- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Third Draft of Experience Solicitation Questions
by Greg Shatan Dec. 7, 2016

Dec. 7, 2016

All: Based on discussions on our last call and the list, I've revised these questions as follows (added text underlined). Please reply to this email with any comments or suggested changes. Greg 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that *“affected”* may *refer to *positive *and/*or negative *effects*. 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*. 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. _____________________________ * 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 or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.

4 5

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12
by Greg Shatan Dec. 6, 2016

Dec. 6, 2016

All, Here is the agenda for Meeting #12 at 19:00 UTC on December 5. Please continue to discuss the "experience solicitation" questions and the proposed additional question between now and then. Attention to the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… is also important to keep our work moving forward. Greg

5 8

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 12 | 5 December
by MSSI Secretariat Dec. 6, 2016

Dec. 6, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12 – 5 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/XITDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Also, as requested on the call today, here is a link for Google Doc assistance - please see tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8[youtube.com<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8%5byoutube.com>] Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes: (including relevant portions of the chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: Vinay Kasari unfortunately unavailable. Also we are competing with IGF. Any changes to SOI's? (none)_. 2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions Greg Shatan: Any input on the 3 questions as circulated? David McAuley: Thank you for getting us here GS - Am not a fan of these questions but given the discussions this is the best we can get. Greg Shatan: any objections to starting the process to publishing these? David McAuley: I gather we have not decided on the process? Greg Shatan: Correct DM - process for this is point 4 on our agenda today. No other comments so these 3 are good. Let us now look at the additional question (#4) 3. Discussion of additional question a. Formulation of question Greg Shatan: We have rough consensus on the previous questions but not on this one. Neither do we have a stable draft of this question. Any comments on the question. David McAuley: Does not specify a point of view and could cause issues in analyzing the responses. Greg Shatan: Question used to be WHAT DO YOU THINK and then mutated. Pedro da Silva: Generally I favour more straightforward and general type questions - however given the inputs I would support this proposed text - but this question HAS to be part of the questions. Greg Shatan: Any other comments? Given the limited number of people participating we will have to put this on the list. Let us now talk about including the question. b. Whether to include the question Javier Rua-Jovet: If I may, I feel this question is quite clear, balanced and straightforward. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes indeed to the list Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: I have already expressed my viewpoint about this in my comment David McAuley: I do not support asking this question. Phil Corwin: Share DM's misgivings and do not really support sending it out. Greg Shatan: To PC I would note that there is a footnote. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You can count me as not in favour of sending this out. Fluffy questions get fluffy answers - in the end it gives very little results. Greg Shatan: Temperature check - support for sending the question? (2 for 5 against). Consistent with discussions on the list. Given the low numbers we should put this back on the list. David McAuley (RySG): appropriate for list, agreed Pedro sa Silva: IGF is an issue. should go to the list. Greg Shatan: will work with staff about how to poll the group on this. 4. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process Greg Shatan: KA has brought up that the questions should go to the plenary. a. Introduction to questions Greg Shatan: the SOAC questions had an introduction. I think this would be very important in our case. Any thoughts on this? some support no objections - would need a drafting team. General agreement. DM has offered to help draft. b. Review by CCWG Mathieu Weill: The precedent we have set with the SOAC sub-group should be the basis for this. As such the questions should be shared with the plenary for approval. c. How to send out Greg Shatan: ICANN community or wider? Pedro da Silva: I would support wider distribution and should not be restricted and we should use the standard ICANN public consultation. David Mcauley: Depends on expected turn around time. Greg Shatan: Not really looking at trying to use the formal ICANN Public Consultation. This is not what this is. May not be practical to send this out prior to end of year if we need Plenary approval (next meeting is Dec. 14 and the Jan 11). d. Who to send it to e. How to collect responses David McAuley (RySG): if we go free form pdf we need a word limit Greg Shatan: We have some tendencies as to a process - we will gather these and send to the list. 5. Discussion of “Influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction” document Greg Shatan: Need to regain our momentum on these documents. Mathieu Weill: The sub-groups were made for working. David McAuley: As an original sceptic of Google docs I can say that once you get in it its fine. 6. AOB Greg Shatan: any AOB (none) Action Item - Staff to recirculate Google Docs Primer link to this sub-group. Brenda Brewer: For Google Doc assistance - please see tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFJvXhFJd8[youtube.com] Mathieu Weill: Let's also acknowledge that some colleagues do not get access to Google Doc as part of their employers IT security policies Mathieu Weill: Comments via PDF and emails should be ok 7. Adjourn Greg Shatan: Adjourned. Documents Presented · Experience Questions.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/Experience%20Ques…> · Additional Question.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/Additional%20Ques…> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions_5 Dec.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63145052/InfluenceofExisti…>

2 1

Fwd: Questions for Today's Call
by Greg Shatan Dec. 5, 2016

Dec. 5, 2016

All, So you have the questions broken out separately, I've attached copies to this email. These will be put on screen in the Adobe Room. Greg

1 0

Jurisdiction mandate
by avri doria Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

