[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 17 | 20 January 2017

Sun Jan 22 02:21:01 UTC 2017

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #17 –  20 January 2017 will be available here:
https://community.icann.org/x/zKXDAw

 A copy of the notes may be found below.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Yvette Guigneaux
Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Asst.
ICANN – Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Email:  yvette.guigneaux at icann.org
Cell:  +1-310-460-8432
Skype:  yvette.guigneaux.icann
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

 Notes (including relevant parts of chat):
(21 Participants at start of call)
1.  Welcome
Greg Shatan: (no actions).
2.  Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire
Greg Shatan: There has been some exchange on the list. No support for a “fill in the box” format. we should expect free form input which should be sent to an email address. Unclear to whom it should be sent.
Kavouss Arasteh: Concerned regarding your response to FB question. I disagree with your views on this - you cannot judge on this or anything. We need an real a question.
Greg Shatan: the answer sent was discussed with the co-chairs and was made in good faith.
David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg’s e-mail comment that these are hard to answer in abstract was right – may be better to wait for actual answers to deal with this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed David
Chirstopher Wilkinson: need to have this translated into all the ICANN languages. The competition group should have a good list of email addresses.
Greg Shatan: ask for staff to have the questionnaire translated.
Farzaneh Badii: if we translate, does that mean that we receive answers in 6 language? and then should be translated in to English for analysis?
Kavouss Arasteh: Would ask the co-chairs the respond to FB's question.
Greg Shatan: KA if you have a request of the co-chairs you should make the request directly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Getting back to the questionnaire - wrt the translation - sometimes ALAC uses more than just the official languages. The costs for doing this both ways should not be much when considering ICANN language services which are excellent.
Greg Shatan: Agree - small cost of language services well worth it.
Farzaneh Badii: well, can we translate these questions in to a language that is not a UN language?
Kavouss Arasteh: I formally request you Greg to ask co-chair to provide their answer to Frzaneh question in a formal and official manner signed by one of them on behalf of co-chairs on the mailing list
Greg Shatan: where should we publish it?
Kavouss Arasteh: please respond to my chat request. As to languages the 6 is fine and where to publish I am open if it is widely distributed. As to timing would request 1 month past Copenhagen meeting.
Greg Shatan: KA if you wish to raise this with the co-chairs please do so directly.
Kavouss Arasteh: cO-chairs need to be alerted through  you for formal reply and not indirect reply
Kavouss Arasteh: Deadline ,30 day<s after ICANN MEETING IN cOPENHAGWEN
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe yes as we often do it's just a matter of small cost some time extra if not specifically an internal languages one like Portuguese for example if it is anemone 'obscure'   language ( and. APAC has plenty of these)  they would need to outsource with additional cost and delay on delivery...  a small risk if we get in a response
Greg Shatan: Timing -  2 weeks after Copenhagen sufficient? where should publicize it. ICANN PC page with a link?
David McAuley (RySG): the practical reason Greg mentioned makes sense for putting on comment page
CW: I have seen precedent for publishing EN first and other languages shortly aftwerwards as and when Trads. are available.
3.  Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire
Greg Shatan: KA has suggested 30 days after Copenhagen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes plenty of precedence but ensure closing dates are equitable. CW
David McAuley (RySG): 60 days from posting
David McAuley - Let us just pick a number of days required.
Phil Corwin: No set position but we need to provide fair opportunity for comment. Mid- April seems far away.
Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: 60 days
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes  all assuming 60
Tatiana Tropina: 60 days from posting, yes.
Wale Bakare: 60 days from posting, when is posting? Bear in mind of ICANN58, why not after the meeting for 30 days?
Kavouss Arateh: Why are we rushing not allowing people proper occastion to comment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes  but if translation takes  it to publish time later than En the response time is still equitable
Philip Corwin: How long can it take to translate a brief preamble and four short questions? We are not talking about a 100 page report.
Wale Bakare: For sufficiency vis-a-viz translation to EN, why not pegged at 90 days irrespective?
Greg Shatan: KA request about allowing govts to consult with each other so they can go back home and then produce and answer.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Understand KA request.
Farzaneh Badii: well I would be more worried about the difficulty of reaching out to people who might be really affected by ICANN jurisdiction
Philip Corwin: I fully support adequate time for any interested party to read the questions in a major language and have adequate time to respond. That needs to be balanced against the fact that we need to review and discuss the answers and determine their relevance and import for our work, and if the closing date is mid-April that means we don't see answers until a quarter of a year from now.
Greg Shatan: Really only talking about two weeks of difference.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Greg we are talking  a 2w difference
Kavouss Arasteh: text says 30 should be corrected.

Greg Shatan: temp. check on April 13 - split. April 1 (3 for 2 against). Let us remember that responses can be made late and considered. Let’s take this to the list.
Philip Corwin: Given that standard ICANN response time on a major policy proposal is 40 days, I think 40 days after publication in all languages is sufficient for 4 questions
Philip Corwin: I co-chair a PDP WG that is about to publish a 100+ page report for comment, and that only gets the standard 40 days.
4.  Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en
Greg Shatan: Doing this would be very good and allow us to consider issues wrt Jurisdiction of disputes.
David McAuley: support this but would suggest we ask Jones Day to come and present to us on this topic which could really help us.
Greg Shatan: Good suggestion.
Kavouss Arateh: Good suggestion.
Greg Shatan: Some suggestions from Mathieu Weill - identify the Jurisdiction the case was brought in, the type of claim, the rate of success, temporary relief and duration of the process. Jones day could help with this. Any other comments on how to get this done.
Kavouss Arasteh: These are good ideas let us proceed.
David McAuley: After Jones day - a smaller group of us could go through summaries fairly efficiently.
Greg Shatan: we should create a small group to manage this work. Will get vol. from the list.
David McAuley (RySG): I would volunteer
Kavouss Arateh: would volunteer but cannot type much with operation on hand.
Avri Doria: can help.
Phil Corwin: will participate.
5.  “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
(no time for this item)
6.  AOB
(none)
7.  Adjourn
Next call on 24 JAN. 1300

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170122/39dd2b71/attachment-0001.html>