December 2016 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 14 | 19 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #14 – 19 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZpTDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: No changes to SOIs. 2. Questionnaire a. Results of First Reading at CCWG Plenary b. Potential Edits to Preamble and Questions Greg Shatan: Unfortunate Parminder is not on call. He had asked for an annex to the preamble to be the full Annex 12. Milton Mueller: Not in favour of modifying preamble. Propose we simplify vs expand the preamble. Propose we delete everything after the second paragraph. avri doria: whereas i see people narrowing the range of facts to suit their hoped for outcome. but the answers take time. better we have people willing to understand the issue to answer than those who have no time. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: We can simplify and include a link to the relevant part of Annex 12 Milton Mueller: People need to understand the questions, Avri avri doria: inclusion of 12 by reference is ok. Milton Mueller: And some of them won't even read the questions if they have to wade through a bunch of procedural gobbledegook Kavouss Arasteh: Have no problem with shortened preamble - but simply add hyperlink to Annex 12. Greg Shatan: So the proposal is to take the first two paras, add the link and then fix the last para. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Makes sense, what Greg just summarized avri doria: it is less than a page, that is not long. David McAuley: As the drafter of the preamble not unsympathetic to shortening. avri doria: take out the 12 text and it is a quarter of a page. Milton Mueller: Right Greg David McAuley (RySG): OK Greg Shatan: cut Further Background and Specifically it would be short - do we need TO HELP? I think the last para is useful. Kavouss Arasteh: Last para needs to stay. avri doria: do not remove that para. please Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree on last paragraph - go with those edits Greg Avri Doria: SPECIFICALLY para is important. Greg Shatan: really need to condense the first three paras. any objections? (none). Let us move on to the first question. Kavouss Arasteh: Propose to delete Business and Privacy and as JN proposed in the plenary remove RELATED SERVICES. Greg Shatan: Any comments? (none) Greg Shatan: Proposal Have your activities related to domain name services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? Kavouss Arasteh: domain name system or servicees? Willing to be corrected. David McAuley (RySG): DNS sounds better, I think there are more DN services than ICANN deals with Jeff Neuman: DNS may "sound" better, but 99% of the services are not related to ICANN Milton Muller: We can qualify DNS later. We are interested in any effect of ICANN's jurisdiction on DN Services - you cannot buy DNSystem. Greg Shatan: "domain name-related services"? to avoid confusion with managed DNS services etc. Kavouss Arasteh 2: what is DNS services pls? Milton Mueller: domain name-related services is ok with me Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree Christopher Wilkinson: support keeping Business and Privacy in question 1. Kavouss Arasteh: Services/Systems is used in other for a – could solve the problem here? David McAuley: Need to focus it on ICANN related services etc. could be fixed in intro. Greg Shatan: other comments? (none) 1 for changing, 1 against...any further comments. Temperature check 3 and 3 so no consensus. Milton Mueller: I am against changing it Kavouss Arasteh 2: then other people would be against what was in the initial text. Those who have drafted the text should not radically acts again any comments Greg Shatan: new temperature check Kavouss Arasteh 2: I object to the initial text Greg Shatan: will republish the first question to the list. Second question (no comment). third question, comments? (none). David McAuley (RySG): 2 seems ok Greg Shatan: Question 4. Much discussion on the list regarding this. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Q4 as proposed by Phil Corwin: "4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems." avri doria: looks good Philip Corwin 2: +1 to Jorge's suggestion ;-) Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 to Phil :D Kavouss Arasteh: issue with Q3. Greg Shatan: Q3 was added to allow people to submit other people/business/countries experiences if documented. Kavouss Arasteh 2: I am not convinced by Q3 objectives avri doria: we are worried about people answering one questionnaire. Now we want to send them two? Greg Shatan: Q1: Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? Greg Shatan: This would be sent with a note of Kavouss's alternate suggestion. Milton Mueller: I am opposed to Q4 in this questionnaire - could be sent independently later (Explaining rationale for this) Kavouss Arasteh: not convinced on question 3. Worried it has not meaning. Greg Shatan: needs to be verifiable. Kavouss Arateh: do not agree. Erich Schweighofer: Q3 is a research question - can be helpful, most will ignore it. David McAuley (RySG): I agree with kavouss in this respect - the responder can simply say that the report is verifiable. Paul McGrady 2: I tend to agree with Kavouss. Q3 has little real value since it is just gathering hears Avri Doria: Support Q3 for secondary sources. Requires more work in analysis but still very useful. David McAuley (RySG): Avri raises an interesting point - who will do the work of verification? Wale Bakare: Q3 is about data collection, so that poses a bit of challenge. Milton Mueller: those with multiple personalities get multiple speaking opportunities Kavouss Arasteh: still do not support Q3 - cannot get comments from experiences who are not your own. Christopher Wilkinson: Understand the concern about Q3 vs validation. But still could be useful. Would prefer not to have hearsay. Greg Shatan: Need to focus Q3 to get valid information. Paul McGrady 2: We would also need a mechanism to toss out responses that don't fit though. Wale Bakare: IMHO, we have many registered ALSs, where factual data could be sourced from as well. Milton Mueller: of course, Paul, if someone does not provide actual reports or information we toss it out. Avri Doria: needs to be there. This could be the factual basis to lead to other discussions. Milton Mueller: we are not going to get any concrete information with Q4 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: agree with Avri... as said before Phil Corwin's formulation could work (many people leaving for other call) Kavouss Arasteh: need Q4 but can be re-edited. Greg Shatan: KA are you ok with PC edits. Erich Schweighofer: I support the revised version. David McAuley (RySG): I don’t support Q4. But if that ship sails I prefer Phil Corwin version - again, only if we insist on Q4. Milton Meuller: Q4 should be reformulated and not sent at the same time - but if we have to send it the PC version is ok. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Let's go with Phill's version if everyone can live with this Kavouss Arasteh 3: I do not agreee David with that version Greg Shatan: I will put these options out on the list. Adjourned c. Question 4 i. Can this question be revised to get broader support? ii. Should this question be sent separately? d. Preparing for Second Reading at CCWG Plenary 3. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process a. How to publish/send out questionnaire b. How to collect responses 4. Review of Work to Date and Potential Next Steps 5. AOB 6. Adjourn

