- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working - and my objection to the so called consensus
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

I will not dwell on this particular event, but as we continue in this process I will encourage the rapporteur (who belongs to everyone and no one) to always recognise that the group isn't balanced in all ramifications hence question about "who" determines consensus needs to handled carefully. Where consensus are practiced in the RIR and IETF world even a single person could raise a point of substance that would affect the consensus check. Overall everyone irrespective of race and origin needs to be heard and the substance of their point should be addressed as much as possible - everyone should feel welcomed and heard in this community! Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Jan 2017 12:25 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: As long as this is "for the record," I'd like the record to be correct. Parminder is referring to the initial poll where we were gauging support for 3 different alternatives (and ultimately a fourth), not to the final consensus call. (I believe the results were actually 13-3...) Notably, all the other alternatives had more (or much more) non-support than they did support. The actual consensus call on the final formulation had only a single objection. Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: > Actually you are misrepresenting the situation, Parminder. > > > > At least two of the “no” votes to which you refer were not votes against > proceeding with the version of Q4 we ended up adopting, they were > expressing preferences for small alterations in wording. > > > > > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc > es(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 1:52 PM > *To:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's > working - and my objection to the so called consensus > > > > I would also like it to be on record that the so called consensus was > decided on basis of 11 to 3 votes, which were neatly divided along the > lines of developed countries based persons and developing country based > ones. All those who voted "yes" to the final formulation were from > developed countries, overwhelmingly US based (which has current > jurisdiction on ICANN), and all those from developing countries voted > "no". There were only three participants from developing countries, and all > voted "no". I must however state that many from developed countries did not > vote either way. > > I am all for friendship and camaraderie, but there is a limit to playing > down such significant facts and differences, especially in relation to such > an important geopolitical issue as the jurisdictional oversight over ICANN. > This particular fact of how voting was split cannot be ignored. > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:59 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs/ All > > I understand that the Chairs will right now be busy drafting a report to > submit for the CCWG meeting tomorrow indicating consensus on the > questionnaire as seems to have been agreed in today's call. Since I made a > formal objection to the process, I will like to clarify the basis of my > objection, putting it on record. > > My objection mainly arises from the fact that that the jurisdiction > sub-group seems to be deciding a new, innovative, and completely unjust, > rule for its working. It apparently has decided that in taking public/ > community input into its work, *it will accept only such inputs that are > fully and exclusively based on actual occurrences/ instances **that can > be proven to have happened in the past*. I expect that, in the typical > creeping acquisition way, this new rule would then also be applied to the > discussions, and to making recommendations, by the group itself. > > This is a unique and significant epistemological stance. Importantly, such > a stance was not applied to the work of work-stream I of CCWG, for coming > up with a new accountability mechanism. It was never insisted that only > such "facts" as arise from actual occurrences in the past can be the basis > of suggesting any institutional change. > > Even in other groups of work-stream 2, like those dealing with > transparency, human rights framework, etc, it is not a condition that any > institutional change has to be based on facts arising from actual > "verifiable occurrences" in the past, and the implications arising thereof. > I have some passing acquaintance about the stage of outputs from the > subgroups on transparency and human rights, and I know for a fact that *there > has never been a condition that any institutional innovation can only arise > from "verifiable occurrences" in the past, absent which no change can be > suggested or made*. > > In the circumstance, it is question of fairness and natural justice, to > ask why a jurisdiction related institutional change can only be based on > facts that directly arise from clearly verifiable past occurrences. What is > so special about jurisdiction related institutional changes - which is the > mandate of a separate sub group, and about which issue many actors were > insistent since the very start that it should be given full consideration? > > I am happy to shown otherwise, but right now I can only think that this is > being done with the intention to fend off the discussion going in > directions that certain actors fear would not serve their interests. If one > fears losing a case on cannons of reason, justice and preponderance of > public opinion, the best thing to do - if one is powerful enough - is to > simply change the rules of how a decision process will be conducted, and > what are the legitimate or illegitimate inputs into