Sub-group Members:   

Barbara Wanner, Christopher Wilkinson, Corinne Cath, David McAuley, Finn Peterson, Edward Morris, Erich Schweighofer, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Jyoti Panday, Kavouss Arasteh, Pedro da Silva, Phil Marano, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Vinay Kesari  (21)

Observers: Taylor RW Bentley, Silvana Rivero

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Karen Mulberry, Brenda Brewer, Yvette Guigneaux   (4)

Apologies:  Paul Rosenzweig

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**



1. Welcome, attendance, SOIs, etc.

2. ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A, particularly #7

3. Scope discussion:

      - Continue Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper, as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup)

      - Commence Discussion of draft Scope/Focus Google doc (to be circulated)

4. Other Potential Inputs to our Work:

      - More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks (summarized in Staff Paper)

      - Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope)

      - Experts/Legal Advice

5. AOB

6. Upcoming Meetings

7. Adjourn


Notes (BT):

Relevant web pages: 

General Jurisdiction wiki 

This meeting:

1. Welcome, attendance, SOIs, etc.

Vinay Kesari: no changes.

2. ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A, particularly #7

Greg Shatan: (from the ICANN response) Will ICANN relocate its headquarters outside of the United States after the transition?No. ICANN will not relocate its corporate headquarters location after the transition. The transition proposal clearly states [PDF, 2.32 MB] that "the legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged." California law is the basis for the new mechanisms created to empower the ICANN community and hold ICANN the organization, Board and community, accountable. In addition, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation are filed under California law, and its Bylaws state that ICANN's headquarters are in California.

Vinay Kesari: any comments?

Tijani Ben Jemaa: What is the value of this for our work? This does not seem to add anything for us.

Christopher Wilkinson: Concerned with the activities of the Sidley law form - codifying the relationships between all parts of ICANN seems to be significantly  too much. This would be a cause for thinking of moving from the US jurisdiction.

Erich Schweighofer: Christopher Wilkinson is right: a benevolent jurisdiction without much interference is a key element.

Tatiana Tropina: I never thought that tjis group in the WS2 was supposed to discuss the issue of the ICANN jurisdiction as a corporation... 

Pedro da Silva: ICANN's recently released IANA Stewardship Q&A is unclear if this is the position of the community or a single Board member. Question 7 should not be relevant to our discussion.

Jeff Neuman: I have to admit I am lost.  I am only paying attention to WS2 items so if there are other documents I need to review, can we please post those docs

Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Bylaws and Articles have ALWAYS said California corporation and location.    We didn't change that.    But we did give the empowered community the ability to block bylaws change, and to approve any change to the Articles.

Kavous Arasteh: We should not be discussing  this Q&A question as it is misleading.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: let us focus on working on our draft document.

Vinay Kesari:  The Q&A question 7 is relevant input.

Greg Shatan: All CWG related issues should be out of scope for this group.

Kavous Arasteh: Agree with respect to CWG. 

Pedro da Silva: Why misleading - because it limits the issue of jurisdiction to California law and brings no new information to our discussion.

Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: Pedro -- jurisdiction of ICANN's contracts can be specified in the contract.   Not the same thing as ICANN's place of location

Gerg Shatan: Is jursidiction oof headquarters of ICANN a topic for this group?

Pedro da Silva: Yes - it is important no to pre-judge the answers to the multi-layer discussions. 

Jeff Neuman: I do not believe that the place of incorporation is in scope for this subgroup

Tatiana Tropina: I also don't believe that the place of incorporation is for this group to decide .

Jeff Neuman: As Mr. Marby said during the testimony today, ICANN's entired new structure and empowered community is all based on California and California law. If we deviate from that, then ICANN's entire model and everything we have worked on for the past number of years gets thrown out the window.

Greg Shatan: Obviously there is a difference of opinion on this and we should note that this is an open question which we will have to resolve soon.

Robin Gross: Jeff and Tatiana are right.  We can't redo all those reforms at this point.

Kavous Arasteh: Location of ICANN head office is not open for discussion.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I feel we do not need to be so absolute - the current location is a fact. We always said we would look at whether that means any problem. If there is such a problem, that does not mean that we suddenly change the location, but that we look for solutions that are reasonable...

Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]: All I am defending is an open approach to this topic and thereby not antecipate any results. 

