Sub-group Members:   Amrita Vasudevan, Andreea Brambilla, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Jorge Canco, Kavouss Arasteh, Milton Mueller, Paul McGrady, Pedro da Silva, Phi Morano, Philip Corwin, Tatiana Tropina, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tom Dale, Vidushi Marda, Vinay Kesari   (22)

Observers: Berry Cobb, Irene Borissova, Veni Markovski   (3)

Staff:  Bernie Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Tristana Webster

Apologies:  Herb Waye

 ** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to **




  1. Welcome Back
  2. Setting the Scene
  3. Work Plan
  4. Document and Discussion: “The Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdictions (Governing Law and Venue) Relating to Resolution of Disputes”[1]
    1. Influence[2] on:

                              i.   Disputes involving ICANN

                             ii.    Accountability Mechanisms

                            iii.    Actual Policy and Operations

b.  Possible Use of “Stress Tests”

  1. 5.  Document and Discussion: “Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction”
    6.  Suggestion: Reading List
    7.  Possible Use of Experts
    8.  AOB
    9.  Adjourn

[2] “Influences” can be positive, neutral or negative.


Notes  (including relevant parts of chat):

1. Welcome Back - Vinay Kesari

2.Setting the Scene - Vinay Kesari

Kavous Arasteh: I am not optimistic of the results we can acheive here - did not understand the introduction. We are widening the subject instead of focusing.

Vinay Kesari: Agreee with KA - we need to focus on our core task without removing any possible outcomes.

Greg Shatan: Agree. We do not need to identify solutions to problems that have not been identified.

Note: discussions surrounding Jorge Cancio’s suggestion of a consultation/questionnaire generated most of the traffic in the chat and this should be read in conjunction with these ntoes.

3.Work Plan

Greg Shatan: will have to redo after this meeting. It seems early for a public consultation.

Vidushi Marda: I am new to the group - where are we vs jurisdiction of incorporation.

Greg Shatan: best to catch up reading transcripts and the email lists. Jurisdiction of incorporation is not off the table but we have agreed to only consider it if it comes up as the only solution to a given issue.

Jorge Cancio: I was proposing a fact finding exercise especially those who have contracts or those who could be considered materially harmed.

Greg Shatan: We need more factual information from concerned parties. We need to get a small group working on the list to begin designing this.

David McAuley: This should be about getting facts and not opinions.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: what are the points we have difficulty to get to consensus on.

Greg Shatan: I see it differently - this is about getting factual information from users.

Kavous Arasteh: I have no idea what is a stress test and was not very useful in WS1. What surveys, about what, why? Few people would reply to what I understand what we are talking about - this is not what we have said we would work on. We need to focus on applicability of jurisdiction of contracts.

Greg Shatan: We are not looking for legal opinions or theories. What we are discussing is getting real facts from contracted parties - things that have happened. It is in our mandate to get facts.

Kavous Arasteh: you are focusing on the past - under the new rules there may be new issues.

Greg Shatan: KA this is certainly not the objective - but we could really use facts from the past.

Vinay Kesari: Agree with GS. We only know information that is public. The questions would allow us to possibly identify facts that are not currently in the public domain.

Greg Shatan: temperature check on doing the questionnaire - general support for it. Could we have volunteers to prepare the questions in the chat. We would need a draft for Monday - CW, MM - this is our drafting group which will return the questions to this group with their draft.

4.Document and Discussion: “The Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdictions (Governing Law and Venue) Relating to Resolution of Disputes”

Greg Shatan: we need to get back to working on these documents.  especially focused on Disputes involving ICANN

5.Document and Discussion: “Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction”

Greg Shatan: needs further review and comments from all participants.

6.Suggestion: Reading List

Greg Shatan: We should set up a reading list on our Wiki.

Kavous Arasteh: What do we mean by influcence?

Andrea Brambilla: (govt of Canada) supports the request for a questionnaire. All the work of WS1 is based on current ICANN jurisdiction and this should not be disturbed - it is more important to reinforce accountability.

7.Possible Use of Experts

Greg Shatan: refers to the use of legal. If we have questions we need to submit these to the legal comm. but we are not there yet.


Greg Shatan: Any other business? (none).

9.   Adjourn

        Greg Shatan: Adjourned.

Action items:

  • Milton and CW to draft a few questions for review by the group.
  • Everyone to go to our 2 Documents.

Documents Presented


Chat Transcript

  Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to the Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #10 on Monday, 21 November 2016 @ 19:00 UTC!

  Kavouss Arasteh:Hi Brenda

  Brenda Brewer:Hello Kavouss!

  Paul McGrady:Hello all!

  Tatiana Tropina:Hi all!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:hi all

  Vidushi Marda:Hello everyone!