Hi, Much has been said about our mandate. I went and grabbed the appropriate text from the ByLaws and the Proposal. --- /Bylaws/ 277.1.b (vi) Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability; /from Report/ Jurisdiction 26 Jurisdiction directly influences the way ICANN’s accountability processes are structured and operationalized. The fact that ICANN is incorporated under the laws of the U.S. State of California grants the corporation certain rights and implies the existence of certain accountability mechanisms. It also imposes some limits with respect to the accountability mechanisms it can adopt. 27 The topic of jurisdiction is, as a consequence, very relevant for the CCWG-Accountability. ICANN is a nonprofit public benefit corporation incorporated in California and subject to applicable California state laws, applicable U.S. federal laws and both state and federal court jurisdiction. ICANN is subject to a provision in paragraph eight(1) of the Affirmation of Commitments, signed in 2009 between ICANN and the U.S. Government. 28 ICANN’s Bylaws (Article XVIII) also state that its principal offices shall be in California. 29 The CCWG-Accountability has acknowledged that jurisdiction is a multi-layered issue and has identified the following "layers”: * Place and jurisdiction of incorporation and operations, including governance of internal affairs, tax system, human resources, etc. * Jurisdiction of places of physical presence. * Governing law for contracts with registrars and registries and the ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction about contractual relationships. * Ability to sue and be sued in a specific jurisdiction for action or inaction of staff and for redress and review of Board action or inaction, including as relates to IRP outcomes and other accountability and transparency issues, including the Affirmation of Commitments. * Relationships with the national jurisdictions for particular domestic issues (ccTLDs managers, protected names either for international institutions or country and other geographic names, national security, etc.), privacy, freedom of expression. * Meeting NTIA requirements. 30 At this point in the CCWG-Accountability’s work, the main issues that need to be investigated within Work Stream 2 relate to the influence that ICANN´s existing jurisdiction may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms. This refers primarily to the process for the settlement of disputes within ICANN, involving the choice of jurisdiction and of the applicable laws, but not necessarily the location where ICANN is incorporated: * Consideration of jurisdiction in Work Stream 2 will focus on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues and include: o Confirming and assessing the gap analysis, clarifying all concerns regarding the multi-layer jurisdiction issue. o Identifying potential alternatives and benchmarking their ability to match all CCWG-Accountability requirements using the current framework. o Consider potential Work Stream 2 recommendations based on the conclusions of this analysis. 31 A specific Subgroup of the CCWG-Accountability will be formed to undertake this work. (1) 8. ICANN affirms its commitments to: (a) maintain the capacity and ability to coordinate the Internet DNS at the overall level and to work for the maintenance of a single, interoperable Internet; (b) remain a not for profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world to meet the needs of a global community; and (c) to operate as a multi stakeholder, private sector led organization with input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act. rec 12 line 234 Addressing jurisdiction-related questions, namely: “Can ICANN’s accountability be enhanced depending on the laws applicable to its actions?” The CCWG-Accountability anticipates focusing on the question of applicable law for contracts and dispute settlements. --- Language that speaks of choice, applicable laws, and enhancement hardly seems to rest on only understanding the past, a past that was experienced when the current condition of transition had not been achieved. They also do not seem to limit our questions and discussion to the status quo. Even when speaking of 'existing jurisdiction' it speaks of effects that it "may have". Not that it has been shown to have in the past. It speaks of "clarifying all concerns" and ïdentifying alternatives". >From my re-reading, neither a narrow based questionnaire nor a narrow approach seem consistent with our mandate or the job we need to get done. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

5 4

first draft of fact solicitation questions
by Mueller, Milton L Dec. 1, 2016

Dec. 1, 2016

CW and I have agreed on the following draft: Request for stakeholder input on jurisdiction issues The Jurisdiction subgroup of the CCWG Accountability is asking for the community to provide factual input on the following questions: 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 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 or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

