September 2016 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/shusAw

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 (BT):

Relevant web pages:

General Jurisdiction wiki https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction

This meeting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61610930

1. Welcome, attendance, SOIs, etc.

Vinay Kesari: no changes.

2. ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A, particularly #7

Greg Shatan: (from the ICANN response) Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of the United States after the transition?No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate headquarters location after the transition. The transition proposal clearly states [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California.

Vinay Kesari: any comments?

Tijani Ben Jemaa: What is the value of this for our work? This does not seem to add anything for us.

Christopher Wilkinson: Concerned with the activities of the Sidley law form - codifying the relationships between all parts of ICANN seems to be significantly  too much. This would be a cause for thinking of moving from the US jurisdiction.

Erich Schweighofer: Christopher Wilkinson is right: a benevolent jurisdiction without much interference is a key element.

Tatiana Tropina: I never thought that tjis group in the WS2 was supposed to discuss the issue of the ICANN jurisdiction as a corporation...

Pedro da Silva: ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A is unclear if this is the position of the community or a single Board member. Question 7 should not be relevant to our discussion.

Jeff Neuman: I have to admit I am lost.  I am only paying attention to WS2 items so if there are other documents I need to review, can we please post those docs

Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Bylaws and Articles have ALWAYS said California corporation and location.    We didn't change that.    But we did give the empowered community the ability to block bylaws change, and to approve any change to the Articles.

Kavous Arasteh: We should not be discussing  this Q&A question as it is misleading.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: let us focus on working on our draft document.

Vinay Kesari:  The Q&A question 7 is relevant input.

Greg Shatan: All CWG related issues should be out of scope for this group.

Kavous Arasteh: Agree with respect to CWG.

Pedro da Silva: Why misleading - because it limits the issue of jurisdiction to California law and brings no new information to our discussion.

Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Pedro -- jurisdiction of ICANN's contracts can be specified in the contract.   Not the same thing as ICANN's place of location

Gerg Shatan: Is jursidiction oof headquarters of ICANN a topic for this group?

Pedro da Silva: Yes - it is important no to pre-judge the answers to the multi-layer discussions.

Jeff Neuman: I do not believe that the place of incorporation is in scope for this subgroup

Tatiana Tropina: I also don't believe that the place of incorporation is for this group to decide .

Jeff Neuman: As Mr. Marby said during the testimony today, ICANN's entired new structure and empowered community is all based on California and California law. If we deviate from that, then ICANN's entire model and everything we have worked on for the past number of years gets thrown out the window.

Greg Shatan: Obviously there is a difference of opinion on this and we should note that this is an open question which we will have to resolve soon.

Robin Gross: Jeff and Tatiana are right.  We can't redo all those reforms at this point.

Kavous Arasteh: Location of ICANN head office is not open for discussion.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we do not need to be so absolute - the current location is a fact. We always said we would look at whether that means any problem. If there is such a problem, that does not mean that we suddenly change the location, but that we look for solutions that are reasonable...

Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: All I am defending is an open approach to this topic and thereby not antecipate any results.

Edward Morris: Section 24.1 of the new Bylaws puts the place of business in Los Angeles, California but does allow for the establishent of offices elsewhere.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: This Q&A is not relevant to our work let us focus on our work.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): anyway, the present and real location of ICANN is a place called "adobe connect" :P

3. Scope discussion:

      - Continue Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper, as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup)

Greg Shatan: we need to increase contributions.

Kavous Arateh: what do you mean by gaps.

Greg Shatan: this language is in Recommendation 12 from the WS1 report.

Jeff Neuman: Remove BUT NOT NECESSARILY and agree that we cannot get into where ICANN is incorporated.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm not sure whether this subgroup is empowered to change the "job description" established by the full CCWG... that's why I always suggested to start with annex 12 and its wording, without picking and choosing from it.

Jeff Neuman: Perhaps a better way to state this is "What are the issues that arise due to the current jurisdiction in which ICANN is located"?

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would agree with that

Pedro da Silva: what is the difference between the accountability requirements from WS1 vs the implementation. Also we cannot change the scope provided to us by the full CCWG. We need to consider all aspects of jurisdiction.

Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But as said, location is one aspect - the venue and character of the arbitration mechanisms and litigation venues, as well as the applicable law to disputes would be important issues

Jeff Neuman: Can you point me to the exact location in the WS1 final report which states that we remain open to consider the place where ICANN is incorporated?

Greg Shatan: there are obviously two views vs location of incorporation. We may have to bring this back to the plenary if we cannot resolve this ourselves. We have two significant issues we need to continue to discuss: Should the scope include where ICANN is incorporated and what a GAP analysis would be in this case.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree with Greg: some questions, especially if they mean to change text agreed by the CCWG and the community as a whole in Marrakech, at least need to go to the plenary

Jeff Neuman: And my proposal is that we do not talk more about the incorporation for the reasons Mr. Marby testified today

Jeff Neuman: And because that would overturn everything we have done for the past several years

Kavouss Arasteh: If we recosider the location all assumption based on which the " Sigle Designator2 was adopted will disappear and we would be sent back to square one

Pedro da Silva: People seem to be concerned that we even discuss this - we need to understand how ICANN's jursidiction interferes with its work.

Kavouss Arasteh: Location of ICANN IS DIFFERNT FROM JURISDICTION

Jeff Neuman: @Kavouss - agreed.  And that is not the same thing as "place of incorporation"

Jeff Neuman: But I do not believe we can or should touch incorporation

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): First is to assess problems - of all kinds. Second is looking to meaningful, reasonable means to adress such problems...

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Why do we keep working with Google docs which is not acceptable to all. We should work on the Wiki. Also we need to start on the multi-layer jurisdiction. We need to agree on the layers.

Greg Shatan: We can try to Wiki tool for one aspect such - maybe GAP analysis.

      - Commence Discussion of draft Scope/Focus Google doc (to be circulated)

4. Other Potential Inputs to our Work:

      - More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks (summarized in Staff Paper)

      - Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope)

      - Experts/Legal Advice

5. AOB

6. Upcoming Meetings

Greg Shatan: next meeting is 21 Sept. 1300UTC

7. Adjourn

Greg Shatan: Adjourned.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160920/70966552/attachment-0001.html>