[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January

Wed Jan 25 15:38:25 UTC 2017

DearJorge,
Tks for reiterating your initial proposal.
I am in favour of one month ,( 30 DAYS) after the end of Copenhagen.
Tks
Kavouss

2017-01-25 14:33 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Let me reiterate the points I made last week on the CCWG list which are in
> line with the concerns expressed by Kavouss:
>
>
>
> *Von:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 09:03
> *An:* 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; 'Accountability Cross
> Community' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* AW: Timeline for HR and Jurisdiction publications
>
>
>
> Dear Mathieu
>
>
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to comment the proposed timelines.
>
>
>
> Given the fact that the public comment periods have not started (and for
> instance there is still discussion ongoing on “how” to perform them), and
> that the Copenhagen meeting would be very close to the end of the envisaged
> comment periods, I agree that we should let the deadlines end after
> Copenhagen.
>
>
>
> With this in mind, I would favor a deadline that allows for sufficient
> time for travel back to each homes and to digest the F2F discussions in
> Copenhagen, before submitting the inputs to the different comment periods.
> Two weeks after Copenhagen could be the right amount of time for doing so.
> If we are eager to receive consensus inputs from SO/ACs this may even take
> a bit longer, not only for the GAC but also for other SO/AC – I see no
> reason for setting artificially tight deadlines in this regard, as the
> period April-June is probably adequate to assess and digest the inputs to
> be received.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> ==
>
>
>
> I hope that the group may show flexibility in this sensitive matter and we
> may set a deadline at the beginning of April, which would allow all
> interested parties to make their inputs.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. Januar 2017 23:05
> *An:* MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>;
> Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>;
> Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; Schneider Thomas BAKOM <
> Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org; CCWG Accountability <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and
> transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Once again my absence was misused and deciding 24 of March as deadline for
> response to jurisdiction questionnaire
>
> The last but one call, there were two dates 03 April or 13 April. The
> latter is about one month after the end of ICANN 58 and the former 10  days
> before that.
>
> I do not understand  why my argument that GAC requires enough time after
> debating the case in its face to face meeting in Copenhagen
>
> Some people made every efforts to deprive / Exclude Governments from reply
> by shortening time to one third
>
> This is not acceptable and not agreed.
>
> This 30 days after Copenhagen meeting is fundamental .I do not understand *where
> the figure 42  days comes from*. Because one of the co-chairs or all of
> them decided 42 days we have to accept it.
>
> *This is totally objected.*
>
> We need one month after the end of ICANN 58 .
>
> Pls correct that
>
> i will talk to Thomas Schneider tomorrow on phone and ask him to react.
>
> secondly, even though i am one of the volunteer FOR LIGITATION STUDY. But
> I am one hand typing and takes several times more than a 10 finger typing
> person.
>
> Pls exclude me for preparation as I can not do it.
>
> This small message that I am send it to you was done by my Son who came to
> dine with us
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2017-01-24 20:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction
> Subgroup Meeting #18* – 24 January 2017 will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/4aXDAw
>
>
>
>  A copy of the notes and action items may be found below.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Brenda Brewer
>
> MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
>
> ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>
> *Action Items*
>
> ·         Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and
> distribute to list.
>
> ·         Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases
> (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
>
> ·         David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel
> regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the
> digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
>
> ·         Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of
> ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting
> and distribute on the list.
>
> *Notes (including relevant portions of chat):*
>
> *9 Participants at start of call*
>
> *1. Welcome*
>
> Greg Shatan: Apologies from Kavouss Arasteh, Jorge Cancio. Becky Burr
> audio only. Updates to SOIs? (none).
>
> *2. Questionnaire*
>
> *a. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire*
>
> Greg Shatan: Has been discussing on list. Suggest announce of ICANN Public
> comments page and then point to a URL. It can then be published or
> referenced by any of us. No objections. Will proceed as such if ICANN has
> no objections.
>
> *b. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire*
>
> Greg Shatan: we have a number of options to consider.
>
> Mathieu Weill: If we publish with translation between 8 to 10 February the
> standard 42 day period would end after ICANN 58.
>
> David McAuley: Support MW. We should be preparing to analyze the
> questionnaire responses as responses come in - may be efficient to have a
> team for this.
>
> *c. Translation*
>
> Greg Shatan: Translation in the standard UN languages is built into the
> plan and will publish all at the same time. Any comments
>
> David McAuley: Are we going beyond the UN 6?
>
> Greg Shatan: No decision yet regarding Farsi.
>
> David McAuley: FB suggestion is noble but would urge caution in going
> beyond the UN 6. Would recommend we stick with the standard UN 6.
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr: DM points well taken. would like to point out that are
> issues with non-professional translation. ALAC uses these services and
> often goes beyond the UN6 into Portuguese often. Reverse translation issue
> will still be there.
>
> Matthew shears: it is always wise to use accepted languages
>
> Mathieu Weill 2: accepted practice in general I would add
>
> David McAuley (RySG): Good point CLO about the large number of Asian
> Pacific languages - I for one speak a little Tagalog and my wife, from
> Manila, speaks it fluently - a beautiful language.
>
> Avri Doria: Unless there is a specific reason to go beyond the UN 6 do not
