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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Jorge,
Taking into account that the issue is rather complex and GAC représentatives
Need   to be adequately briefed  in Copenhagen and provided further brief
to their national multistakeholder the 30 days is the minimum commenting
period.
I hope CCWG  Co-Chairs would kindly agree with that assisting developing
countries to have necessary time to reflect and comment
Regards
Kavouss

2017-01-25 16:52 GMT+01:00 Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA at minetad.es>:

> Please bear in mind that enough time is needed after the Copenhagen
> meeting to consider discussions. The deadline should not be set on an
> arbitrary basis, but instead on a logical basis, with an aim to maximize
> inputs and enrich discussions. Hence, I can only echo Kavouss and Jorge.
>
>
>
> 30 days after Copenhagen would be the best choice, but if it is felt that
> it is too long, at least 15/20 days should be allowed as a minimum.
> Otherwise, we would run the risk of preventing several parties from
> participating and contributing, and the outcome could as a consequence be
> deemed skewed or biased.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Rafael
>
>
>
>
>
> *De:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *En nombre de *
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 25 de enero de 2017 14:33
> *Para:* kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com; mssi-secretariat at icann.org;
> Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; leonfelipe at sanchez.mx; rickert at anwaelte.de;
> Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch
> *CC:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Asunto:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Notes, recordings and
> transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 18 | 24 January
>
>
>
> 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 <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/ee440eb6/attachment-0001.html>