Sub-group Members:   Andreea Brambilla, Avri Doria, Becky Burr, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Herb Waye, Mathieu Weill, Paul McGrady, Philip Corwin, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix, Steve DelBianco, Wale Bakare   (16)

Observers/Guests:  Taylor RW Bentley  

Staff:  Anne-Rachel Inne, Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Meghan Healy, Nigel Hickson   (6)

Apologies:  Cheryl Langdon-Orr

 ** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **

Transcript

• Word Doc
• PDF

Recording

• Adobe Connect Replay

• mp3 Replay

Agenda

1.   Welcome

2.   Review of Agenda 

3.   Administration 

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

4.   Review of decisions and action items from last call 

• • 4.1.   Decisions – none
  • 4.2.   Action Items:
    • 4.2.1.      GS to prepare and post and draft on working methods and status of the sub-group to the sub-group prior to presenting it to the plenary on 12 April (status?)

5.   Review of Working Method 

• • 5.1.   Discussion of draft for plenary.

6.   Questions to ICANN Legal

• • 6.1.   Walk through response from ICANN Legal identify any issues

7.   Update on Questionnaire (5 minutes – we will not be going through the JNC submission this week, all submissions can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire[community.icann.org])

• • 7.1.1.      Shin Takamura – 4 April
  • 7.1.2.      Just Net Coalition – 6 April
  • 7.1.3.      Carlos Vera – 7 april

8.   Update on Analysis of Cases (5 Minutes – simply noting these have been submitted unless there is time)

• • 8.1.   Name.Space, Inc. v. ICANN. – DM 
  • 8.2.   Employ Media LLC v ICANN - RBL

9.    AOB

10.  Next meeting 18 April 1900UTC

11.  Adjourned

Notes (includes relevant text from chat):

18 Participants at start of call

1.  Welcome

2.  Review of Agenda

Greg Shatan - changes? (none).

Paul McGrady: Greg - special thanks for making this call on an important holiday

3.  Administration

      3.1. Changes to SOIs (none)

      3.2. Identify Audio Only and Phone

Number Participants - None

4.  Review of decisions and action items from last call

      4.1. Decisions – none

      4.2. Action Items:

      4.2.1.  GS to prepare and post and draft on working methods and status of the sub-group to the sub-group prior to presenting it to the plenary on 12 April (status?)

5.  Review of Working Method

      5.1. Discussion of draft for plenary.

Greg Shatan - (presentation of document) Looking to have a draft for ICANN59 for first reading.

Mathieu Weill - Strong support for this. This demonstrates progress. Suggestion to add to include how much work has been done on list where there were lists of issues which we should get back to - even if there was no agreement on this - some sort of summary of the key threads. Second suggestion - looking forward - wondering if we would not achieve more by meeting less frequently.

Greg Shatan - good points.

David McAuley - Agree with MW trying to get IOT to pivot to do more work on list. On you  April item - tee up those things well in advance and encourage people to understand the positions but not have people rehash knows positions.

Greg Shatan - good thanks

Paul McGrady: +1 David.  Team members should also review what the Board Chair has said about this.

Steve DelBianco - ICANN legal responses seem to validate what many people’s positions - would it modify the workplan?

Greg Shatan - makes the workplan more realistic - hope it will assist us greatly in our work. There is a connection between scope, discussions on list and not meeting every week - would require more discipline.

avri doria: it is wonderful that rapporteurs want people to work more on the list.  But will wishing make it so.

David McAuley (RySG): one reason we may be able to do more on list in IRP IOT is that we are dealing now with discrete public comments

avri doria: it is just that i have often tried, but long since gave up on that goal.  best of luck.

Greg Shatan - any objections to using this for the plenary with edits as per suggestions (none).

David McAuley (RySG): fair points Avri, but I am hoping your wish of good luck comes true

avri doria: i will note that it is the intent we had when we startted the work on the Staff Accountabilty subgroup. While some work got done is shared online documents, almost none got done n the list. YMMV (your mileage may vary, an expression for you results may be different)

6.  Questions to ICANN Legal (30 minutes)

      6.1. Walk through response from ICANN Legal identify any issues

Greg Shatan - (presentation of ICANN Legal response)

Becky Burr 3: But it is clearly correct to say that many - if not most - countries will provide jurisdiction in a case where ICANN has purposely availed itself of the jurisdiction

Steve DelBianco [BC]: Couldn't a litigant just review prior cases to determine where/how ICANN responds to claims of jurisdiction?

Mathieu Weill: @Steve : our finding was that there is no prior case  outside of the US

Becky Burr - These answers are a little frustrating - the jurisdiction issue is common defense - but this is tied to the facts of any case.

Paul McGrady: I'm not surprised by the ICANN Legal answer to #7.  They would be nuts to answer such a question.  I'm not saying the WG should not have asked it, but the answer was entirely predictable.

Becky Burr 3: agree Paul

David McAuley - Agree with BB. Ground prepared if we want to seek further advice.

Mathieu Weill: Would suggest a follow up question about the 10 Ry, non gov, who picked Geneva : have all requests been granted ? were there criteria and, if so, which ones ?