> understand why we would expand - and any translation should be
> professional. If someone wants to translate informally to distribute it to
> their contacts this is fine but responses have to be in the UN 6.
>
> Greg Shatan: temp check Limit to UN6 - (6+ and none against). Going beyond
> UN6 and have a specific suggestion? ( none, 1 gainst). Will do the standard
> UN languages.
>
> Farzaneh Badii: oops I got here late. But suggesting Farsi was not because
> it was an Asian language. Iranians are affected by ICANN jusridcition more
> than those that speak Telagu or other things
>
> Farzaneh Badii: another thing added to my tasks
>
> Vidushi Marda: Farzi - I don't think that's fair to say, it has atleast 85
> million native speakers.
>
> Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi we have cases should be discussed
>
> Farzaneh Badii: it's not about how many speak it
>
> Vidushi Marda: agreed - but this is forward looking and there are many
> people interested in the work of this group - who are :)
>
> Farzaneh Badii: your argument resulted in an a decision that just adds to
> my workload. and not many Iranians are going to respond to these in english
>
> Vidushi Marda: agreed, I'm not saying it isn't important at all
>
> Farzaneh Badii: and I don't know how accurate informal trnaslation is
> going to be,. I am not going to give up on this and will translate but this
> was not a decision to make by arguing just that oh there are so many other
> languages
>
> Farzaneh Badii: I have given specific examples how Iranians are affected
>
> Farzaneh Badii: did anyone do that who speaks some other language? anyhow.
> doesnt matter  spendiing life on ICANN might be good for me
>
> *3. Small Group Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation*
>
> *a.
> Litigations:  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en>*
>
> Greg Shatan: Review of the 35 or so cases. Have prepare a suggestion for a
> draft summary form and circulated for comments.
>
> *b. Draft Summary
> Form:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1efkQOvSwW-2m1T_u6anFMVUeiHoO6P4PR3-0mWlU_Cs/edit?usp=sharing>*
>
> Greg Shatan: Review of Summary report draft form.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): maybe make it a binary question - was jurisdiction
> contested in any manner
>
> Matthew shears: perhaps the justification for considering it relevant to
> our work should be the last line of the summary
>
> Mathieu Weill 2: Our "influence" doc has 3 categories we could map to
> cases : Influence on operation of ICANN policies, of ICANN acct mechanisms,
> on Disputes involving ICANN -  We could tag according to this.
>
> Farzaneh Badii: are we going to discuss arbitration cases to ( if there
> are any?)
>
> Greg Shatan: Stick with the list which includes the 1 arbitration case.
> Action Item: GS to edit the draft summary form per discussions.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): Greg - do we have a time scale for this effort?
>
> Greg Shatan: 35 cases and 9 volounteers = about 4 cases per person - 3
> weeks should be enough (Action Item for Analysis team members: reports
> would be due 14 February).
>
> David McAuley (RySG): ok
>
> *c. Sign-Up Sheet:*
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5X
> cRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Greg Shatan: -
>
>
> *4. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C *
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_
> DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> David McAuley: Is this just about the US or are we looking at what would
> happen elsewhere?
>
> Greg Shatan: Good questions, will have to refine our working method as to
> how input in.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): I think that is a good comment on my comment Greg –
> this asks us to wonder about the future when we have past performance to
> judge by – why not go by that?
>
> Mathieu Weill: Use Plaintiff language as suggested by GS. will also help
> us classify the cases.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): Good point Mathieu. You state is that ICANN can be
> sued in other jurisdictions. It may be worth asking our external legal
> counsel about that in the digital age.
>
> Greg Shatan: DM good question. Action Item: DM will propose on the list.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): ok, will do
>
> David McAuley (RySG): a bit later in the week
>
> Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). Continue discussion of document.
> Keeping parties accountable is good - so allowing people to sue allows for
> this.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg makes a fair point about capacity to be
> sued - a basic thing that is easy to perhaps overlook at times.
>
> Greg Shatan: This is an important part of our work and hope that we can
> have better discussions on this.
>
> David McAuley: I have not been back to this document recently. this is
> important and we need to get back to it. suggest we note it in the agenda.
>
> Greg Shatan: I would take it further and extract the questions and
> distribute as a specific assignment to help people focus.
>
> David McAuley (RySG): good idea - and ask us to generate questions about
> it too
>
> David McAuley (RySG): this may take several weeks
>
> *5. AOB (none)*
>
> *6. Adjourn*
>
> *Decisions:*
>
> ·         Questionnaire will be announced on ICANN Public Comment page
> which will have a web link to it.
>
> ·         Questionnaire will only be translated in the official UN
> languages by ICANN Language services.
>
> ·         Questionnaire will be published in all languages simultaneously.
>
> ·         Time period for responding to questionnaire should be standard
> 42 days (it is expected that the translations will be available between the
> 8th and 10th of February which would put the closing 24 March) extensions
> for those requesting this could be possible.
>
> ·         Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation will only focus
> on the 35 cases listed on the web site and not include IRP etc.
>
> *Action Items:*
>
> ·         Greg Shatan to redraft Summary Form per comments today and
> distribute to list.
>
> ·         Volunteers to analyze cases using forms should pick their cases
> (sign up sheet) and complete their analysis per the Form for 14 February.
>
> ·         David McAuley will draft a question this for external counsel
> regarding the possibility of ICANN being sued in other jurisdiction in the
> digital age. This will be distributed on the list for comments.
>
> ·         Greg Shatan will prepare questions from the “Influence of
> ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document for the sub-group’s next meeting
> and distribute on the list.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170125/5bc6947c/attachment-0001.html>