it. That is exactly > what has been done in this case. It strains the credibility of ICANN's so > called open process; whose first rule seems to be, throw so much resources > at any important issue as to overwhelm any discussion about it, and then, > if "problems" persist, simply change the rules and frame new ones, as has > been done in this case. I cannot accept that an ICANN WG cannot trust the > community/ public to give their free and unconstrained views on a key issue > central to its mandate. And that it should resort to making novel, and > absurd rules, about what can and what cannot be said by the public/ > community as inputs into its work. This especially when in very similar > parallel processes there exists no such rule. This new rule changes the > very basis of the working of this sub group, and almost completely > hamstrings it. > > parminder > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 16 | 10 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #16 – 10 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (opening with 30 participants). No updates to SOIs. No audio only. 2. Proposed Questionnaire: a. Options for Question 4 Greg Shatan: (proposals for Question 4 document - staff to prep DM proposal also). Kavouss Arasteh: which version are we discussing? It is important for all of us to agree on something. DM text needs to include "mission". Parminder: I prefer we begin with the formulations already discussed in the last call and not new David's text. Parminder: I dont agree with current David's text Milton: I think we should move ahead with Qs 1-3 and continue working on Q4 Parminder: but can do with Seun's changes, with changing "instances" to "facts" in Seun's modified text David McAuley: re my suggestion - I could support the GS reformulation of this. Still disagree we deal with JOI. Milton: it's obvious that we will not reach agreement on any version of Q4 in this call Brenda Brewer: Documents can be found on Jurisdiction Wiki page here; https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw John Laprise: I support the McAuley Formulation Vidushi Marda: Would it be possible to begin by discussing the alts discussed in the last call first? Steve DelBianco: I can support either David's Q4 or the adjusted version circulated by Greg Mathieu Weill: Obviously there is traction for this compromise, I suggest to call for any objection ? Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu " 1 ,taking also my suggestion to bring back Mission in to the text Parminder: We should focus on the previously presented 7 versions and could support any of these except 7. Steve DelBianco: Have not supported Q4 but in the spirit of compromise could agree to the reformulated DM question. If we cannot reach consensus on Q4 we should proceed to the plenary with the first 3 questions and advise we will continue to work on Q4. Jonathan Zuck: Agree with SDB and like the simplicity of this version. Parminder: Please put Seun’s modification on the screen, which had good support on the elist Jonathan Zuck: Of course, we can always come up with interpretive scenarios in which laws might cause problems in the future but 19 years seems like a prettty good sample in which to find "instances" David McAuley (RySG): Steve makes a good point about consensus Kavouss Arasteh: not constructive to work on 7 versions. Could work with DM version with MISSION included. Milton: If McCauley's version of Q4 gains something close to consensus, I would strongly prefer that we stick to David's first, simpler version Parminder: Please put at least Seun's and my changes to david's text as alternatie text here. Milton: "Mission" is broader and easier to understand than "actual operations....bla bla" David McAuley (RySG): +1 Milton, I could support Greg's reformulation but prefer original reference to Mission - that is what matters Philip Corwin: Agree with Jonathan Z's observation. David McAuley (RySG): by adding Mission and leaving other reformulated wording we risk confusion again Milton: simpler is better Milton: agree with David on that Kavouss Arasteh: why David Parminder: this is the wording Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing 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." David McAuley (RySG): adding Mission and leaving other wording implies the two sets of wordings are different - Steve DelBianco: @Milton -- "mission" is a concept that few understand, since it is expressed in the bylaws as a multi-part statement. Philip Corwin: "Mission" alone is better choice, as it is pursued via operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and therefore includes them by implication. Kavouss Arasteh: re-insert MISSION in square brakets and send to the CCWG-Accountability plenary and they cand decide. John Laprise: I also agree that simpler (and symmetric) is better. Steve DelBianco: Our scope is actually narrower than pursuit of mission. It is about accountability mechanisms Milton: Corwin is correct Jonathan Zuck: we should always be trying to avoid another argument in the future. If "mission" is vague then we get less useful answers and spend our time discussion what the mission is again Milton: Steve - understand your point but we have built ICANN's accountability mechanisms around Cal jurisdiction, ergo we are asking whether anything related to ICANN's mission is sacrificed by that John Laprise: @Kavous "Mission" is a problem because it requires that survey takers actually know the mission verbatim from memory when they answer the survey rather than what they think the mission is. That's why mission is problematic. Parminder: strong objection to not showing my or Sheun's modifications to DM's text. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls put " Mission" added into SQUARE bRACKET and send it to CCWG pLENARY Jonathan Zuck: @Milton, we certainly all believe that we do but to John's point we've all internalized different versions of it. David McAuley: Re KA question - my concern is to avoid confusion by inserting mission. Parminder: i also put them here , puttting again Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing 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." Jonathan Zuck: if it's "likely" it would have happened or showed signs of happening by now Milton: "facts" vs "instances" doesn't seem that important, P; if that replacement is made would you accept the new Q4 as formulated? Steve DelBianco: ICANN's mission is in Section 1.1 of the new bylaws. It is over 700 words long. I doubt anyone could quote it by memory. Do we need to include a reference to the bylaws as part of the question? Parminder: seun's text that I amended was ""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." Parminder: Milton, facts, plus as seun says, in future part "or will be" formulation Kavouss Arasteh: Greg. Milton: it does cover alt jurisdiction Kavouss Arasteh: If addition of mission causes so much confusion, then I withdraw my suggestion Milton: yes there is, Philip Corwin: As the current accountability mechanisms relate to the reformulated Mission, perhaps just follow the question with either the text of the WS1 Mission statement or a link to it? That way everyone has ready guidance to the same formulation. Ghislain de Salins: what about the original objective of Q4 about alternative jurisdiction in DM's proposal? (explanation it is there by GS) Milton Mueler: Still want to separate Q4 but we seem to be making progress. DM proposal is very close to consensus Farzaneh Badii: If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group… Tatiana Tropina: Milton, well said. Brenda Brewer: On behalf of Seun Ojedeji: Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the 2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity. Wale Bakare: Absolutely Vidushi Marda: I think its important to remember, as Greg has pointed out, we are not going to be "limited" by the answers that we get. Parminder: Seun may not be locatabl, but I am here. And i have ent my formulation. please put it up. Farzaneh Badii: I think we have to think about those who want to answer these questions more . Jonathan Zuck: agree with Milton.Let's just stick with David's original formulation David McAuley (RySG): Milron cutting out now Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Milton. Parminder: need to put up Sheun and my versions. Milton: Wale: No, no, no, no. We are close to agreement, let's not spend another month on trivial verbal changes Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi sent the formulations to the email. Brenda can you put it up ? Kavouss Arasteh: lets put the DM version in front of people and get the co-chair to respond to FB. Parminder: why are you not putting up that text. Mathieu Weill: I support Milton's view, let's take stock of progress Milton: As Corwin suggests, we can link to the new mission and core values statement (Staff) displaying Sean and Parminder. Milton: Zuck: I like instances better, too. As suggested in my talk, David's original is the best imho John Laprise: Again formulating the converse of these alternatives (an affirmative of the present jurisdiction) is awkward. These are negative/critical cases only. David McAuley (RySG): My concern with the two proposals on screen is the guessing/speculation called for about the future John Laprise: Agreed John Laprise: too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy Steve DelBianco: Stick with David's original, I'd say Parminder: The future should be logically deductible form "facts" Jeff Neuman: Can we do an informal poll on this call between the three Parminder: that is done all the time in policy/ insitutional work Steve DelBianco: I would not support speculation about future facts Philip Corwin: Agree with Zuck. Also, it is time to take yes for an answer. Responders will say whatever they wish to regardless of precise formulation of the question, and this group will have to sort through the answers and decide what is useful and relevant. Herb Waye Ombuds: Sorry for my late drop in... greetings all. Jeff Neuman: David's language Jeff Neuman: and these 2 Jonathan Zuck: the future should also be logically deductible from the past if the past is 19 years Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): argh. should sayo Jonathan Zuck: David's original Philip Corwin: Past is prologue Tatiana Tropina: David's Greg Shatan: Polling - DM original version (12 pro). Object to DM's original version (3). Going to Seun's option (4+, 11-). Last Parminder version (3+, 11-). DM modified version (2+, 8-) Philip Corwin: NO, either mission OR policies and accountability. Listing both just confuses things and implies that policy and accountability are separate from mission. Mathieu Weill: Important to identifiy any *objection* Milton: just added my check a bit late Steve DelBianco: Greg -- you can set your Adobe view to sort and count the check marks. We got to 13 Steve DelBianco: If support for McAuley's Q4 is deemed insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: Grrg/ staff, pl correct the count for my proposal - it was 3 and not 2 David McAuley (RySG): I agree w Greg porposal only as alterantive - I support the Mission (alone - unrefoprmulated) first Milton: if you don't wish to propose it Greg, you don't have to; it's your proposal Mary Uduma: we are actually arguing on trivals. avri doria: we should not use such poll to determine things. if we are going to use a poll for decsion making it should be well formed and should use AC polling capabilities. My abstentions are process related. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @Parminder fixed. Mathieu Weill: Kavouss, my support was for testing objections on David proposal David McAuley (RySG): in other words I strongly support my original proposal Parminder: thanks Vidushi Marda: Unsure what we are voting on Tatiana Tropina: yes neitehr do I. The text seems a bit messy. Ah, mission sould be ignored, ok Philip Corwin: I am abstaining because I don't wish to vote against Greg's last formulation, but prefer David's alternative John Laprise: +1Tatiana Jonathan Zuck: Just feels like a mouthfl for a survey given the simplicity of David's formulation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Phil me a Parminder: I agree with Avri's process objection Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Abstaining becuase it is not quite there with David's on clarity and precision. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also Kavouss Arasteh: we have our result from the polling and this should be reported to the plenary. Jeff Neuman: I agree that the poll is not very scientific, but only 1 alternative had more support than objections and that is telling in and of itself. That is what needs to be recommended to the plenary Milton: It's clear that David's original formulation has broadest rough consensus Mathieu Weill: This was excellent consensus assessment, we're not polling or voting. Milton: Mathieu is right Greg Shatan: We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus? Kavouss Arasteh: This is done. Parminder: I do not know the rules to read consensus here. So just state disagreement with the formulations. avri doria: consensus is nto consensus when enough people object to calling it such Farzaneh Badii: what is enough? Tatiana Tropina: Farzy people who don't want to call it consensus :)? Steve DelBianco: If you believe that support for McAuley's Q4 is insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: I do not think there is consensus David McAuley (RySG): i hear beeping Mathieu Weill: Can we mute Nigel line Philip Corwin: Agree with Steve. Either david's formulation has consensus support and should go forward, or no version has consensus support and we should abandon the question. Kavouss Arasteh: cannot qualify that consensus. avri doria: Philip, I would noot agree with that. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Philip. Those who were aganist sending out Q4 at all moved enough to meet others in the middle by accepting David's version avri doria: i am not disagreeing that we have consensus, but threaten me that we have consensus or nothing, and i will join the objectors John Laprise: agreed, so motioned... Philip Corwin: @Avri-reasonable people can disagree. My view is that after all this time and effort it is time to fish or cut bait. I believe that there is consensus support for David's formulation as just demonstrated in straw poll Greg Shatan: We will go forward with the 4 questions which include DM's original version. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus Steve DelBianco: If some do not agree this is not consensus on 4 then we go ahead with 3 questions. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus avri doria: we have no consensus for sending just 3 Milton: yes we do Vidushi Marda: +1 avri Parminder: But no consensus on 1-3 either Mary Uduma: I think the 4th question has a enough support to move forward. Mathieu Weill: Not necessary to reopen the debate - this is a good compromise position and thank everyone. Steve DelBianco: Parminder -- we had 29-2 support for questions 1-3 John Laprise: Agreed Greg: move ahead with Q1-4 Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu + 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we had 1-3 well supported earlier Milton: +1 Mathieu Jeff Neuman: @Parminder, can you please also state the basis for your objection. Philip Corwin: On the last call we achieved consensus on 1-3 avri doria: i agree that just one objection, for a postion that i beleive is understood, does not break ICANN consensus, i.e. agree that Greg got to something he can call consensus Farzaneh Badii: so we are good? 1-4 will be sent out? Wale Bakare: We have consensus on all Qs. Mary Uduma: @Parminder, not so on 1-3 Farzaneh Badii: YES! Tatiana Tropina: wow what a day Farzaneh Badii: SUCCESS Kavouss Arasteh: Appreciation to GS for the effort to get us here. Leave it as is. Still need to answer FB's question. Greg Shatan: will deal with this on the list. Adjourned.

1 0

Fwd: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questionnaire for CCWG-Plenary
by Greg Shatan Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

All, The email below with clean and marked versions of the revised Questionnaire was sent to staff for distribution to the Plenary. Congratulations to the Subgroup for coming to consensus on question 4, which allowed us to complete our revisions to the draft Questionnaire and bring it back to the CCWG-Plenary tomorrow. Soon, we will be able to release our questionnaire and look forward to receiving responses to help inform the subgroup as we continue our work. Thank you for the spirit of compromise that ultimately allowed us to cross the finish line. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:06 PM Subject: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questionnaire for CCWG-Plenary To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> Bernie, Attached are clean and "track changes" versions of the Questionnaire, showing changes to the prior version of the Questionnaire. Please let me know if you have any questions. Greg

3 4

Additional Materials for our call
by Greg Shatan Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Additional materials are attached.

4 4

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