Sub-group Members:   Andreea Brambilla, Avri Doria, Bartlett Morgan, Brian Scarpelli, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, Jeff Neuman, Kavouss Arasteh, Paul Rosenzeig, Philip Corwin, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco, Thiago Jardim, Wale Bakare   (20)


Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Nigel Hickson   (3)

Apologies:  John Laprise

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


  • Word Doc
  • PDF



1. Welcome

2.  Review of Agenda (2 minutes)

3.  Administration (1 minute)

3.1. Changes to SOIs
3.2. Identify Audio Only and Phone Number Participants

4. Review of decisions and action items from last call (2 minutes)

4.1. Decisions:

4.1.1. None. Note that Plenary at ICANN59 discussed the decision that the Subgroup will not

pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. (It should be noted that this decision does not create a limitation on the range of issues that the Subgroup can discuss.) Following the Plenary, the above decision stood; however, it was determined that the Subgroup could consider remedies including forms of partial/limited/relative immunity in response to specific issues recognized by the Subgroup.

4.2. Action Items:

4.2.1. Subgroup members asked to populate list of proposed issues (see Item 6).

5. Review of invitation to questionnaire respondents to present to the Jurisdiction Subgroup (5 minutes)

5.1. nVzGRc/edit?usp=sharing.

6. Review and discussion of the List of Proposed Issues for Jurisdiction Subgroup Consideration (15 minutes)

6.1. 7al4/edit#gid=0

6.2. General Process
6.3. Introductory Discussion of Proposed Issues on List

7. Questionnaire (20 minutes)

7.1. Review of Status and Progress: Hu9Ro3_k9uVYBTwm72UDmkMvUWwU_XyHAI/edit?usp=sharing

8. Review of ICANN Litigation (10 Minutes)

8.1. Review of Status and Progress: dit?usp=sharing

8.2. Review of ICANN v. Registerfly (Paul Rosenzweig) 8.3. Review of Martinez v. Registerfly (Paul Rosenzweig)

9. AOB

10. Adjourn 

Raw Captioning Notes

Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call


  • Email to questionnaire respondents regarding additional statements or participation is approved.

Action Items:

  • GS – to send email to questionnaire respondent as decide above.


Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

 Brenda Brewer: (7/10/2017 13:32) Good day and welcome to Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #37 on 10 July 2017 at 19:00 UTC!

  Brenda Brewer: (13:32) If you are not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6).  This call is recorded.

  Brenda Brewer: (13:32) Reminder to all, please speak slowly and state your name before speaking for the Captioner.  Thank you!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (13:56) hello all

  Bartlett Morgan: (14:00) Hello all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:00) hi all

  Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:00) hello!

  Erich Schweighofer: (14:00) Hi all

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:00) Howdy

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:01) Is anyone speaking?

  avri doria: (14:01) nothing is being captioned so figured no one speaking

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:01) Can't hear you Bernie

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:02) @Paul Greg speaking now

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (14:03) Hi everyone, my internet is basically dial-up speed, so am just in chat

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:03) oh dear Herb, I know that feeling all too well

  David McAuley: (14:04) I am #3200

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:07) we will fix that

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:07) I'm here...

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:07) can you hear us Paul?

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:08) Yes, had to reboot .

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:09) I feel like I could benefit from that too Paul..... oh you probably meant your computer ;-)

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:11) LOL.  My life is in reboot Cheryl ....

  David McAuley: (14:14) not opposed

  Brenda Brewer: (14:16) scroll control is on for everyone

  Bartlett Morgan: (14:18) yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:19) that is a good idea

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:19) yes add to the caption please

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:19) That's fine ... just so it is captured somewhere!

  Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:22) Yes it was Greg

  Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:22) I'll fill the rest in :)

  Thiago Jardim: (14:23) I would suggest we spend more time on discussing the 'general process' (point 6.2 in the agenda) than describing what are the issues currently in the list.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:24) Agree w/ Thiago

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:25) Greg -- One other point -- can we set a reasonable deadline (two weeks?) for populating the list so that we can then turn to the analysis

  Thiago Jardim: (14:26) Paul, I don't think it is necessary to close the list as long as there are issues whose consideration are pending.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:26) Well ... at some point we need to file a report.  If we are still doing this a year from now I will scream :-)

  Thiago Jardim: (14:27) Deadlines are already there, notably for conclusion of WS2

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:27) Yes, so we have to close the list at some point so that we can meet that deadline, right?

  David McAuley: (14:27) One other point on deadlin, as mentioned by Paul (sorry to go back) - maybe a deadline would be good in questionnaire response email invitation we discussed under agenda item #5

  David McAuley: (14:29) and two weeks seems fair deadline for that

  Thiago Jardim: (14:29) Paul, fine, let's say the deadline is at some point before the end of WS2 , so that there is time to discuss them :)

  Wale Bakare: (14:29) Hi all

  Thiago Jardim: (14:30) That's reasonable, Greg.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:30) Time Check - 30 minutes left in call

  Thiago Jardim: (14:30) That's not reasonable.

