January 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Agenda for Meeting #16 at 13:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

All, Here is the Agenda for the upcoming meeting. Supporting materials will be sent shortly. Greg

5 4

AOC Termination Letter Emphasizes Commitment to US Jurisdiction -- RE: Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Phil Corwin Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-… From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017: ICANN’s commitment to remain a not-for-profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business. (Emphasis added) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM To: MSSI Secretariat Cc: Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination: Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws. Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list. Greg On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton(a)gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[key…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pk…> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>] Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton(a)gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM To: 'Mueller, Milton L' Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[key…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pk…> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Paul Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds. MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not? The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsig…> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17

4 6

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Hello Parminder, Are you suggesting that we don't ask for experience at all? How then do we validate a problem and fix it? The IANA Stewardship was an identified issue(so to speak) and the fix was the transition to an MS community. Besides it was a specific task assigned by the steward to ICANN. That said, re-reading Greg's proposed text of question 4 and based on your comment, I think the question may not cover instance where there is an existing document/legal construct that could hinder ICANN from performing it's role. So perhaps we can reword the first paragraph to the following: "Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Overall there has to be a proof that there is a problem before a fix can happen in this particular scenario. This is where "if it ain't broke don't fix it" really has to be upheld. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Jan 2017 6:35 a.m., "parminder" <parminder(a)itforchange.net> wrote: On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:21 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination: Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws. There has been no response to my query as to why such a condition of listing documented instances where ICANN has been unable to pursue its policies because of NTIA oversight was not applied before seeking and finalising exit from NTIA oversight. Neither documented proof of existing alternative accountability mechanism was sought. Presenting these conditions now simply amounts to obstructing a proper inquiry into all aspects of ICANN's jurisdiction, as was agreed. I dont agree to sending out Q1-3 in absence of Q4 because that is making a judgement on the mandate of this group, a judgement that I do not agree with. parminder Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list. Greg On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org > wrote: > Hello all, > > > > In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 > January is at 13:00 UTC. > > > > With kind regards, > > *Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant * > > Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > > > *From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig > <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM > *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < > milton(a)gatech.edu> > *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our > scheduling decisions. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739> > > www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> > > My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 > 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pk…> > > > > *From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] > *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>; > 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton(a)gatech.edu> > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with > finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning > its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far > too much time on this questionnaire matter. > > > > *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* > > *Virtualaw LLC* > > *1155 F Street, NW* > > *Suite 1050* > > *Washington, DC 20004* > > *202-559-8597 <%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct* > > *202-559-8750 <%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax* > > *202-255-6172 <%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell* > > > > *Twitter: @VlawDC* > > > > *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc > es(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul > Rosenzweig > *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM > *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If > that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any > traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any > better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739> > > www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> > > My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 > 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pk…> > > > > *From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton(a)gatech.edu>] > *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > Paul > > > > Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some > feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. > While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the > idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not > going to try any longer to change their minds. > > > > MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive > at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” > are they not? > > The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the > others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable > to a broader range of WG participants. > > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsig…> > Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17 > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Hi, This asks for "questions and solution" so I think it's a good compromise, though it may be good to name it 4a, 4b. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Jan 2017 12:51 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination: Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws. Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list. Greg On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org > wrote: > Hello all, > > > > In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 > January is at 13:00 UTC. > > > > With kind regards, > > *Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant * > > Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > > > *From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig > <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM > *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < > milton(a)gatech.edu> > *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our > scheduling decisions. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739> > > www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> > > My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 > 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pk…> > > > > *From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] > *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>; > 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton(a)gatech.edu> > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with > finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning > its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far > too much time on this questionnaire matter. > > > > *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* > > *Virtualaw LLC* > > *1155 F Street, NW* > > *Suite 1050* > > *Washington, DC 20004* > > *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct* > > *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax* > > *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell* > > > > *Twitter: @VlawDC* > > > > *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc > es(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul > Rosenzweig > *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM > *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If > that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any > traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any > better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739> > > www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting…> > > My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 > 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pk…> > > > > *From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton(a)gatech.edu>] > *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> > *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE > REQUESTED > > > > Paul > > > > Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some > feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. > While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the > idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not > going to try any longer to change their minds. > > > > MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive > at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” > are they not? > > The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the > others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable > to a broader range of WG participants. > > > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsig…> > Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17 > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Hello Greg, Thanks for sending in this summary. I think the suggestion about removing "advantages" will be applicable to any of the question 4 alternatives. For instance I prefer "alternative 1" without including advantages. So I suggest modifying text of "alternative 6" to the following: "Remove advantages from any alternative that gains more traction" In that case, I will choose alternative 1+6 Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: All, We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6. Following a wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining the draft questionnaire. I encourage those who missed the call to review the recording and notes. Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the Preamble and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final discussion on our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00). Question 2 had no revisions suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested. The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents) and also in text below. *Please review this version of the Preamble and Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments for this portion.* We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose of the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire, a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself. With these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had left on the call. Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary conclusions on Question 4. The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current version) are in the second draft document (Word and PDF). Please look at the alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for Question 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you could support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) is "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in order to support it.* We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please provide your thoughts and responses before then. Thank you. Greg *VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW* *PREAMBLE* The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2 accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s deliberations. As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/…> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of policies. To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider and respond to the following specific questions. 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. *QUESTION 1* 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? 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. *QUESTION 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. *QUESTION 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. Please provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party accounts such as news reports; please do not provide your own version of events. ------------------------------ [1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31. * For this Questionnaire, “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. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

