[CCWG-ACCT] Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 23 | 22 March 2017

Thu Mar 23 14:57:23 UTC 2017

Hello all,

The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #23 – 22 March 2017 will be available here:   https://community.icann.org/x/O6vRAw

 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 01D2A3BB.DE89CB70]
Action Items:

  *   GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them.
  *   GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system.
  *   GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire.

Notes (Including relevant parts of chat):
16 Participants at start of call

1.  Welcome
Greg Shatan - Changes to SOIs? (none). Audio Only? (none)
2.  Review of Agenda
Greg Shatan - No objections
3.  Administration
       3.1 Questions to ICANN Legal – Status
Greg Shatan - ICANN Legal has acknowledged reception but has not provided the requested estimate yet (understandable vs ICANN58). If no news by Monday next week will follow up with them.
Action item – GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them.
       3.2 Hypotheticals document and “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document – Clarify that active work is suspended until ICANN Legal responds to the questions and the litigation review is complete, but the documents are still open for contributions.
Greg Shatan - Restating this for any that were not on the last call.
4.  Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation (30 minutes)
       4.1 Review of Sign-up sheet (document)
Greg Shatan - Some new people have signed up.
David McAuley: I will do two more cases - probably next week
       4.2 Review of Summaries
             4.2.1  Verisign, Inc. v. ICANN V2 – MW (document)
Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today.
            4.2.2  State of Arizona vs NTIA V2 - MW (document)
Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today.
            4.2.3  Ben Haim v. Iran…. – MW (document)
Greg Shatan - skip given MW is not present today.
           4.2.4  DCA v. ICANN - DM (document)
David McAuley - (Presentation of summary document). Jurisdiction not a significant part of this case.
           4.2.5  DCA V. ICANN – Appellate Court - DM (document)
David McAuley - (Presentation of summary document). 9th circuit for this case. Jurisdiction probably not a major consideration in this case. Important to note that an IRP was active in the middle of these cases.
avri doria: diversity jurisdiction: how does that work?  i guess i can go look it up.
Greg Shatan: I'll ask David to expand a bit on the diversity issue.
avri doria: ie. how do multiple jurisdiction affect things in Federal cases? is that a significant thing in itself?
Greg Shatan - DM could you explain the Diversity Jurisdiction court issue.
David McAuley - by statute federal courts can hear state cases where the parties are different jurisdiction. The entry of ZACR ended perfect diversity
Greg Shatan: Avri, the "diverse" citizenship of the parties is the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
avri doria: is the litigant choice limited to US courts?
avri doria: what kind of claims? being subject to a different set of laws?  if i am the only one confused by the implications and what is allowed as a claim, i will go study up.
avri doria: i think the degree to which there is flexibility on the claims an laws used may be a signification juridical factor in our work. thanks for the education.
avri doria: Could they have gone, e.g., a court in Kenya to litigate?
Kavouss Arasteh - All these courts in the US make this confusing for some of us. Would be appreciated if we could get a description how the system works. Second no such presentation for other cases. Have looked at some of these cases it seems that have been overly simplified.
Greg Shatan - re KA questions we will present a summary for each case. As to over simplification we are focusing on jurisdiction. As to the first question a simple version there are 2 parallel systems Federal and State but both are ruled by the same laws. The Federal system has 3 levels the highest one being the US supreme court.
Kavouss Arasteh: Greg, thanks,may you please provide a tutorial description of the legal jurisdiction process in USA
David McAuley - re diversity jurisdiction for federal courts - in many cases they still apply state law.

Greg Shatan - re AD question vs bringing case in Kenya - maybe -depends on many considerations.
David McAuley: now that ICANN has an office in Kenya I think the answer would be yes - as of the date that office opened
Becky Burr: agree with David, but isn't there an argument that the harm occurs in Kenya?
David McAuley: fair point Becky
David McAuley: At bottom, in the DCA cases I don't think jurisdiction is a paramount issue
David McAuley: in fact the case is still ongoing in Cal. state court
Kavouss Arasteh: Still the hierarchy of state court, Appeal court ,which usually at the same state , and when federal courts are called for and when supreme court would be involved are not clear
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): perhaps we might need to look into forum shopping strategies employed regularly - in order to understand what jurisdictions are preferred by whom - depending on what is what your objectives are (an injunction in a specific territory; damages; blocking a decision... etc)
Kavouss Arasteh: The relation between three layers in State courts, on the one hand, and federal court on the other hand and finally the role of supreme courts need to be further elaborated and documented
Greg Shatan - re: KA will post some information on this.
Action Item – GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system.
avri doria: what i think is important to this group is the flexibility allowed in the current jurisdiction. be interesting to see if this is leveraged in any of the other cases.
Kavouss Arasteh - why two entries for DCA.
David McAuley 2: Greg gave right reason - but it was ICANN's listing of litigation is where the split occurred.
5.  Questionnaire Update
       5.1  Review and Evaluation Team - Update
Greg Shatan - ICANN 58 overtook the evaluation team and we will have to get this started.
Action Item – GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire.

              5.1.1 Team is responsible for updating the subgroup 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.
             5.1.2  Composition of the review team
Greg Shatan - still looking volunteers if you have not done so yet.
Erich Schweighofer: I will help in the questionnaire review.
Tatiana Tropina: Greg, I already volunteered to help with the questionnaire review, can confirm again that I will help
            5.1.3  Review Team – Next steps.
       5.2  Status of current responses
Greg Shatan - no new responses since February 22nd - this is not atypical. any questions? (none). Remind everyone should publicize it to their lists.
6.  AOB
(none).
7.  Adjourn
Decisions (none)
Action Items:

·         GS – If no news on questions to ICANN Legal by Monday 27 March GS will follow up with them.

·         GS – Post link to tutorials on US court system.

·         GS – Initiate Review and Evaluation team for questionnaire.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170323/a34ceb77/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5171 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170323/a34ceb77/image001-0001.png>