  Wale Bakare: (14:30) Apologies for  joining late

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:32) Fair enough Thiago ...:-)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:33) Thiago+1

  David McAuley: (14:33) With respect, I don't agree with putting issues oist out to public. We did that already.

  David McAuley: (14:34) list, that is

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:35) David,Iunderstand it was meant the entire CCWG but not public as such

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:35) Opening to the public is very unweildy.  The purpose of the questionairre was to capture that information and we did that once already.  I would be opposed to a second general data call.  I would, however, support having someone (maybe you THiago) go through the quesitonairre and add all the issues that htey find.

  David McAuley: (14:35) thanks Kavouss I will comment

  Andreea Brambilla: (14:35) Apologies, I have to drop off for another meeting.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:36) agree David/Paul /Greg

  Robin Gross: (14:36) I agree with David.  We need to wrap this up.

  Philip Corwin: (14:37) Agree with David; should not be opened to the public.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:37) David, what is the problem the the members of our parent Group be invited to also comment?

  David McAuley: (14:38) I think its our job in this subgroup Kavouss, I recognize reasonable people may differ

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:38) +1 David

  Thiago Jardim: (14:39) Ask in the mailing list of the Subgroup

  Bartlett Morgan: (14:39) For the benefit of the record, I agree with David's position

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:39) I am sorry to disagree with you as nothing prevent any member or participant or observer from CCWG to provide comments.

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:40) Greg -- I must drop off with a hard stop at 4 PM.  If we cannot get to the agenda items 8.2 and 8.3 before then perhpsas at some other time?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:40) Please do be so restrictive in closing the our on this milited no. of partriciapnat of Jurisdiction grou

  Thiago Jardim: (14:40) In any case I encourage us members of this subgroup to go out there and ask for input from outside.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:41) sorry ,I meant ,group

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:41) 20 m inutes left in call

  Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:42) Thiago: yes we can remain open to new issues, but I think that actively seeking more input -formally- would be adding another layer of questionnaires to our questionnaires..

  Thiago Jardim: (14:43) Raphael, in a sense I agree, what I'd like to avoid is that we create a new layer that would keep outside issues identified in the questionnaires, thought of by the people who responded to the questionnaires.

  Thiago Jardim: (14:43) Kavous first

  Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:44) yes this new document should be as comprehensive as possible. In that sense we should be wary or "orphan" issues that do ont find any "sponsor" that will put them up in that new doc.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:45) I fully agree with Thiago,

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:46) Issue for a group may not be issue for other group thus we should not dtopthat issue .

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) I am very worried about starat of divergence at this stage

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:47) Greg,

  David McAuley: (14:47) The "cut" is about consensus, no?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) Who could be authorized to judge an issue raised by some group are legitimate or not

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) On what basis that legitimay decision is make.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:48) We start to go to dark again

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:49) +1 Phil

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:49) Greg

  Thiago Jardim: (14:49) Then we should stop our work at this point because with the amount of interested  or partial opposition to changes in the status quo, regardless of the merits of change, we should just resign and acknowledge status quo that is of interst to many will not be changed.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:49) Time check 10 minutes left in call

  Robin Gross: (14:49) Agree with Phil that this discussion must tie back to accountability.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:49) yes

  Kavouss Arasteh: (14:49) Pls kindly be clear and remove your authoritative criteria of legitimacy

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (14:50) It seems that the European Commission is missing from the list. They have sent a reply to the questionnaire!

  Thiago Jardim: (14:51) Finn, that is an example of the effect of adding supplementary layers to the identification of issues.. issues get lost.

  Jeff Neuman: (14:52) For the record, RegisterFly was a Registrar not a registry

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:54) Finn I do not have a record of a response by the EC

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:55) Rita Forsi of the Italian govt did respond on an EC issue

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:56) thinks Paul

  Steve DelBianco: (14:56) Good summary, Paul. Thanks

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (14:56) Berni - I have sent the doc to you

  David McAuley: (14:56) yes thanks Paul, interesting

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:56) My pleasure ....

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (14:57) thanks - the one noted by Greg seemed to be the wrong document attached

  Paul Rosenzweig: (14:57) Sorry Jeff - speaking too quickly!

  Philip Corwin: (14:58) Registerfly was a big scandal at the time and led to improvements in ICANN supervision of registrars. But agree that no relevance to our accountability exercise.

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (14:59) take care

  Thiago Jardim: (14:59) bye

  avri doria: (14:59) bye

  Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:59) bye bye

  David McAuley: (14:59) bye all, thanks

  Wale Bakare: (14:59) bye all

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (14:59) thanks everyone bye

  Nigel Hickson: (14:59) goodbye thanks

  Erich Schweighofer: (14:59) Servus from Vienhna

  • No labels