[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 22 | 1 March 2017

Thu Mar 2 04:09:47 UTC 2017

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #22 – 21 March 2017 will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/x/CKPRAw

A copy of the action items and notes may be found below.

With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
[cid:image001.png at 01D292D8.89D1E070]

 Action Items:

·         Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants.

·         Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen.

·         Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases.

·         Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case

·         Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case

·         Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case.

·         Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases (completed)

·         Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week.

·         Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group.
Notes (including relevant parts of the chat):
15 participants at start of call
1.  Welcome
2.  Review of Agenda
Greg Shatan - any modifications? (none).
Kavouss Arasteh (15 minutes into the call) - lodging complaint about trouble being completed. Also, please speak slowly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I was only just connected to audio/phone as well Kavouss there were obviously complications
3. Administration (5 minutes)
     3.1.  Questions to ICANN Legal – Status of Legal Committee
Greg Shatan - Leon Sanchez has forwarded our questions to CCWG-Acct Legal comm.
     3.2.  Hypotheticals document – Propose suspending the work until ICANN Legal responds to the questions.
Parminder - this is a slightly different than what has been asked but they may be sequential.
Greg Shatan - any other comments? (none). Documents will remain open for comments and people can contribute to them in the meantime we take them up again as a group. Any objection? (none).
David McAuley (RySG): support that Greg
Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration.
     3.3.  “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Propose suspending the work until this group completes the review of ICANN’s past and current litigation which will inform the development of that document.
Parminder - similar nature to my comment on 3.2. Would ask to keep this document open since review of litigation is not all the information for this document.
Greg Shatan - Agree with Parminder and as per previous point the document will remain open for comments. Any objections? (none).
Decision: The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration.
4.  Questionnaire Update (20 minutes)
     4.1.  Method for processing responses
     4.1.1.  Rolling review of responses – Propose new responses to the questionnaire to be reviewed by the Jurisdiction sub-group at each meeting.
Greg Shatan - Any objections (none).
Parminder - Responses will be available to the sub-group.
Greg Shatan – yes – they are posted on the Jurisdiction wiki as they come in.
Decision: The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings.
     4.1.2.  Proposal for a review team – Propose review team will be responsible for updating the sub-group on new responses and their status at each meeting as well as elaborating an evaluation framework for responses, for approval by the sub-group, based on the responses received.
Greg Shatan - presentation of general expectations of review team.
Kavouss Arasteh - Is sound ok now? suggest review team and evaluation team are separate but they should be balanced from all SOACs.
Greg Shatan - Only one team. In terms of balance hoping we get volunteers from all groups.
Mathieu Weill: Happy to help
Mathieu Weill: Also, please all consider doing outreach about the questionnaire in your respective groups
Greg Shatan - any objections? (none).
David McAuley (RySG): sorry, let's label the RT as a pilot - the job might eat up the team's time so let's make it easy for them to seek relief.
Greg Shatan - Good suggestion DM.
Kavouss Arasteh: Blanced team
Decision: The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses.
     4.1.3.  Selection of the review team
Greg Shatan - Volunteers? MW, Parminder, DM, KA, VMarda. Thank you.
David McAuley (RySG): If these volunteers plan to be in Copenhagen maybe we can meet briefly. Action Item – staff to try to organize an informal meeting of the RT in Copenhagen.
Mathieu Weill: +1 david. Good idea
Kavouss Arasteh: May I propose that Mathieu coordinating the wroks of the team
Mathieu Weill: Kavouss : thanks but that might be beyond my abilities And not very good to have too many hats
Kavouss Arasteh: I do not thing any one oppose to my suggestion provided that mMathieu kindly agrees to that.
Decision: Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda.
Action Items:
