[Ws2-jurisdiction] More on gap analysis

[Paul Rosenzweig]

David

 

Thanks for this remarkable and useful summary of your views, which I am in
overall agreement with.  Like others who have responded, I reviewed our
legal work in WS1 with a fairly close eye and I saw no gaps in the
accountability measures we proposed – at least none that related in any way
to jurisdictional issues.  Perhaps we can focus on how our jurisdiction
influences internal operational issues as we are tasked 
.

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:  <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>
http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ 

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 10:00 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] More on gap analysis

 

I would like to respond to Greg’s suggestion in the call earlier this week.
On the call we discussed the meaning of gap analysis and its possible
implications. Greg asked if Pedro and I would separately note on list the
points we each had been attempting to make on the call. What follows are my
personal views.

 

The sub-team was addressing the phrase in paragraph 30 of Annex 12 of the
CCWG Final Report asking that we give consideration to, “Confirming and
assessing the gap analysis, clarifying all concerns regarding the
multi-layer jurisdiction issue.” 

 

I was/am of the view that the concept of “confirming” recognized that WS1
had in effect performed a gap analysis – the potential gap being whether the
accountability measures that were proposed could or could not be applied to,
and ultimately enforced against, ICANN. 

 

For example, when we decided in WS1 that we wanted the ability to remove
board members we asked Sidley/Adler if that was possible within the
California form we were analyzing - designator, not membership. If the
answer had been that we could not then a gap would have existed. If it was
that we could then we asked counsel to put the provision into appropriate
legal language. 

 

We did the same for all accountability measures we wished to put in place,
specifically revising the ICANN Mission, enhancing the IRP, and giving the
community power/right to:

 

*        Reject ICANN budgets, IANA budgets, or strategic/operating plans;

*        Reject changes to ICANN’s standard bylaws;

*        Approve changes to new fundamental bylaws, Articles, and ICANN’s
sale or disposition;

*        Remove a director;

*        Recall the entire board;

*        Initiate binding IRP;

*        Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of the IANA
functions, including the triggering of Post-Transition IANA separation; and

*        Right of inspection, investigation. 

That, to me, was a gap analysis.

 

In fact, Annex 12, paragraph 26, noted that WS1 might well have encountered
gaps along the way – it recognized the fact that California law does have
limits with respect to accountability mechanisms that might be imposed on
ICANN. It is that recognition in paragraph 26 that admits a possible gap
that we in the sub-team are meant to assess, as I see it. 

 

It is also important to note that our remit to confirm/assess the gap
analysis is given to us with two qualifiers in paragraph 30:

 

*        First, that the main issues that we need to investigate in WS2
“
relate to the influence that ICANN´s existing jurisdiction may have on the
actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers
primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN,
involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, but not
necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated:” (emphasis added)  and

 

*        Second, our consideration in WS2 “will focus on the settlement of
dispute jurisdiction issues and include
” the act of confirming/assessing
the gap analysis that we are engaged in, along with identifying potential
alternatives.  

I underscored the word “necessarily” in the first qualifier above because it
appears consistent with the notion of being contingent – on us closing any
potential gap. Our sub-team job is relatively straightforward: have we (WS1)
managed to avoid or close such gaps; in other words, are the accountability
mechanisms we chose applicable and enforceable? If we have succeeded then I
submit that our work is limited to analyzing jurisdiction only insofar as it
relates to settlement of disputes. 

 

And that is why our remit to “identify” potential alternatives, also bounded
by the two qualifiers, is to examine potential alternatives with our focus
being on settlement of dispute jurisdiction. 

 

During the call, Jorge listed in the chat certain portions from the CCWG
Second Report mentioning gap analysis (addressing such things as ability to
sue/be sued to enforce bylaws and other accountability mechanisms;
binding-ness of IRP decisions, and more) and which called for more analysis.
I believe that further analysis was done and reflected in the Final Report,
which gave us the language we are now addressing.

 

It is important to look at the sub-team work in context. In my view,
incorporation in California has one distinct advantage over other locations
as concerns ICANN – for over 18 years it has worked. It would be imprudent
to consider a location change absent a material problem stemming from
jurisdiction that is incapable of resolution. 

 

Moreover, consideration of an alternative for ICANN’s location would entail,
per jurisdiction considered, roughly the same investment in time and
lawyers’ attention that WS1 expended on legal fees. If this sub-team intends
to go down that path, something I recommend against, then we need to make
sure that we have budget to support such efforts. 

 

So in my view it makes practical sense as well as analytical sense (as
performed by the CCWG) for the location issue to be out of scope in WS2
other than as it relates, if at all, to settlement of disputes. As Göran
Marby said in last week’s hearing , ICANN is committed to remaining
domiciled in the US, where it has operated successfully and, among other
things, put in place thousands of contracts. 

 

David

 

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160924/63d5e574/attachment.html>