8 22

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Thanks Greg, kindly find inline Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Jan 2017 06:46, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Seun, The goal of Question 4 was not merely to identify problems. This may have been the goal of those who originally proposed it, but that goal became broader in the discussions that followed, so that the goal was to get inputs from the community on both problems and positive features of ICANN's current jurisdiction in all meanings of that term. Advantages would be helpful in terms of (a) determining whether any solution also removed advantages, and (b) comparing the current jurisdictional set-up to any future or alternate jurisdictional set-up. SO: I thought as much as well but I felt it will be more useful when we know what problems exist before specifically stating what advantages we might loose but I guess one can always do the mapping and since the responses will not be the sole source of discussion then I am fine. Overall, though, I think the goal of Question 4 is not particularly clear, or at least there is no consensus on what the goal of Question 4 should be. This is the foundation of the current issue in finding a version of Question 4 that gets broad support. SO: My personal concern is on the timing of all these as I feel it's too early to go into the jurisdiction issues without haven experienced the current structure and legal arrangements for a while. That said, I don't think the goal of question 4 should be difficult to get and you seem to have clearly stated it which is "...to get inputs from the community on both problems and positive features of ICANN's current jurisdiction in all meanings of that term...with the hope of resolving some of the identified problems as much as feasible" Just like a few others; at the moment I do not know of ANY problem that would be significant enough to warrant a change in jurisdiction but I think there may be "non-jurisdictional change" to address certain problems that may be identified. Overall, the more we maintain opposition to sending out the question, the more it gives an unnecessary impression so let's just get on and have something documented as from an MS process for once on this topic. Regards Greg On Sun, Jan 8, k2017 at 2:04 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Kindly find inline > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 8 Jan 2017 7:19 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Seun, > > Why do you believe that the goal of Question 4 is only to find out > problems? > > > SO: This is what I believe question 4 was about. i.e identifying problems > and determing their solutions as appropriate. What's the goal then if I may > ask? > > > > Also, we won't be basing our discussions solely on these responses. The > responses will simply be one set of inputs to our discussion, but they will > not limit our discussions. > > > SO: Noted. I guess I will just rest my case then. > > > You say "it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages." Can you > clarify what you are thinking of as the reason(s) why we are asking for > disadvantages? > > > SO: This is based on what I understood to be the goal of question 4 as > stated above. i.e I understand we are asking for disadvantages in other to > identify problems. I do not understand why we are asking for advantages, > could you enlighten me on that bit? > > Regards > > > Thanks! > > Greg > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello Greg, >> >> Thanks for the follow-up, my reasons are quite simple: >> >> 1. The goal is to find out if there are indeed valid problems. Hence the >> question should be framed as such >> >> 2. Since this is not an exercise of "advantages vs disadvantages", asking >> for advantages now will not be as useful as knowing the disadvantages, >> confirming they are indeed valid problems and then we criticise those >> problems (including stating possible advantages we will loose if we needed >> to solve the problem identifed). >> >> 3. We just cannot exhaust the advantages via this question and if the >> responses we get is what we will be basing our discussions on then we >> should not start this process on a competitive grounds. >> >> 4. It is not clear what exactly we intend to use the advantages for at >> this initial stage but it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages. >> >> For clarity this is not a redline for me and I will be fine if the group >> does not accept the suggestion so long as adequate reason is provided (I >> note Paul opposes, will be good to read reasons). Irrespective of the >> group's decision, it should be clear that the volume of advantages vis >> disadvantages would not matter but the substance of the responses will be >> most important. Hence I hope we will address each of the problems >> identified adequately (including addressing them with points that may >> exceed those in the responses). >> >> Regards >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> On 7 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Seun, >>> >>> Why do you suggest removing "advantages"? >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Greg, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sending in this summary. I think the suggestion about >>>> removing "advantages" will be applicable to any of the question 4 >>>> alternatives. >>>> >>>> For instance I prefer "alternative 1" without including advantages. So >>>> I suggest modifying text of "alternative 6" to the following: >>>> >>>> "Remove advantages from any alternative that gains more traction" >>>> >>>> In that case, I will choose alternative 1+6 >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>> >>>> On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6. Following >>>> a wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining >>>> the draft questionnaire. I encourage those who missed the call to review >>>> the recording and notes. >>>> >>>> Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the >>>> Preamble and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final >>>> discussion on our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00). Question 2 had >>>> no revisions suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested. >>>> >>>> The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in >>>> "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents) >>>> and also in text below. *Please review this version of the Preamble >>>> and Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments >>>> for this portion.* >>>> >>>> We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose >>>> of the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions >>>> 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire, >>>> a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired >>>> (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself. With >>>> these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and >>>> choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had >>>> left on the call. Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary >>>> conclusions on Question 4. >>>> >>>> The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current >>>> version) are in the second draft document (Word and PDF). Please look at >>>> the alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending >>>> question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for >>>> Question 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you >>>> could support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) >>>> is "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in >>>> order to support it.* >>>> >>>> We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please >>>> provide your thoughts and responses before then. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> *VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW* >>>> >>>> *PREAMBLE* >>>> >>>> The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2 >>>> accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is >>>> posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s >>>> deliberations. >>>> >>>> As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) >>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27> >>>> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report >>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/…> >>>> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related >>>> questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for >>>> dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation >>>> of policies. >>>> >>>> To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider >>>> and respond to the following specific questions. 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. >>>> >>>> *QUESTION 1* >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> *QUESTION 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. >>>> >>>> *QUESTION 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. >>>> Please provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party >>>> accounts such as news reports; please do not provide your own version of >>>> events. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> [1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and >>>> Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31. >>>> >>>> * For this Questionnaire, “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. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 9, 2017