Edward Morris: Section 24.1 of the new Bylaws puts the place of business in Los Angeles, California but does allow for the establishent of offices elsewhere. 

Tijani Ben Jemaa: This Q&A is not relevant to our work let us focus on our work.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): anyway, the present and real location of ICANN is a place called "adobe connect" :P

3. Scope discussion:

      - Continue Detailed Reading of Google Doc (Staff Paper, as revised and annotated by Members of Subgroup)

Greg Shatan: we need to increase contributions.

Kavous Arateh: what do you mean by gaps.

Greg Shatan: this language is in Recommendation 12 from the WS1 report.

Jeff Neuman: Remove BUT NOT NECESSARILY and agree that we cannot get into where ICANN is incorporated.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I'm not sure whether this subgroup is empowered to change the "job description" established by the full CCWG... that's why I always suggested to start with annex 12 and its wording, without picking and choosing from it.

Jeff Neuman: Perhaps a better way to state this is "What are the issues that arise due to the current jurisdiction in which ICANN is located"?

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would agree with that

Pedro da Silva: what is the difference between the accountability requirements from WS1 vs the implementation. Also we cannot change the scope provided to us by the full CCWG. We need to consider all aspects of jurisdiction.

Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): But as said, location is one aspect - the venue and character of the arbitration mechanisms and litigation venues, as well as the applicable law to disputes would be important issues

Jeff Neuman: Can you point me to the exact location in the WS1 final report which states that we remain open to consider the place where ICANN is incorporated?

Greg Shatan: there are obviously two views vs location of incorporation. We may have to bring this back to the plenary if we cannot resolve this ourselves. We have two significant issues we need to continue to discuss: Should the scope include where ICANN is incorporated and what a GAP analysis would be in this case.

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): agree with Greg: some questions, especially if they mean to change text agreed by the CCWG and the community as a whole in Marrakech, at least need to go to the plenary

Jeff Neuman: And my proposal is that we do not talk more about the incorporation for the reasons Mr. Marby testified today

Jeff Neuman: And because that would overturn everything we have done for the past several years

Kavouss Arasteh: If we recosider the location all assumption based on which the " Sigle Designator2 was adopted will disappear and we would be sent back to square one

Pedro da Silva: People seem to be concerned that we even discuss this - we need to understand how ICANN's jursidiction interferes with its work.


Jeff Neuman: @Kavouss - agreed.  And that is not the same thing as "place of incorporation"

Jeff Neuman: But I do not believe we can or should touch incorporation

jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): First is to assess problems - of all kinds. Second is looking to meaningful, reasonable means to adress such problems...

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Why do we keep working with Google docs which is not acceptable to all. We should work on the Wiki. Also we need to start on the multi-layer jurisdiction. We need to agree on the layers.

Greg Shatan: We can try to Wiki tool for one aspect such - maybe GAP analysis.

      - Commence Discussion of draft Scope/Focus Google doc (to be circulated)

4. Other Potential Inputs to our Work:

      - More Detailed Review of Lightning Talks (summarized in Staff Paper)

      - Pertinent Literature (influenced by Scope)

      - Experts/Legal Advice

5. AOB

6. Upcoming Meetings

Greg Shatan: next meeting is 21 Sept. 1300UTC

7. Adjourn

Greg Shatan: Adjourned.


Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

 Yvette Guigneaux 2:Welcome everyone to Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #3 - Wednesday, 14 September @ 19:00 UTC

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Yevette

  Kavouss Arasteh:You seems to be French

  Kavouss Arasteh:Is that right

  Kavouss Arasteh:Dans ce cas laè

  Kavouss Arasteh:Bonsoir

  Kavouss Arasteh:Brenda

  Kavouss Arasteh:Bon soir Yettte

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec

  Brenda Brewer 2:Hi Kavouss!

  Yvette Guigneaux 2:Bon Soir, comme t'allez vous?

  Kavouss Arasteh:I see your document, saying " The choice of Jurisdiction2 Is it not  JOKE.

  Kavouss Arasteh:There is only one jurisdiction ,no matter what we discuss????