  Vinay Kesari:Hello everyone

  Milton Mueller:Greetings

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:Hello everyone!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):hi all

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all (I'm also the swiss phone number)

  Milton Mueller:audible

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec,

  David McAuley:dialing in

  David McAuley:Brenda I am 4154

  Kavouss Arasteh:Iam not optimistic to the results  that we may obtain

  Farzaneh Badii:Hi

  Brenda Brewer 2:Thank you, David!

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:As I see the situation and progress of this group, I feel that perhaps it is time to develop a community consultation on the basis of the two rough docs we have (multiple layers and the influence doc), requesting stakeholder input on their experience and opinions about the different issues we preliminarily have identified as a group in both docs (especially in the “influence” doc).This would allow us to assess where specific problems are, what the needs of the community are, and, possibly, also request some ideas on possible solutions to the problems identified.Perhaps it is still too early, but I think that in Hyderabad there was some agreement in the room that this fact-finding exercise could lead us to the next level in our discussions…

  Vinay Kesari:Thank you Jorge. What would you consider to be a community consultation?

  Kavouss Arasteh:what is community consultation????

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:@Vinay: a consultation directed to SO/AC and any interested party... especially contracted ones...

  Milton Mueller:a public comment?

  Kavouss Arasteh:I do not follow this marginal discussions

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Nothing new, really - yes, well in PDPs they are calling such public consultations "community consultations" - where we could ask for real-life inputs

  Milton Mueller:my hope is that comment is open to any stakeholder and does not have to go through AC/SO filters

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:otherwise we may contniue walking in circles, with a somewhat "academic" flavor, to sth that should be based on real experience (with all respect to academics)

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec, why not we take up what we left before Hyderabad?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:@Milton: absolutely

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:I agree, Jorge. I would suggest we concentrate on a consultation based on the influence doc, but structured as a set of questions to the wider community (not just SO/ACs).

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:@Greg: this would be a call for inputs

  Vinay Kesari:Jorge, just playing devil's advocate for a moment, considering that the subgroup is already open to all, what would the purpose of such a consutlation be?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:not a public consultation on a developed document

  Kavouss Arasteh:I do not understand why we jumpt to community consultation which is almost public comment

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:@Vinay: following such a subgroup is very cumbersome for people with limited resources and  very immediate needs, e.g. not so big registries and registrars

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec it is 18 mints that we are talking in abstract

  Kavouss Arasteh: pls take up your agenda

  Vidushi Marda:Yes Greg, have tried but from what I understood, in the fourth call it was decided that it was in the remit. and then somewhere near the 9th call it was decided that it would not be pursued any further

  David McAuley:I agree w/Greg that we should communicate with plenary prior to any community consultaion – and if we ever consider a community consultation we need to exercise caution and know beforahnd how it will be handled and considered. For instance, would staff be involved. I prefer to work with plenary.

  Milton Mueller:I disagree David

  Paul McGrady:@Greg - yes, but without agreement that a "remedy" which dismantles WS1 would be an appropriate "remedy."

  David McAuley:pls mute if not speaking

  Kavouss Arasteh:I do not want to have staff in ithis part  untill we need to consult ICANN Legal staff

  David McAuley:I think what Milton described is a bit different and might be worth considering if it is done within remit we have from WS1

  Vinay Kesari:Understood Jorge. So you mean something in the nature of a survey/ call for inputs on a specific issue?

  Milton Mueller:Maybe Jorge could clarify what he has in  mind

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:@Vinay: that's it: a survey with some questions

  Kavouss Arasteh:Jorge, what survey?

  Milton Mueller:meh.  survey design can be slow. why not just call for facts or incidents?

  Kavouss Arasteh:what questions?

  Milton Mueller:Yes, Greg it does

  Paul McGrady 2:We don'r want surveys anyway.  We want anecdotal stories of problems.

  Greg Shatan:Agree Paul

  Milton Mueller:Yes. facts! incidents. Cases

  Tatiana Tropina:Well said, David. It will take ages to draft them.

  Milton Mueller:no, we do not want to make a questionnaire. I hope

  Tatiana Tropina:I hope so too. Otherwise this group will be a groundhog day.

  Greg Shatan:I hope we can ask a few simple questions without getting all caught up in minutae.

  Milton Mueller:We want to say something like: give us examples of how your business or your ability to use the DNS was affected by ICANN's jurisdiction

  Andreea Brambilla:Would

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:right, Milton

  Andreea Brambilla:Would be helpful to frame more openly and not limit to problems only.

  Paul McGrady 2:Must include governing law and venue, not just an amoprhous "jurisdiction" alone.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:mark 1

  Milton Mueller:...and how your ability to interact with ICANN was affected by its jurisdiction. (good addition, Greg)

  David McAuley:That question though goes to overall jurisdiction, don’t we want to hear about dispute-resolution releated jurisdictional issues?