Jan. 9, 2017

Hi Greg, Kindly find inline Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Jan 2017 7:19 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Seun, Why do you believe that the goal of Question 4 is only to find out problems? SO: This is what I believe question 4 was about. i.e identifying problems and determing their solutions as appropriate. What's the goal then if I may ask? Also, we won't be basing our discussions solely on these responses. The responses will simply be one set of inputs to our discussion, but they will not limit our discussions. SO: Noted. I guess I will just rest my case then. You say "it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages." Can you clarify what you are thinking of as the reason(s) why we are asking for disadvantages? SO: This is based on what I understood to be the goal of question 4 as stated above. i.e I understand we are asking for disadvantages in other to identify problems. I do not understand why we are asking for advantages, could you enlighten me on that bit? Regards Thanks! Greg On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Greg, > > Thanks for the follow-up, my reasons are quite simple: > > 1. The goal is to find out if there are indeed valid problems. Hence the > question should be framed as such > > 2. Since this is not an exercise of "advantages vs disadvantages", asking > for advantages now will not be as useful as knowing the disadvantages, > confirming they are indeed valid problems and then we criticise those > problems (including stating possible advantages we will loose if we needed > to solve the problem identifed). > > 3. We just cannot exhaust the advantages via this question and if the > responses we get is what we will be basing our discussions on then we > should not start this process on a competitive grounds. > > 4. It is not clear what exactly we intend to use the advantages for at > this initial stage but it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages. > > For clarity this is not a redline for me and I will be fine if the group > does not accept the suggestion so long as adequate reason is provided (I > note Paul opposes, will be good to read reasons). Irrespective of the > group's decision, it should be clear that the volume of advantages vis > disadvantages would not matter but the substance of the responses will be > most important. Hence I hope we will address each of the problems > identified adequately (including addressing them with points that may > exceed those in the responses). > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seun, >> >> Why do you suggest removing "advantages"? >> >> Greg >> >> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Greg, >>> >>> Thanks for sending in this summary. I think the suggestion about >>> removing "advantages" will be applicable to any of the question 4 >>> alternatives. >>> >>> For instance I prefer "alternative 1" without including advantages. So I >>> suggest modifying text of "alternative 6" to the following: >>> >>> "Remove advantages from any alternative that gains more traction" >>> >>> In that case, I will choose alternative 1+6 >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Sent from my LG G4 >>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>> >>> On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6. Following >>> a wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining >>> the draft questionnaire. I encourage those who missed the call to review >>> the recording and notes. >>> >>> Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the >>> Preamble and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final >>> discussion on our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00). Question 2 had >>> no revisions suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested. >>> >>> The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in >>> "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents) >>> and also in text below. *Please review this version of the Preamble >>> and Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments >>> for this portion.* >>> >>> We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose >>> of the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions >>> 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire, >>> a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired >>> (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself. With >>> these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and >>> choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had >>> left on the call. Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary >>> conclusions on Question 4. >>> >>> The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current version) >>> are in the second draft document (Word and PDF). Please look at the >>> alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending >>> question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for >>> Question 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you >>> could support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) >>> is "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in >>> order to support it.* >>> >>> We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please >>> provide your thoughts and responses before then. Thank you. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> *VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW* >>> >>> *PREAMBLE* >>> >>> The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2 >>> accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is >>> posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s >>> deliberations. >>> >>> As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) >>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27> >>> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report >>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/…> >>> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related >>> questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for >>> dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation >>> of policies. >>> >>> To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider >>> and respond to the following specific questions. 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. >>> >>> *QUESTION 1* >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> *QUESTION 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. >>> >>> *QUESTION 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. Please >>> provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party accounts such >>> as news reports; please do not provide your own version of events. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> [1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and >>> Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31. >>> >>> * For this Questionnaire, “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. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >>> >>> >>

2 1

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 8, 2017

Jan. 8, 2017

It depends on what you want to achieve with the responses. If you really want to know about most irritating qualities of Seun then ask that, validate them, and then decide if it's bearable. By the way, nothing requires anyone to respond to both advantages and disadvantages. Like I said it's clear what we want to use disadvantages for, may I know what we want to use advantages for at this time? Regards PS: I am not a fan of the fact that we've started this discussion but since that is the case (and am somewhat convinced it's probably better it's done), then we should do it right and in most efficient way. Up till today, I still can't think of any current problem that would warrant change of jurisdiction. Hence I look forward to reading the disadvantages. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 8 Jan 2017 12:32 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> wrote: Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data: 1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or 2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities? The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction. *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/Cell* *Twitter: @VlawDC* *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello Greg, Thanks for the follow-up, my reasons are quite simple: 1. The goal is to find out if there are indeed valid problems. Hence the question should be framed as such 2. Since this is not an exercise of "advantages vs disadvantages", asking for advantages now will not be as useful as knowing the disadvantages, confirming they are indeed valid problems and then we criticise those problems (including stating possible advantages we will loose if we needed to solve the problem identifed). 3. We just cannot exhaust the advantages via this question and if the responses we get is what we will be basing our discussions on then we should not start this process on a competitive grounds. 4. It is not clear what exactly we intend to use the advantages for at this initial stage but it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages. For clarity this is not a redline for me and I will be fine if the group does not accept the suggestion so long as adequate reason is provided (I note Paul opposes, will be good to read reasons). Irrespective of the group's decision, it should be clear that the volume of advantages vis disadvantages would not matter but the substance of the responses will be most important. Hence I hope we will address each of the problems identified adequately (including addressing them with points that may exceed those in the responses). Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Seun, Why do you suggest removing "advantages"? Greg On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hello Greg, Thanks for sending in this summary. I think the suggestion about removing "advantages" will be applicable to any of the question 4 alternatives. For instance I prefer "alternative 1" without including advantages. So I suggest modifying text of "alternative 6" to the following: "Remove advantages from any alternative that gains more traction" In that case, I will choose alternative 1+6 Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: All, We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6. Following a wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining the draft questionnaire. I encourage those who missed the call to review the recording and notes. Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the Preamble and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final discussion on our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00). Question 2 had no revisions suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested. The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents) and also in text below. *Please review this version of the Preamble and Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments for this portion.* We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose of the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire, a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself. With these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had left on the call. Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary conclusions on Question 4. The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current version) are in the second draft document (Word and PDF). Please look at the alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for Question 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you could support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) is "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in order to support it.* We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please provide your thoughts and responses before then. Thank you. Greg *VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW* *PREAMBLE* The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2 accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s deliberations. As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/…> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of policies. To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider and respond to the following specific questions. 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. *QUESTION 1* 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? 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. *QUESTION 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. *QUESTION 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. Please provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party accounts such as news reports; please do not provide your own version of events. ------------------------------ [1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31. * For this Questionnaire, “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. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 15 | 6 January
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 6, 2017

