[Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law

Tue Oct 3 06:13:04 UTC 2017

Dear all,

I have added advantages and disadvantages for the various options we have
open at the moment regarding governing law, based on the discussions on the
list and on call. Please also comment, edit or make changes you in the
working document as you see fit. Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?disco=AAAABSt6bz8&ts=59cbf613

I suppose that, given the deadline, it would be useful to try to come to a
consensus so that we can formulate our recommendation/suggestion. I know
some people have said on call/chat they had not entirely made up their mind
regarding the best option.

Best,

Raphael

2017-09-19 8:48 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Dear Raphaël and all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for kick-starting this drafting exercise! I have taken the liberty
> of redrafting and adding some wording to the Google Docs, using the
> “suggesting mode”. See attached the resulting Word for those with no access
> to Google Docs.
>
>
>
> The main change is to consider the “menu approach” (your option 1) as the
> potential recommended course of action, which would increase the freedom of
> choice and the flexibilities for registries. Your options 2 and 3 would be
> just possible outcomes and/or solutions that would depend on how the
> corresponding registry (and ICANN) agree to exercise that freedom of choice.
>
>
>
> Hope these changes may be acceptable to you and all – at least as a start
> for further discussion.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc
> es at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 17. September 2017 21:48
> *An:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I apologise in advance for not being able to make it to tomorrow's call
> since I will be held at work until late evening CET.
>
>
>
> While there will probably be more discussions of this topic tomorrow, I
> have prepared a skeleton draft recommendation as a google doc so that we
> can start working towards our final objective, since it does seem at this
> point that there is a form of consensus emerging on both the fact that this
> is an issue and over solutions.
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr
> 3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> To be very honest I do not know of the formal or even substantive
> requirements for recommendations, so I just took some ideas from the OFAC
> one.
>
>
>
> I guess at this point is just for everyone to jump in and contribute, as
> this is far from complete (and maybe even accurate.) I will myself be
> adding more materials from our discussions into this during the coming
> week.
>
>
>
> I remember Greg you said you would prepare some form of wrap-up/forward
> looking document, in any case (and especially if yours is more fleshed out)
> feel free to incorporate whatever can be incorporated from this one into
> yours so that we work in a single document.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Raphael
>
>
>
> 2017-09-14 17:37 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
>
> As long as registries have the choice, a regional "menu" approach seems ok
> to me.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 11:25 AM
> > To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law
> >
>
> > We can't avoid inconsistency altogether if there is more than one
> jurisdiction
> > involved.  Almost by definition, with more than one jurisdiction
> available the
> > risk of inconsistency and uncertainty is heightened.
> >
> > At the other end of the spectrum is a world with 190+ jurisdictions.  In
> that
> > context the risk of inconsistency is at its maximum.
> >
> > I personally have no concerns about the use of California law
> exclusively.
> > Others in the community, however, do have those concerns.  A menu option
> > with a few regional choices seems to answer those concerns without a huge
> > increase in the risk of inconsistency -- especially if it is accompanied
> by an
> > urge toward uniformity in areas where uniformity is most essential (like
> > operational issues).
> >
> > It is an imperfect solution -- offered in the spirit of compromise, not
> as a
> > canonically correct exposition of principle.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Paul Rosenzweig
> > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> > www.redbranchconsulting.com
> > My PGP Key:
> > https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06
> > 6684
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 10:22 AM
> > To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>;
> > ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] issues on applicable law
> >
> > Very interesting post Paul. But, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the
> > "menu" being based on regions? If you are agreeing, then how do we avoid
> > this problem:
> >
> > > And we cannot, from an accountability perspective, want a world in
> > > which there are inconsistent results and how a contract provision is
> > > enforced depends on whether the suit is brought in Europe or in Asia.
> > > That type of uncertainty is also the enemy of accountability.  Thus, I
> > > disagree with the submission that the presumption should be that the
> > > law of the registry apply to the agreement. That way lies chaos.
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
>
> LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
> @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
@rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20171003/66b95a5f/attachment-0001.html>