  Milton Mueller:yes we do

  Milton Mueller:especially that

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:as long as we have 17 or less stress tests :P

  David McAuley:LOL Jorge

  Vinay Kesari:Jorge :)

  Milton Mueller:you are raising my stress level now

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]::-D "str... te...." are forbidden words

  Greg Shatan:We are looking for facts about things that already happened.

  Milton Mueller:GAC has reserved those words in all TLDs

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:up to the 18th domain level...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): SORRY my AC had frozen

  Paul McGrady 2:Agree Greg.  I think your vision for the inputs is solid.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:mark 2

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Maybe some degree of anonimity for some contractual parties would be needed...

  Milton Mueller:we don't need philosophical ruminations on inductive logic now.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):for the record I believe an enqiry after any 'factscase studues' regarding our remit (yes with a few *simple* questions  *IS* a great idea and *has my support as long it is short order and simple (we trust therefore effective)   this would be good foundation for our work regardless of our use of any material gained from the questions.

  Paul McGrady 2:Identified past harms would be much more persuasive to drive any changes than hypothetical future harms.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup

  David McAuley:+1 APaul

  David McAuley:@Paul, that is

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):exactly Greg

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Vinay  good point

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Again: to protect some stakeholders some degree of anonimity could be required...

  Kavouss Arasteh:To be informed on what has happened in the past, we do not need questionaire. just ask ICANN to provide cases that have happened and the past under ICANN jurisdiction

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I believe that would be valuable Jorge  ... Yes

  David McAuley:green, depending on how done

  Kavouss Arasteh:BEfore asking that pls tell who are the addresees

  Milton Mueller:and if you're not paying attention, give us a turtle

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-)

  Vinay Kesari:Kavouss, even ICANN may not be aware of all situations, because not every situation would be a 'case' that comes to, or is brought to, ICANN's notice

  Kavouss Arasteh:we must agree on those name

  CW:Volunteer CW

  Milton Mueller:I can volunteer as long as it doesn't involve a new email list, a new password and userid, or another adobeconnect call

  Vinay Kesari:People may face an issue, but decide for various reasons not to formally raise it

  David McAuley:the questions will be passed through this group, no?

  Milton Mueller:what a pair

  Kavouss Arasteh:two are sufficient

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:time check 10 minutes

  David McAuley:cant hear

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:yes

  David McAuley:yes - no could not hear kavouss

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes jear you

  Tatiana Tropina:can hear

  David McAuley:which one is that again Greg

  Vinay Kesari:David, this document:

  David McAuley:thanks

  David McAuley:thanks Vinay

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Vinay  please also send the link and a reminder to respond  in the GDoc (where yuo can - not all are ble to)  to the list as well please

  Kavouss Arasteh:What do you mean by"Influence of ICANN "Jurisdiction?A

  Andreea Brambilla:+1 Greg. Should not limit inputs only to problems.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:influence also could be a deterring effect... there are some parties who for differente parties historically used to be reluctant to enter into agreements with ICANN...

  Vinay Kesari:Just to reinforce Greg's point, this is the focal point of our work, and so far we've only had two significant contributors, out of 60 people on 'active participant' status

  David McAuley:surely more than two have commented?

  Kavouss Arasteh:who are those two contributions pls ?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Greg, Vinay...

  Kavouss Arasteh:Who submitted those two contributions ?

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:and others... was joking...

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Mark 4

  Vinay Kesari:David, there are more people who have commented :) My point was more on edits/ additions to the main text

  David McAuley:ok thanks Vinay

  Kavouss Arasteh:which are these two contributions?

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec

  Kavouss Arasteh:Pls may you kindly explain what do you mean by Influence of ICANN jurisdiction?

  David McAuley:+1 Andreea

  Paul McGrady 2:+1 Andreea

  David McAuley:The legal committee is likely to look for specific questions not open ones

  Paul McGrady 2:hanks for the call Greg.  I need to drop off now for my next committment.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Legal questions ,if any, should be validated by LEGAL cOMMITTEE under Leon Sanchez

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:We may need to first ask ICANN legal on their views on some of the facts that may come to us from the fact-finding consultation...

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:we have reached the top of the hour

  Kavouss Arasteh:next meeting?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Thanks everyone... Talk next weel then

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:November 29th, 13h UTC

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):week *sigh*   Bye for now

  David McAuley:Thanks all, good bye

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:thanks and bye all! happy Thanksgiving to all north-american colleagues!

  Tatiana Tropina:bye all! Thanks

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all

  Andreea Brambilla:Thanks everyone!

  • No labels