Jan. 6, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #15 – 6 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/xaXDAw 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: Welcome. Changes to SOIs? None. JN audio only. 2. Expected Standards of Behavior Greg Shatan: (Review of standards of behaviour) Mathieu Weill: Fully support Greg. Quoting the CCWG-A Charter : All participants are expected to abide by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.The co-chairs are empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the working group. Generally, the participant should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place; in extreme circumstances, this requirement may be bypassed. This restriction is subject to the right of appeal as outlined above. David McAuley (RySG): thanks Greg atthew shears: agree Greg - thanks Philip Corwin: Thank you Mathieu for pointing out that the co-chairs possess disciplinary powers for repeated violations of the Standards as well as for disruptive behavior. Wale Bakare: I am in strong support of the Standards of Behavior. 3. Proposed Questionnaire: a. Possible Revisions to Preamble and Questions Greg Shatan: Review of Preamble - review of three options in document. CW: Preamble: I have no strong opinion, except that the preamble should be SHORT. David McAuley: I have now reservations abut the questionnaire going out at all - given the discussions of the last few weeks has convinced me about this. We should stick to dispute resolution and contracts - especially given the questionnaire is not very professional. Tatiana Tropina: I agree with David. I assume the questionnaire will go out anyway, but I fully agree with what he said. Especially because I did with legal questionnaires and I know how hard it is Kavouss Arasteh: DM needs a glass of cold water but his statement does not help - we need to move forward with the questionnaire and decide on questions at this meeting. Philip Corwin: I share David's concerns but am reserving judgment on whether the questionaire should be sent depending on how this meeting proceeds. avri doria: While i do not agree with regard to the special problem with Q4, i totally agree on there being no aspect in which this is a professional questionnaire. Can support cancellation of the questionnaire. David McAuley (RySG): +1 Phil - we must stick to facts and discard opinions matthew shears: agree focus on facts and data Tatiana Tropina: I garee that all the problems come from the Q4 and that it makes the whole exercise vulnerable and out of the group mandate. Although I am not supporting the idea of the questionnaire itself but I could have lived with 3 questions. avri doria: I also do not think that Q4 is more an opinion question thatn 1-3 are. They all rely on opinion and perspective. Tatiana Tropina: this group is already full of different opinions, we need facts. Mathieu Weill: The way we frame the question is NEVER going to prevent respondents to provide opinions. matthew shears: + 1 Tatiana David McAuley (RySG): I also think even 1-3 could simply yield opinion Steve DelBianco: The preamble is the basis to decide if we are going to seek opinions can be subjected to a campaign of opinion loading throuhg an orchestrated response campaign. If we do go forward with a questions we should only consider unique responses based on facts. Greg Shatan: Have attempted to do this in option 7. Seun Ojedeji: Even though i have concern about the exercise we are about to get into but so long as we are focusing on facts, i don't think we should be concerned about question 4 any more. and i actually think focusing on fact should be the same for all the questions. Kavouss Arasteh: Coleagues, pls kindly do not use provocative terms in your statement like manipulating Kavouss Arasteh: Milton. that is your and few others views Tatiana Tropina: but at least when we ask for facts we can stick to facts when we got responses Philip Corwin: Agree that we cannot prevent opinions being submitted in response to any question, but we can agree in advance to discard any response that is not validated by facts and data. Milton Mueller: It is emerging that the source of the problem is question 4. In response to DM I acknowledge his concern but this is not meant to be a professional survey - I repeat we need to disconnect the first 3 questions from Q4. What is preventing us from doing this. Wale Bakare: The question 3 rely more on actual facts - experiences rather than opinions. We need to be focused on mechanisms of sourcing for data, as previously analysed by @Avri last week in the mailing list. Tatiana Tropina: again, can live with 1-3. If the idea is to stick to factual analysis once we got answers matthew shears: we should be ready to discount inputs that are not substantiated with fact Steve DelBianco: @Phil -- agree, and furthermore we should consolidate responses so that we discard duplicates citing the very same facts and evidence. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: In historical context - Jurisdiction issue goes back a long way. Support MM re surveys. Finally supportoption 7 on Q4. avri doria: the fact that 1&2 only collect facts from a single perspective and not a global perspective. You need question 4 to gather facts from the broader perspective. Tatiana Tropina: Matthew, yes. This is the thing. And this shall be determined before the questionnaire is sent. That once the answers come back only those with factual substance would be analyzed Greg Shatan: Matthew, that is the goal of this discussion. Philip Corwin: @Steve--and I agree with your point Milton: Avri, yes, perhaps we need to discuss the broader perspective, as you know i support that. But the framing of the question is very controversial and it has stalled everything Christopher Wilkinson: Agree with MM on first 3 questions. We will end up with a version of q4 one way or another - but would agree it could be done separately. Do not agree about the risk of a campaign. Jurisdiction thing in US is temporary. Do not agree that ICANN should incorporated in the US but this may take a long time - decades. Parminder: David making two points which should be tken seperately - whether only choice of law (privae law) is in our mandate, and the more formal issue of whether q4 is properly worded to get appropriate info. lets not mix the two very different things. Parminder: if indeed the mandate is under question - let us elave everything and first discuss and agree on it. It is truoblesome that we keep this keeps coming back - we cant work in ths manner. So, pl lets be first clear about mandate Becky Burr: just want to note that I am on the call and will be replacing Erika Mann as backup Board Liaison. Parminder: next, when milton says there is no opposition to question 1-3 to go out. No, I oppose it. Bec without q 4, it puts a question on the nature of remit/ mandate of CCWG Jeff Neuman 2: on the other hand leaving the issue open will mean that we will be consistently having this debate and not be able to focus on the real substance of ICANN activities matthew shears: agree Jeff Wale Bakare: +1, to Jeff. We would continually looping Greg Shatan: (reading Parminder chat posting given audio issues). David McAuley: I still think we would need to use a professional survey taker to get valid input. Milton: Again, this is not survey research, we are not quantifying percentages, or sampling a target population Milton: we are asking for facts or incidents Mathieu Weill: Situation is quite confusing to me. There seems to be consensus that we need facts. We have agreed to disagree on the mandate of the group. Reminder we are working for the community as agreed in WS1. There are significant expectations both internally and externally to ICANN and we cannot be seen to be trying to limit valid discussions. This is one of the first real tests of the post transition ICANN - we need facts to advance. Milton: +1 Mathieu Philip Corwin: Agree with Jeff, which is precisely why I advocated that, after spending two years and $14 million in legal fees to create an accountability structure that worked within the framework of CA law, we should have resolved the issue in WS1. Unfortunately the decision was made to kick the can down the road -- now this subgroup should be the end of the road. If US corporate jurisdiction ever creates a major problem I have no doubt that the iCANN community will recognize and address that. Milton: so TT and DM we identified a wording problem in the first question and we fixed it. Tatiana Tropina: Phil, yes absolutely, *but* this decision shall be based on facts and not just on opinions what is good and what is bad Milton: Can you identify any specific way in which the phrasing of the questions would not produce useful data? Mathieu Weill: Honestly, I've never seen a survey, even tailored by professionals, that "containeed' people within a given scope. If they want to speak up, they will, and that is the multistakeholder model isn't it ? Kavouss Arasteh: about 10 days ago the PC proposal for Q4 had great deal of support - we should work on this basis - we cannot drop Q4 and need to move forward. Milton: Kavouss, it is clear that Q4 has strong support but it also has strong opposition. So we are proposing to separate it from the other questions, not to dump it - it needs more work Tatiana Tropina: Mathieu, sure! The