2 1

Agenda for Today's Meeting
by Greg Shatan Dec. 19, 2016

Dec. 19, 2016

All, Here is the agenda for today's upcoming meeting at 19:00 UTC. Apologies for not getting it out sooner. Greg

1 0

Proposed Additional Question
by Greg Shatan Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: *Fourth proposed formulation* What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg *Original proposed formulation*: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. *Comment:* *It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.* *Comment:* *If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."* *Second proposed formulation*: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. *Comment:* *An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.* *Comment:* *I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.* Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. *... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state *I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. *Comment:* *If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*

12 25

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 13 | 13 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #13 – 13 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/Y5TDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Akimbo and SDB on audio only. No changes to SOIs. 2. Poll on Proposed Questions Greg Shatan: Development of questionnaire is ongoing. Interim report on poll about the questionnaire. Current results are for 26 answers we have first 3 questions 92% support to have these going forward (24 of 26). For the 4th question we have 15 in support and 11 against. Question supporting “sending 3 questions only” generated 22 replies 17 supported sending only 3 questions and 5 did not support. Adebunmi Akimbo: .AFIRCA court case is being tried in the US and not in an African court. Would of been better to have an African court decide this. This begs the question what should the rules be to ensure this type of situation should not happen. Greg Shatan: Not our current topic but we can get back to it later. Kavouss Arasteh: support all questions and sending all questions. Greg Shatan: This is a change in your response to the poll now making the results 15 to 11 for question 4 - is this consensus? David McAuley: could take this to the co-chairs? Paul McGrady: Greg, how are decisions made? Is it majority or consensus? There doesn't seem to be consensus on Q4, but there is a slight majority (at least of poll taker Mathieu Weill: Decision process is complex in this situation - when assessing consensus, it is best to refer to the full CCWG-Accountability. (very sensitive issue). Kavouss Arasteh: This group should not make the decision on consensus - we should report the facts (numbers) to the plenary and let them decide. Kavouss Arasteh: As the Co-Chair (MW) , pls asdvise Grec that this Group can not decide on the issue but just to report to CCWG pLENARY. Avri Doria: (audio issues), I will write it out. makes sense to report the failure to have consensus on the poll, but should not ask for them to decide as it was a procedural process. it can decide on its process. Kavouss Arasteh: We can not decide on the process avri doria: the failure was on sending the poll out at all. David McAuley (RySG): I agree w/Greg about doing poll, especially with WS2 low participation rates Greg Shatan: Will discuss with co-chairs if this is ready for the plenary. Paul McGrady: The poll has been done - we need to report the data as it is. Kavouss Arasteh: Consistency or otherwise on Q 4 should be decided by CCWG Plenary Kavouss Arasteh: Sub Group is part of CCWG AND must report to it Kavouss Arasteh: SO/ac ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS WERE APPROVED BY ccwg AFTER TWO READINGS KAVOUSS Arasteh: Sorry again for cap ,forgive me Paul McGrady: @Staff, don't forget to include the rest of my comment in the notes, which is that Q4 relates to the unwinding of WS1 Accountability measures by suggesting a change of ICANN formation jurisdictions and it should serve as a chance to ask the Plenary if we should still be considering this (bad) idea 3. Discussion of Preamble (Introduction to Questions) David McAuley: Presentation of draft. Greg Shatan: Comments? Steve DelBianco [BC]: I like the preamble David McAuley: This does not include the