·         Rapporteur to announce RT to the list and solicit additional members from the sub-team participants.
·         Staff to organize and ad-hoc meeting of those members of the RT who will be present at ICANN58 while they are in Copenhagen.
     4.2.  Review of current responses in tool (document).
Greg Shatan - Review of tool
Kavouss Arasteh - Is there any threshold to make this valid?
Greg Shatan - Good topic for the Review Team. We will also review these responses individually - this is not about voting - its more an information gathering process.
Kavouss Arasteh - need wide representation on responses.
Greg Shatan - depends on who responds. Any comments on the tool itself or the comments received to date?
Kavouss Arasteh - deadline is 17 April - I wish to include the source of the information.and we should not forget the views of the minority.
Greg Shatan - Reminder this is a questionnaire and not a survey - sources can be added - all of this is really details for the Review Team.
Kavouss Arasteh - Source is important.
David McAuley (RySG): good point, @Kavouss -
Seun Ojedeji: I agree with Kavouss
Greg Shatan - For the review team to consider. We need to give each response its due consideration to find facts - this what the questionnaire is about.
David McAuley (RySG): Agree to let RT grapple with this first
5.  Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes)
     5.1.  Review of Sign-up sheet (document)
Mathieu Weill: I'll look at Pool.com<http://pool.com/> (the only one in front of a non US court)
Vidushi Marda: i can look at ruby glen
Kavouss Arasteh - Please send a request on the list to get volunteers and give a week. Parminder may wish to volunteer for some.
Greg Shatan - Good suggestion
avri doria: i'll volunteer for Auerbach vs ICANN
David McAuley (RySG): those picking cases here please be sure to put name in tool - so others don't duplicate work
avri doria: what is the url for this sheet?
Mathieu Weill: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjRltOM/edit
Action Items:
·         Rapporteur to communicate sign-up sheet to sub-group list and solicit volunteers to sign-up to review cases.
·         Mathieu Weill to review the Pool.com<http://pool.com/> v. ICANN case
·         Vidushi Marda to review the Ruby Glen v. ICANN case
·         Avri Doria to review Auebach v. ICANN case.
·         Staff to update the sing-up sheet for these cases.
     5.2.  Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document)
Mathieu Weill: Was not really sure of choice of law / governing law so might need to add
Parminder - It would be interesting on these cases if they are a matter of facts or principles - given we are considering jurisdiction vs ICANN policies.
David McAuley (RySG): if we add to the form lets please write down what we are adding so reviewers are not guessing
Greg Shatan - Good suggestion - under outcome. Lets also note if the court considered jurisdiction. Action Item: Will review the form.
David McAuley (RySG): courts always "discuss" JX just to say they have it.
Parminder: it is significant that court asserts jurisdiction, and full jurisdiction on different icann policy issues
Philip Corwin: This is the litigation that ended with what was then the very controversial .com settlement
Mathieu Weill - we need to make all the questions in the form crystal clear.
Greg Shatan - Good suggestion.
Kavouss Arasteh - I will have suggestions for this form. Two different type of judgements etc.
Greg Shatan - Godd suggestion - please provide input on list. We have run out of time and will adjourn.
Action Items:
·         Kavouss Arasteh will provide his comments on the form to the list this week.
·         Greg Shatan will review the evaluation form per the discussion today for the next meeting of the sub-group.
Summary of Decisions and Action Items:
Decisions:

·         The sub-group will suspend work on the Hypotheticals Document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration.

·         The sub-group will suspend work on the Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction document as a group. The document will remain open to individual contributions until the document returns to the sub-group for consideration.

·         The sub-group will review all new responses to its questionnaire at each of its meetings.

·         The sub-group will have a review team composed of participants of the Jurisdiction sub-group. This will be a pilot project for the moment and membership in the RT will remain open for the moment. The team, subject to sub-group approval, will be responsible for looking at all the responses to the questionnaire, analyzing these, presenting these to the sub-group at its meetings, evolving the tracking tool and developing analysis criteria for the responses.

·         Initial members of the RT will be Mathieu Weill, Parminder, David McAuley, Vidushi Marda.
Action Items: