[Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

[Martin Boyle]

I couldn't find the transcript for the meeting, so I'm not sure how much of this memory of corridor discussions and how much was actually said around the table.  But you are right, there was certainly confusion between:

* Jurisdiction as political power (so the six that opposed the proposal for transfer away from the USG and the six who opposed because it had not been moved out of US jurisdiction are predominantly in this camp);
* Jurisdiction as the legal framework on which accountability and relationships are based (which is the basis for most of the other inputs);  and
* The cross-over where the country of jurisdiction can be a threat to other countries by passing legislation that has a wider impact, so favouring the country of jurisdiction.  A number of comments identified this risk.

(I'm sure there is a more eloquent way of putting this!)

So I'm sure that additional text could be useful.  I'd need to re-read to identify exactly how many highlighted concerns on this last bullet.

Best

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Alhadeff [mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com] 
Sent: 28 September 2015 00:48
To: jen at icgsec.asia; internal-cg at ianacg.org; Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Did we also discuss the concept that the comments also showed that there was confusion related to the implications of jurisdiction with a couple highlighting only concern for potential future legislative action...

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----

From: Martin Boyle [Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk]
Received: Sunday, 27 Sep 2015, 5:47PM
To: Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia]; internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org]
CC: admin at icgsec.asia [admin at icgsec.asia]
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute.  My apologies to colleagues - I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.

I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the attached word document:  Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):

Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction.  Of these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction.  Five agreed that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.

The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction.  This reflected the discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction.  The ICG also noted that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of transition of stewardship - given the implications on ICANN and PTI accountability - would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an additional risk in the transition.

Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified ICANN's jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post transition).  It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking predictability and stability.  It recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of different options.  The ICG agrees that the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of continuing this work.

I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday morning, but would welcome colleagues' comments.

Best


Martin

From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Hi Martin,

Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.

M6: 7    Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)

The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0 edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT)  - you may either upload to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Jennifer