KA and MW text I developed at their request which is: In this regard, the subgroup is asking for concrete, factual submissions (positive, negative, or neutral) that will help ensure that the subgroup’s deliberations are informed, fact-based, and address real issues. The subgroup is interested in all types of jurisdiction-related factual experiences, not just those involving actual disputes/court cases. Greg Shatan: Any other comments? (none). This seems to be non-controversial and should be accepted - any objections? Avri Doria: (unclear about the 4th question). Greg Shatan: there is divergence on question 4 but we have agreed to bring this to the plenary as suggested by MW. David McAuley: this group may wish to include the additional language I pasted in the chat. Mathieu Weill: The addition is welcome, I think, David Greg Shatan: Let us do a temperature check for sending the introduction with the additional language (some supports, no objections). Sending without the additional language (only 1 support, no objections). Objection to sending the introduction at all (no objections). Seems there is support for sending the preamble with the additional language proposed by DM. avri doria: i will abstain as i do not accept sending out the poll. 4. Review by CCWG Plenary (discussed and decided in the previous point - poll results regarding the questionnaire will be presented and discussed by the plenary) 5. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process a. How to publish/send out questionnaire Greg Shatan: should be announced by ICANN but not as a formal public comment. Any thoughts? David McAuley: We need to think about details - how long will this run and how to analyze the results - we should only consider facts and not opinions - and we should all agree on a process for doing this (still has misgivings on sending out the questionnaire). avri doria: we could ask icann to create a poll heading somewhere? Paul McGrady: Any comment period of less than 30 days will get us in hot water avri doria: if polls ae becoming part of ICANN practice, they should have a spot on the main ICANN pages Philip Corwin: Agree that question 4 seeks opinions rather than facts, which is why I do not support it. Paul McGrady: @Avri - +1! Greg Shatan: 2 issues are important. avri doria: we would also have to decide on what constitutued fact and what constituted opinion. i bet we have divergence on that. David McAuley (RySG): possibly so Avri Philip Corwin: If we start putting poll questions out for 30 days public comment then this WG will take years to complete. Steve DelBianco [BC]: One lesson learned by the SO/AC Accountability questionnaire: please put numbers on each question so that respondents can designate their response precisely avri doria: i argue for a broader notion of fact, as the definition of fact is often based on social - cultural - political pov, Wale Bakare: As we are seeking public inputs, i believe these are opinions and facts. Greg Shatan: When we say facts, we mean actual experiences that have occurred. David McAuley (RySG): @Avri - these are the things we need to discuss/agree. I think I would disagree with you but it depends. Paul McGrady: factual claims are the best we will get, not accuracy-vetted "facts", I'm afraid. Mathieu Weill: The document Influence of ICANN's existing jurisdiction could help classify the input - experiences, concerns, comments etc. Greg Shatan: very helpful MW. Reminder that we need to work on that document. Steve DelBianco: We took several weeks to decide on the SOAC acct questions which have been sent out. That sub-group will determine if the answers to our questions are valid. what is most important is not the actual question but the answers. David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Steve and the opinions we might get would take us beyond dispute-resolution-based jurisdictional inquiry avri doria: i hope we are not trying to prevent answers that we cn then judge. David McAuley (RySG): beyond, that is Greg Shatan: the SOAC acct. questions received 2 readings and approval by the plenary - which has set a standard. Although our questions our not finalized we would benefit from plenary input. Adjourned.

4 5

Some issues extracted from e-mail exchanges among SUB GROUP participants
by Kavouss Arasteh Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