  Kavouss Arasteh:tHEN " THE aPPLICABLE LAW2

  Kavouss Arasteh:iI heard from you that there is only onFederal Law and California Law

  Kavouss Arasteh:Location

  Kavouss Arasteh:99.99 % of cases would be California.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Then why we waste our time unless we are serious , pragmatic. realistic and fair

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:hello all

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):hi there

  Kavouss Arasteh:Can Somebody post the staff ( Google Doc)on the maing list

  Kavouss Arasteh:I do not have access to that doc.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Jorge, you are among a very few GAC member attending these meeting.

  Tatiana Tropina:hi all

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]:Hello, all

  Kavouss Arasteh:I expect PEDRO AND Olga

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi pedro

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hapèpy to hear from you

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:@Kavous the paper is at

  Silvana Rivero:Hello, everyone!

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]:Hi, Kavouss. Happy to hear from you too.

  Vinay Kesari:Hi all

  Greg Shatan:Just got kicked off phone.

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]:@Staff: the automatic dial-out does not work for me. I am asked to press 1 to join the call but it does not recognize me pressing this number. Is a manual dial-out to my phone possible?

  Tatiana Tropina:I have the same problem as Pedro, had the same for the HR meeting yesterday

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:Reminder all please mute your mike if not speaking

  Tatiana Tropina:had to dial in via German numbers

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec

  Kavouss Arasteh:I repeat what I said before,

  Greg Shatan:Please mute if hyou are not talking, and especially if you are typing.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):please mute

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue):Hi all!

  Kavouss Arasteh:I do not understand the meaning of 2 GAP Analysis2

  Kavouss Arasteh:May you kindly explain it in the chat

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:David 8624?

  Greg Shatan:#7 has now been posted in the Notes page.

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:done

  Kavouss Arasteh:Does the meeting started

  Kavouss Arasteh:I hear nothing

  Brenda Brewer 2:I will call out to you again Kavouss. your audio line disconnected

  Kavouss Arasteh:Why discinnected?

  Kavouss Arasteh:Who has disconnected.

  Brenda Brewer 2:I think there was a technical glitch.  I am calling you now

  Brenda Brewer 2:All, if your phone number is listed in the Attendee pod, please identify for attendance purposes.  Thank you!

  Jeff Neuman:Sorry....what direction is Sidley leading us to?

  Jeff Neuman:What am I missing?

  Tatiana Tropina:I am missing something, too

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):what is the issue?

  Tatiana Tropina:are we reopening the issue that was sealed in the WS1?

  Erich Schweighofer:Christopher Wilkinson is right: a benevolent jurisdiction without much interference is a key element.

  Tatiana Tropina:the scope document I believe

  Tatiana Tropina:ah oh ok

  Edward Morris:Agree with both Greg and Tatiana here.

  Tatiana Tropina:I never thought that tjis group in the WS2 was supposed to discuss the issue of the ICANN jurisdiction as a corporation...

  Jeff Neuman:I have to admit I am lost.  I am only paying attention to WS2 items so if there are other documents I need to review, can we please post those docs

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Bylaws and Articles have ALWAYS said California corporation and location.    We didn't change that.    But we did give the empowered community the ability to block bylaws change, and to approve any change to the Articles.

  Vinay Kesari:Am I the only one unable to hear Pedro clearly? Audio cutting in and out.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):agree with such points

  Jeff Neuman:Right.  We cannot assume that everyone in this group is also a member of the CWG or following their activities.  I for one am not which may be why I am so lost

  Christopher Wilkinson:Greg:

  Christopher Wilkinson:WA2 is codifying California juridiction in ways that are way beyond non-US expectations. CW

  Greg Shatan:What is WA2?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):ws2?

  Christopher Wilkinson:Typo WS2

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):ws2 has just started - has not decided anything, right?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]:Pedro -- jurisdiction of ICANN's contracts can be specified in the contract.   Not the same thing as ICANN's place of location

  Tatiana Tropina:Good question, Greg

  Jeff Neuman:I do not believe that the place of incorporation is in scope for this subgroup.  

  Tatiana Tropina:I also don't believe that the place of incorporation is for this group to decide

  Jeff Neuman:As Mr. Marby said during the testimony today, ICANN's entired new structure and empowered community is all based on California and California law

  Jeff Neuman:If we deviate from that, then ICANN's entire model and everything we have worked on for the past number of years gets thrown out the window

  Robin Gross:Jeff and Tatiana are right.  We can't redo all those reforms at this point.