Mathieu Weill: Also note that the absence of alternative for Registrar Agreements may be a topic to discus within this group

Paul MCGrady - re no third party beneficiaries - New gTLDs re .FEEDBACK - so this needs to looked at deeper but probably not ICANN legal.

Greg Shatan - maybe better to say there are no express TPB.

David McAuley (RySG): I thought that the existence of third party beneficiaries to contracts was usually a public policy matter in the jurisdiction in which litigation exists

Mathieu Weill - this is very helpful from ICANN legal (see above point from MW).

Wale Bakare: Absoultely, i agree with @Mathieu

7.  Update on Questionnaire (5 minutes – we will not be going through the JNC submission this week, all submissions can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire)

7.1.1.  Shin Takamura – 4 April

7.1.2.  Just Net Coalition – 6 April

7.1.3.  Carlos Vera – 7 april

Greg Shatan - sub-group on questionnaire will review these before bringing these back.

8.  Update on Analysis of Cases (5 Minutes – simply noting these have been submitted unless there is time)

8.1. Name.Space, Inc. v. ICANN. – DM

8.2. Employ Media LLC v ICANN - RBL

Greg Shatan - would expect comments on list.

9.  AOB

(none)

10.  Next meeting 18 April 1900UTC

11.  Adjourned

Decisions:

• (none)

Action Items:

• Greg Shatan – To review work plan presentation for plenary per comments.
• Questionnaire Review Team – Review latest submissions
• Greg Shatan – Will post to list to encourage discussion of the latest case analysis.

Documents Presented

• Revised Work Plan and Schedule for Jurisdiction Subgroup
• ICANN Responses to Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions-SE

Chat Transcript

Yvette Guigneaux:Welcome all to the Jurisdiction Meeting #26  |  11 April 2017 @ 13:00 UTC!

  Yvette Guigneaux:This meeting will be recorded.  Please mute your phone when not speaking by pressing *6 (star 6)  *6 will also unmute.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Good day all

  Herb Waye Ombuds:Greetings everyone

  Mathieu Weill:Hello everyone

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:please remember to mute if not speaking

  David McAuley (RySG):hello all

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Greg

  Paul McGrady:Greg - special thanks for making this call on an important holiday

  David McAuley (RySG):+1 @Paul

  Mathieu Weill:+1 @Paul

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:time check - 15 minutes left in call

  Mathieu Weill:15 ?

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:apologies 45 minutes

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:sound is good

  Brenda Brewer:Please identify name for phone number ending with 5316.  Thank you.

  Paul McGrady:+1 David.  Team members should also review what the Board Chair has said about this.

  avri doria:it is wonderful that rapporteurs want people to work more on the list.  But will wishing make it so.

  David McAuley (RySG):one reason we may be able to do more on list in IRP IOT is that we are dealing now with discrete public comments

  avri doria:it is just that i have often tried, but long since gave up on that goal.  best of luck.

  avri doria:working on email lists is an old fashioned method that fewer people are well disposed to all the time.

  David McAuley (RySG):fair points Avri, but I am hoping your wish of good luck comes true

  avri doria:i will note that it is the intent we had when we startted the work on the Staff Accountabilty subgroup. While some work got done is shared online documents, almost none got done n the list. YMMV (your mileage may vary, an expression for you results may be different)

  Herb Waye Ombuds:Folks I must cut out... will see you all virtually next week.

  Becky Burr 3:But it is clearly correct ot say that many - if not most - countries will provide jurisdiction in a case where ICANN has purposely availed itself of the jurisdiction

  Steve DelBianco [BC]:Couldn't a litigant just review prior cases to determine where/how ICANN responds to claims of jurisdiction?

  Mathieu Weill:@Steve : our finding was that there is no prior case  outside of the US

  Paul McGrady:I'm not surprised by the ICANN Legal answer to #7.  They would be nuts to answer such a question.  I'm not saying the WG should not have asked it, but the answer was entirely predictable.

  Becky Burr 3:agree Paul

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Time Check - 15 minutes left in call

  Mathieu Weill:Would suggest a follow up question about the 10 Ry, non gov, who picked Geneva : have all requests been granted ? were there criteria and, if so, which ones ?

  Mathieu Weill:Also note that the absence of alternative for Registrar Agreements may be a topic to discus within this group

  David McAuley (RySG):I thought that the existence of third party beneficiaries to contracts was usually a public policy matter in the jurisdiction in which litigation exists

  Wale Bakare:Absoultely, i agree with @Mathieu

  David McAuley (RySG):Agree - don't think we can do name.space in few minutes remaining

  Wale Bakare:Can we move it to the next meeting?

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks to all who participated on their religious holiday

  avri doria:hag sameach

  Mathieu Weill:+1 David, and others too ! Good call

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all

  Paul McGrady:Great call Greg!  Thanks for keeping us on track and on time,

  Wale Bakare:Thanks, Greg and all. Bye for now!

  Becky Burr 3:Bye everyone -

  Erich Schweighofer:Servus from Vienna,

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks Greg, staff, and all - good bye

  Nigel Hickson:goodbye

  Andreea Brambilla 2:Thanks!