*Issues extracted from exchange of e-mails among WS2 Jurisdiction sub group which should to be carefully examined and responded by WS2, Jurisdiction Sub-Group* 1. What is the likelihood and circumstances under which the unilateral application of US public law to ICANN occurs, taking into account ICANN global governance function? 2. Could a US Court change the decision of delegation of a gTLD, whenever the registry may be based? 3. Could a US Court also impose the wisdom of US law over the domain allocation conditions of a gTLD ? 4. Could we determine that US law applies to ICANN in exactly the same manner as of any other country? 5. How the available choice of law could be exercised? 6. How ICANN could specify that a given dispute be determined by an arbitral panel in other countries than US? 7. Should the choice of law not decided in the agreement, could either party make that choice when dispute arises? 8. Which jurisdiction laws have been applied since the creation of ICANN governing disputes involving ICANN 9. If for government and IGO parties Swiss law applies why for certain cases involving government(s) US jurisdiction were sought? 10. Does the US court intervene as a policy making power or just a dispute settlers (. Africa) 11. Who decides that an issue / dispute involve public interests? 12. Could ICANN Be exempted FROM us Public laws under US Immunity Acts? 13. Could we confirm that Internet core resources are global public good and thus cannot be subject to one country‘s jurisdiction ? 14. Could US make laws that prohibit ICANN / PTI from doing business with particular countries? 15. Could the US law prohibit ICANN to make changes in Root Zone? 16. Why US jurisdiction must always be applied to nationals of other countries ? 17. How the States Sovereignty is ensured if US Jurisdiction applies? 18. Is a ccTLD considered as country assets? 19. What if OFAC does not give licence to ICANN for dealing with a particular country due to great deterioration of relationship with US? 20. As of Ist October 2016 ,public laws is not a concern for ICANN as ICANN is an entirely private based entity, please confirm that 21. For application of public law, there is no choice of jurisdiction? true or false? 22. For application private law parties could preselect jurisdiction, true or false?

2 2

POLL ON QUESTIONNAIRE CLOSING SOON!
by Greg Shatan Dec. 14, 2016

Dec. 14, 2016

All Members, If you haven't filled out the poll regarding the proposed questions the subgroup may send out, please do so now. The poll will close at 02:00 UTC Wednesday (i.e., in less than 6 hours). We would like as many answers as possible. Thank you! Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScaMJ8CKRafytThamnj7YcmgdHB0Kpe9-8… Greg

2 1

Agenda for Meeting #13
by Greg Shatan Dec. 13, 2016

Dec. 13, 2016

All: Attached is the Agenda for Meeting #13 at 13:00 UTC on December 13. Triple 13's -- hopefully that's good luck.... Please remember to respond to the poll before the meeting! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScaMJ8CKRafytThamnj7YcmgdHB0Kpe9-8… Thank you. Greg

4 3

MEMBER POLL ON PROPOSED QUESTIONS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE
by Greg Shatan Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

All Members: Here is the link to the poll to determine support for each of the proposed questions for the questionnaire discussed on our last two calls. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScaMJ8CKRafytThamnj7YcmgdHB0Kpe9-8… The poll is very short and should only take a few minutes of your time. Please complete the poll before our call on Tuesday, December 13 at 13:00 UTC. Thank you. Greg Shatan

2 5

Fwd: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions
by Greg Shatan Dec. 12, 2016

Dec. 12, 2016

All Members of the Subgroup, A reminder to fill out the poll if you have not done so already. For your convenience, I've provided the poll embedded in the email (below). If you can't access the poll either way, please provide your responses to me and Vinay, with a copy to staff (copied here), and the responses will be entered on your behalf. Thanks! Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:20 PM Subject: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions To: gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com [image: Google Forms] Having trouble viewing or submitting this form? FILL OUT IN GOOGLE FORMS <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScaMJ8CKRafytThamnj7YcmgdHB0Kpe9-8…> I've invited you to fill out a form: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScaMJ8CKRafytThamnj7YcmgdHB0Kpe9-8…> THIS FORM IS FOR MEMBERS OF THE JURISDICTION SUBGROUP ONLY. IF YOU ARE AN OBSERVER OR NON-MEMBER, PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND. THANK YOU. Name (required) * Proposed Questions: Please indicate below whether you support or do not support each question for inclusion in the Jurisdiction Subgroup Questionnaire. For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. - Support - Do Not Support 2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction* affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects. - Support - Do Not Support 3. Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions above?If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links. - Support - Do Not Support 4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. In terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or may be used to safeguard or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any disadvantage identified, please identify alternatives (including other jurisdictions), if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction or other alternative, please specify whether and how it would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the risks of those jurisdictions or other alternatives, and discuss the risks associated with changing from the current situation. - Support - Do Not Support Questionnaire If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3 - Support - Do Not SUpport Never submit passwords through Google Forms. Powered by [image: Google Forms] <https://www.google.com/forms/about/?utm_source=product&utm_medium=forms_log…> This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScaMJ8CKRafytThamnj7YcmgdHB0Kpe9-8…> - Terms of Service <http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS> - Additional Terms <http://www.google.com/google-d-s/terms.html> Create your own Google Form <https://docs.google.com/forms?usp=mail_form_link>

1 0

Draft questions-preamble language.
by McAuley, David Dec. 9, 2016

Dec. 9, 2016

Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues, I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions we may send out for comment. With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our consideration. Best regards, David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154

6 10