  Tatiana Tropina:This might be brought to the plenary of CCWG

  Tatiana Tropina:I mean the scope question

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel we do not need to be so absolute - the current location is a fact. We always said we would look at whether that means any problem. If there is such a problem, that does not mean that we suddenly change the location, but that we look for solutions that are reasonable...

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]:All I am defending is an open approach to this topic and thereby not antecipate any results.

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]:Exactly, Jorge.

  Edward Morris:Section 24.1 of the new Bylaws puts the place of business in Los Angeles, California but does allow for the establishent of offices elsewhere.

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):anyway, the present and real location of ICANN is a place called "adobe connect" :P

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I made some proposals to the Google doc a while ago

  Brenda Brewer 2:one moment, on the way

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:If you go from Google to Word then to PDF you only lose the names of those who commented

  Christopher Wilkinson:GAP is a fashion brand.


  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:Gap analysis identifies gaps between the optimized allocation and integration of the inputs (resources), and the current allocation-level. This may reveal areas that can be improved. Gap analysis involves determining, documenting, and approving the difference between business requirements and current capabilities. Gap analysis naturally flows from benchmarking and from other assessments.

  Greg Shatan:Bernie, very well stated!

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:Wikipedia

  Paul McGrady 2:So sorry to join so late.  My 15 minute appointment for India became a 2 hour Odessy and I'm stil got more steps to go!

  Jeff Neuman:Why are we saying it is open?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I'm not sure whether this subgroup is empowered to change the "job description" established by the full CCWG... that's why I always suggested to start with annex 12 and its wording, without picking and choosing from it

  Jeff Neuman:Perhaps a better way to state this is "What are the issues that arise due to the current jurisdiction in which ICANN is located"?

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):I would agree with that

  Kavouss Arasteh:Pedro

  Kavouss Arasteh:Put that iin a mailing list

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):But as said, location is one aspect - the venue and character of the arbitration mechanisms and litigation venues, as well as the applicable law to disputes would be important issues

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec,

  Jeff Neuman:Can you point me to the exact location in the WS1 final report which states that we remain open to consider the place where ICANN is incorporated?

  Kavouss Arasteh:may you lead that discrition of Gap Analysis and come up with some options

  Jeff Neuman:The word "necessarily" is completely ambiguous.  Either you consider the location or you dont consider the location.....

  Tatiana Tropina:I agree with bringing this back to the plenary

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):agree with Greg: some questions, especially if they mean to change text agreed by the CCWG and the community as a whole in Marrakech, at least need to go to the plenary

  Jeff Neuman:And my proposal is that we do not talk more about the incorporation for the reasons Mr. Marby testified today.

  Jeff Neuman:And because that would overturn everything we have done for the past several years

  Kavouss Arasteh:If we recosider the location all assumption based on which the " Sigle Designator2 was adopted will disappear and we would be sent back to square one

  Pedro da Silva [GAC Brasil]:Can I talk again?


  Jeff Neuman:@Kavouss - agreed.  And that is not the same thing as "place of incorporation"

  Jeff Neuman:But I do not believe we can or should touch incorporation

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):First is to assess problems - of all kinds. Second is looking to meaningful, reasonable means to adress such problems...

  Jeff Neuman:Yes, lets look at problems (using real data) to see what we are trying to solve for.

  Kavouss Arasteh:tIJANI+ 1

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Indeed - real world issues would help us to get the discussion going

  Kavouss Arasteh:Gogle is a supporting document for information only.

  Kavouss Arasteh:gREC, tIME IS OVER.

  Christopher Wilkinson:The Comments in Google Doc are illegible and unatributed. Too small font. Who posts the comments?

  Vinay Kesari 2:In case anyone is unable to access Google docs, please do let us know.

  Tatiana Tropina:CW, they are attributed on google doc

  Tatiana Tropina:not in the word doc

  Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support:bye all

  Tatiana Tropina:bye all

  Tatiana Tropina:thanks

  Erich Schweighofer:Bye all.

  Vinay Kesari 2:+1 Tatiana

  jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye!

  Vinay Kesari 2:Thanks all

  Christopher Wilkinson:B'ye - CW

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue):thx!

  • No labels