January 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Agenda for 6 January Call
by Greg Shatan Jan. 6, 2017

Jan. 6, 2017

1. Introduction 2. Expected Standards of Behavior 3. Proposed Questionnaire 4. Effect of Choice of Law and Venue Document 5. AOB

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues
by John Laprise Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

Strongly agree. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 4:03 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues And once the criteria have been established, I think we’d also need to clearly demonstrate whether/how the current (US/California) jurisdiction fails to deliver on some/all of these identified points. Thank you, J. ----- James Bladel From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 16:00 To: John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > Cc: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues Other criteria might include ease of access to courts and other forms of redress (e.g., arbitration), including timing and predictability of results, and ease of enforcing judgments (including enforcing judgments abroad). Political and financial stability and personal safety could also come into play. Government policies such as strength of freedom of speech and any history of unilaterally nationalizing businesses could also be criteria. In this specific instance, we would need to look at whether the accountability mechanisms that the CCWG arrived at in WS1 could be carried out under that jurisdiction's laws. As John Laprise notes, there are multiple complex criteria, and we could possibly get information from outside entities that measure various criteria if this was something to be pursued. Greg On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:24 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > wrote: Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by various entities) broken down into component attributes. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com <mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com> ] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM To: John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> ; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"? _____ From: John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> " <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do." This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> >: Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues
by John Laprise Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

Criteria might include strength (vis a vis rule of law), fairness, and level of corruption. These are complex criteria which can be (and are by various entities) broken down into component attributes. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: Zakir Syed [mailto:zakirbinrehman@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 2:04 PM To: John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>; Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues What would be the criteria for the acceptability of such a "superior jurisdiction"? _____ From: John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> > Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> " <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> " <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The crusade for clarity continues "Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do." This is the crux of the argument regarding jurisdiction. Until advocates of ICANN relocation can identify a superior jurisdiction acceptable to all, the question is moot and should be tabled with Kavous's and Parminder's objections noted. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016, 4:50 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Professor, You put too much emphasis on private . Please read Bylaws Core value and the R9ole of Governments Regards Kavouss 2016-12-29 23:01 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu> >: Milton, since you seem to so very clear about everything, and on a crusade to correct everyone's confusions MM: Oh dear, I’ve been called a “crusader.” (It almost made me fall off my horse.) can you give us an example of such "jurisdiction that does not involve national borders at all", without it implying an agreement reached among states. Are you promoting US jurisdiction as such jurisdiction without borders? MM: ICANN was based on a strategy of globalization through private law. In order to avoid jurisdictional fragmentation of the domain name system, it created a global governance agency based on private contracts. Of course as a private corp ICANN has to be incorporated somewhere, in this case for historical reasons it was the US. It then issues private contracts that apply anywhere, like other multinationals. It does not have to be incorporated in the US to follow this strategy. Any stable jurisdiction where the corporate law provides suitable accountability would do. So the short answer to your typically manipulative question is no, I am not promoting “US jurisdiction as such,” I am calling attention to the rationale behind the original decision to make ICANN a private nonprofit. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

FW: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
by parminder Jan. 5, 2017