point is that to unsure which info one gets when the answers come back. Tatiana Tropina: I agree to separate the Q4 and send it separately after fine tuning. Tatiana Tropina: I mean, I agree to disagree, I have concerns about questionnaire as a tool itself but I understand that we have to do something so I concur. Kavouss Arasteh: Dear Tidjani, Kavouss Arasteh: Why we should separate that??? David McAuley (RySG): Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk Kavouss Arasteh: Why we should separate that??? David McAuley (RySG): Fair point Greg about not letting perfect be enemy of good – I am not convinced that good is at risk Kavouss Arasteh: I can not agree to separate Q4 from the three other Qs Greg Shatan: Quality of survey should not be a major issue. We should use the remainder of our time to understand how to resolve Q4 issue. We need to work to resolve this by our next meeting. Any comments on the preamble. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly do not promote to separate Q4 from tother questions Mathieu Weill: @Kavouss, it is Greg, not Grec ;-) Kavouss Arasteh: It would be misinterpreted by the crecipiants Tatiana Tropina: Mathieu I think even Greg will agree that he is Grec now :-) Parminder: Prefer alternative 2, can live with alt 1, but dont accept current text or alt 3 Kavouss Arasteh: Preamble should precise and short and questions should be a max of 10 lines each. Make this as short as possible. Greg Shatan: Which version do you support? Kavouss Arasteh: support the shortest version. Parminder: to answer Greg, I dot support alt 3 bec it quotes the mandate selectively Philip Corwin: Prefer alt 1 -- shorter is better Parminder: Shorter and high level is best Steve DelBianco: I prefer Alternative 1 Milton: Alternative 1 for me Tatiana Tropina: Alternative 1 too David McAuley (RySG): support alt 1, qualified by my remarks Kavouss Arasteh: Generally Speaking, people responding may not pay a lot of attention to Preamble Milton: right, Kavouss Greg Shatan: (survey on preamble) CW JJS opposed 6 in support. CW: Alternative 2 is OK if there are links to Final Report and Mandate Kavouss Arasteh: i COULD AGREE WITH ALT 1 matthew shears: alt 1 is OK Parminder: I had requested to add "implementation of policy" to alt i Parminder: alt 2 for me is best Kavouss Arasteh: cAN YOU TRY aLT 1 AGAIN Seun Ojedeji: why try again @Kavouss? Mary Uduma 2: Alt 1 for me Tatiana Tropina: The check count for Alt 1 was confusing. I deleted my green check before Greg did a final count :-) Milton: Let's do another check of support for Alternative 1 Parminder: Greg, you had added "policy impementation" to accountabiltiy at the end of para 2 of alt 1 - that option is not here Parminder: Greg, you had added "policy impementation" to accountabiltiy at the end of para 2 of alt 1 - that option is not here Seun Ojedeji: Seun: Alt 1 prefered for preamble Tatiana Tropina: yes please put alt 1 for final check Parminder: I am fine with alt 1, but as Greg had amended on the elist Tatiana Tropina: I support both! With or without addition. :-) Greg Shatan: Preamble Alt 1 with the added text is preferred and I will put it on the list for preparation of our nest meeting. Kavouss Arasteh: vERY GOOD Kavouss Arasteh: it is done Jeff Neuman 2: I need to see the full text befor making a determination Greg Shatan: Discussing Question 1. Option 1 and 2 re Domain Name vs DNS. Milton: Alt 1 now CW: Q1: maintain DNS. that includes the root and addresses CW: Q1 maintain Privacy. Greg Shatan: Will post alternative 1 to the list as a final recommendation. Kavouss Arasteh: I CAN NOT MANIPULATE CROSS COLOUR Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Greg, there was an audio cut, I missed some of your comments. I am against most alternatives, but am in favour of Alternative 7, the one you proposed. Greg Shatan: we need to get to question 4 on our next call and I will post to the list on this. Good Call.Adjourned. Documents Presented · ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/ICANN%20Expected%…> · Chart showing alternatives for Questionnaire.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/Chart%20showing%2…> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63153605/InfluenceofExisti…>

1 0

Materials for Upcoming Jurisdiction Call
by Greg Shatan Jan. 6, 2017

Jan. 6, 2017

All, I have attached the Agenda and copies of each document mentioned in the Agenda, in Word and PDF. These are - ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior - Questionnaire Proposals -- I've put this into a different chart form to assist in comparing alternatives - Influence of Existing Jurisdiction... Document I look forward to our call. Greg

1 0