Jan. 5, 2017

On Friday 30 December 2016 03:23 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Parminder said “I havent seen not only no attempt to explore ways to > stop such influence by you, and many others here > > > > Translated, it means: > > > > I just wanted to know what do you propose to do about this clearly > identified jurisdiction problem? > > > > MM: First, it isn’t all that clearly identified. Other than OFAC, we > need to explore the scenarios, if any, in which it might have impact. > You say OFAC issue is clear but not others..Others have listed <http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf> OFAC plus non OFAC issues, which are a lot of groups. But lets say even with OFAC, what do you propose we do about it? BTW, I am sure you know the following passage in the GTLD handbook. It is clear that ICANN must and would comply with all US laws, rules and regulations, be it OFAC, intellectual property related, trade sanctions, FFC orders, any new laws not imagined till now, the new hypothetical Trump Act, whatever........................ Is this not an identification of a problem enough? I see it as a clearly identified problem, on solutions for whic hwe should be working, even without waiting for responses to our proposed questionnaire. GTLD Guidebook Version 2012-1-11 Legal Compliance -- ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the SDN List). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. In any given case, however, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. The current Q4, as I have said, does a lousy job of this. Sure, but in all this long discussion you havent mentioned what kind of question will do a non-lousy job. > > PS: Further, if going down an international treaty route is > problematic for you, do you think jurisdictional immunity under the > International Organisations Immunities Act is a good way to address > this jurisdictional problem? > > > > MM: International treaty would take decades, and given the > irrationality of inter-state rivalries, seems unlikely ever to produce > a good solution. > You have surely changed your views 180 degrees over the last 10 years, since when you had advocated, in 2005-06, for a governments negotiated "Framework convention on the Internet". That is ok, but others still do believe that the comity of nation states can achieve much. I dont see your global network of private contracts take up global governance, god forbid! > > > MM: The IOIA isn’t all that promising, keep in mind that to qualify as > an “international organization” under that Act the US Congress has to > recognize the organization as such and thus you would be bringing > ICANN back under the authority of the US congress, > This is just some cheap intellectual dishonesty (this is for calling me "typically manipulative", in another email). Milton, are you trying to tell us that if the CCWG recommends that ICANN be given immunity under IOIA ONLY THEN would or can ICANN get subject to Congress!!!! And you call yourself a professor of policy studies or whatever!! The US congress can, if it so decides, right now eat ICANN with breakfast, with no invitation required, from CCWG, from the so called "Internet community", or from prof milton. What really do you mean to say that seeking immunity under IOIA will "bring ICANN back under the authority of the US congress"?? When did it go out of authority of US congress? It must take extra-ordinary intellectual dishonesty and disingenuity for a US prof of policy to tell us that trying to seek immunity from US jurisdiction, even if under a US law, will actually being ICANN "back under" US/ congress's authority/ jurisdiction.... > which doesn’t seem so nice after the Republican takeover > As far as possible, I like not to talk about other countries' democratic choices . But it is your (US's) problem really! Why we should get thrown into this, who never voted this way or that-- majority of USians voted a particular way, and you are in a social contract together, and so just accept it. But why should we, non USiasn, have to go with what happens or does not happen to your Congress. Milton/ others, are you guys left with no feeling of democratic fraternity with the rest of the world at all - is this the level that we are getting reduced to. > and our experiences last September. Indeed, the IOIA was designed with > state-based, diplomatic organizations in mind – it applies to the UN, > the Holy See and the European Central Bank for example. > Now more than a dozen times I have given the example of International Fertilizer Development Center, as a US non profit under IOIA given immunity, and there are many others. Only yesterday I linked the entire list of orgs under IOIA immunity, many of them non IGOs. But you havent noticed it, yet, right. Try some intellectual honesty, Milton, a term you throw around a lot. Do you not see the hypocrisy here, but how can you, that would be a contradiction in terms. > So your holding up of this option is what drives Corwin’s sense that > this debate is about whether ICANN turns into an IGO. > Should I write it on stamp paper with notary authentication and post it your home, that, no IOIA does not only give immunity to IGOs. It has given imunity to many non IGos. If you do not have a good argument dont just keep throwing around mis- representations. > Finally, the exemptions of the IOIA confer all kinds of immunities on > the organization that we might not want, such as exemptions from > property and income taxes (I know you are a big fan of those) > I thought ICANN is already exempted from income tax due to its non profit status. But, then certainly I do not want it to be paying tax to the US on income it makes from a global governance activity. Why should it? > and worse, immunity from lawsuits. Are you kidding me? You want ICANN > to be immune from lawsuits? > So, Milton, you havent till now realised that the jurisdiction issue is about immunity from lawsuits, brought under the laws of one country, to which the rest of the world does not contribute? Yes, we do not want anyone to be able to challenge .ir or .africa, or a hypothetical Indian generic drugs company owned .Sunpharma. under US laws. Becuase these laws, and the US courts, apply the test of US public interest, not, or certainly in priority to, that of global Interest. All countries do it, there is no other way. That was always the whole point. parminder > >

3 3

CHANGE of Time and Day of this week's Jurisdiction Subgroup meeting
by Greg Shatan Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

All: No objections having been received, the time and day of this week's meeting will be changed to *Friday, 6 January, 2017 at 13:00 UTC*. By copy of this email, I ask Staff to circulate an updated announcement reflecting this change. Thank you. I look forward to Friday's meeting. In the meantime, please review the document relating to the Proposed Questionnaire: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XHNwFUr2wA-w65ynd6YjuDyuBjx0V9PAxt-81z3… Best regards, Greg

1 0

Time of the meeting on 05 Jan 2017
by Kavouss Arasteh Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

Dear Grec, May you kindly confirm the time of the next SUB GROUP on Jurisdiction as 05 Jan. 2017 at 13,00 UTC. I appreciate very much agreements given by some colleagues for 13,00 UTC.on 05.01.2017 Regards Kavouss

3 2

Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup
by Greg Shatan Jan. 3, 2017

Jan. 3, 2017

All, We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end. In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment. Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis. I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "*Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy.*" "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12). After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup. This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup. Thank you. Greg

7 12

REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
by Greg Shatan Jan. 3, 2017

Jan. 3, 2017

REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity. To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. Thank you for your responses. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org All, I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. *Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.* Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross- community(a)icann.org> All: Two quick but important points: 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. * With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out. 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it. We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive. Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.) Greg *The following responses were received on the Accountability list*: *Parminder*: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: 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. (* 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.) ENDS Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question. *Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss *Sam Lanfranco:* Greg, Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues. Sam Lanfranco

12 37

Fwd: Re: Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup
by avri doria Jan. 2, 2017

Jan. 2, 2017

Accidentally sent encrypted. now unencrypted . -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:42:27 -0500 From: avri doria <avri(a)acm.org> Reply-To: avri(a)acm.org To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Hi, On Q3 i think it is reasonable to gather both primary (direct experience) and secondary (studied the instance) comments for all of the proposed facts. While no one can know the internet mental state of another, it is possible by study to gather a lot of information on the surrounding circumstance and the after effects of a instance by investigation and study. Often an outside viewer, one who is experienced - as lawyers and scholars often are, can see the experience more completely that the unschooled victim. As long as we know which are primary and which are secondary, and we know the basis, perspective, from which the fact is being described our knowledge will be increased. As group we can then parse and decide which information to use and which to ignore (as long as we have a stated reason for doing so). avri On 31-Dec-16 01:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Dear Avri, > Thank you very much for clarifications which helps. > I have just a question to raise about Q 3 . > Is it correct to ask X to provide the experience of Y on a given > subject.My background in legal matter does not convince me that such > question is right due to the fact that even if X is fully aware of > what has happened to Y on that given issue ,still it is the reflection > and understanding of X of Y expérience which may not reflect the > actual experience of Y on that subject .Any human being from > psychological point of view has different understanding and > comprehension of the occurrence of an event which may not be exactly > similar as the experience of another human being? > I raised the same question before to the co-chairs but they did not > reply me. > They reply every members of CCWG EXCEPT ME . > P.S. > One of the co chair was publicly very aggressive with me and offended > me interpreting me as shouting when mistakenly I typed in CAP for > which I apologized but he did not appoligzed for his inappropriate > action . > To MATHIEU > Please kindly read again Q 3 CAREFULLY AND ALSO REPLY TO ME. > Regards > Kavouss > > 2016-12-30 23:42 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri(a)acm.org > <mailto:avri@acm.org>>: > > Dear Kavouss, > > My argument was in favor of including question 4. > > That is the question I felt was being suppressed because I believe > people were afraid that the responses might point to a solution space > they would prefer to avoid. > > Apologies for not being able to make that sufficiently clear. > > Cheers, > > avri > > > > On 30-Dec-16 16:17, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > Dear ALL > > No one wants to prevent particular solutions. We all looking for a > > workable solution but not a unilateral solution > > No one motivating a drive to keep you from asking > > necessary questions, We also wants to raise proper questions and not > > business type question but a general questions which covers the > > problem of every body. > > those accusing us did not have any problem at all as they are > > covered by the existing Jurisdiction BUT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS > > Pls allow others to raise their points .THERE IS NO ROOM FOR > > REPRESSUION . > > Pls kindly do not accuse people to delay . THE statement > > "/One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the > same time > > fighting a possible solution it cannot abide/". > > IS UNFOUNDED . IRELEVANT AND ALLEGATION . > > This is a global multistakeholder process and every body has the > right > > to raise it point .But you do not allow them by openly accuse them > > delaying the process . > > Those who stop sending Q4 are delaying the process. > > Pls kindly understand us > > Regards > > Have nice evening > > Kavouss > > > > 2016-12-30 18:28 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri(a)acm.org > <mailto:avri@acm.org> > > <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>>: > > > > > > All a matter of perspective > > > > > > On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > > > +1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to > a small > > > minority is delaying us greatly. > > > > I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular > > solutions > > from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us > from > > asking > > necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay. > > > > One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the > same time > > fighting a possible solution it cannot abide. > > > > > > avri > > > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus > software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus > <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org > <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> > > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>> > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0