18 53

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 11 | 29 November
by MSSI Secretariat Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #11 – 29 November 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/vJDDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan:changes to SOIs (none). 2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions Greg Shatan: recap of objective of questions. I have reformulated based on the original draft. Farzaneh Badii: Can the rapporteur or group vet the veracity? Kavouss Arasteh: what is the form of submission? Greg Shatan: we have not decided if submissions can be anonymous. We also have not decided on the mechanics for submitted responses. Per KA we could use Effect vs Affect. David McAuley (RySG): hand down, I agree w/Greg and I personally think it is unwise to ask for replies that are second-hand Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As I said last time, some people with adverse experiences may be reluctant to share them if a certain degree of anonymity is not granted Parminder: (bad audio - unworkable). Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Indirect effects of Jurisdiction - when serving on the Board of ICANN I had to fill out a form for US tax purposes as a Vendor! this is not suitable for volunteers outside of US. Second point - Board accepted creating additional jurisdictions - I had suggested Geneva. Greg Shatan: JJS any comments on questions? Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: I'll see if I can suggest a few lines. Parminder: I will like the chairs to clarify what is their view about other question proposed by some members. We need to include things beyond experiences. Jurisdiction impacts reach people who are beyond the usual ICANN community and these views should be captured. Greg Shatan: In our previous meeting, we agreed that we needed actual experiences of being affected by jurisdiction - which resulted in the questions we received. Now do we want to turn this questionnaire to cover a wider field as some have suggested and also go beyond facts. Parminder: and we have to decide what we do Kavouss Arasteh: The two persons drafting team bluntly rejected the consideration of any questions coming outside that little group Avri Doria: Greg, there are more kinds of facts than you are recognizing. Farzaneh Badii: I think we can work with these questions. we just have to reach out to the affected community, which I have done in the past. Parminder: but we are still at the stage at deciding what we want Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg, I suggest adding something like this: "ICANN's jurisdiction also carries other effects, not directly on the performance of the DNS. 1) All forms used by ICANN, including financial and fiscal, take into account only the US situation. Thus, when ICANN reimburses travel or accommodation costs to its volunteers (such as Member of the Board, or of ALAC), the latter are defined as "vendors", which is inappropriate, considering the free work provided by them to a US corporation. 2) One of the recommendations of ICANN's "Improving Institutional Confidence" (2009) was to set up an "additional jurisdiction" (not a replacement for) the US jurisdiction of ICANN. Specifically, we suggested setting up an additional jurisdiction in Geneva, in order to facilitate ICANN's international work, e.g. in recruiting employees or signing contracts for studies, polls, etc. Pedro da Silva: These questions do not take on the suggestions by Parminder. It would be valuable to understand perceived risks and threats if they are well founded. David McAuley: Support GS in his views. Agree with Parminder that this will not make it to a wider community - regardless what we do. Let us remember our mandate and would not support asking for perceived risks - or at least if it is asked limit it to disputes. Farzaneh Badii: I have researched about the communities that are affected by ICANN jurisdiction in one way or another Kavouss. I think I quite clearly said that above. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Farzaneh: could you share any doc on your research? Jeff Neuman 2: I strongly believe that we should only be looking at impacts of ICANN's jurisdiction on the DNS and/or participation in the multistakeholder model. Other impacts seem to me to be out of scope Farzaneh Badii: Kavouss, I also think you represent the Iraninan gov at ICANN. You might want to reach out to those who might be affected by ICANN jurisdiction due to sanctions too. Kavouss Arasteh: I am a GAC representative Farzaneh Badii: yes Jorge, I will provide that for the group. either in a blogpost or in a list Kavouss Arasteh:could make question 1 more general? Verifiable is subjective. Do not agree with DM. Farzaneh Badii: yes but you are representing Iran on GAC. you might be able to see what the Iranian community is going through with regards to DNS related issues and jurisdictional issues. Parminder: i find people say affrct only on DNS industry needs to be found. am i correct? Greg Shatan: re Verifiable - direct experience could be taken at face value - however indirect references should be verified. Parminder: i disagree. Effect on everyone, all public, is included. David McAuley (RySG): As to the meaning of "verifiability" I think the responder will factor that in and so it seems a good term to me Avri Doria: please count me among those who support a broader questionnaire Parminder: even if we use the term 'dispute' - disputes can be brought under public law on public interest questions. and they are included. Avri Doria: support wider questionnaire. We could have two parts to the questionnaire. We should not be defeatist - it may be responded by more people than we think. There have been many papers published on this subject which could be relevant. Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: +1 Avri Kavouss Arasteh: Avri+1 Parminder: ican now the basis of our differences on how the questionnaire should - some people think we are looking only on the impact on the DNS industry which can be reached and speak up directly, on their own. Other people think the wider public impact is as or perhaps more important. Mary Uduma: +1 Avri Kavouss Arasteh: Parminder +1 Parminder: Such impacts are found in different ways than impact on DNS industry can be found, for which the current questionnaire may be useful - though it still is limited for even that purpose Greg Shatan: more legal questions should be submitted to lawyers for professional input. Avri Doria: its not just about legal views - we need to have a look at the broader picture - having lawyers do this work could not be a good investment. Also, we never make decisions on only one meeting usually. Kavouss Arasteh: Once again questions must be sufficiently broad Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: link to "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008, https://archive.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm Kavouss Arasteh: Could staff provide a link to that material on mailing list David McAuley (RySG): I think Avri makes a fair point about two meetings Greg Shatan: AD good points. We can continue to discuss the questionnaire. Could we consider two questionnaires which would allow us to get this fact based one out sooner? We also need a reading list? Parminder: We cannot issue multiple questionnaires. Avri Doria: the questionnaire would help build that list. we could ask people for references. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: and more specifically, see chapter 3 and its item 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 as follows: "3.5. During its consultations (not only recently but over the last two years), the PSC has received input from global stakeholders external to the United States that ICANN should also be represented in other jurisdictions. The PSC believes that that it would assist increase the credibility of ICANN’s claim to be an entity serving a global community for ICANN to have representation in other countries additional to that which it will always possess in the United States.3.6. The PSC emphasizes that an additional legal presence will strengthen ICANN's fundamental multi-stakeholder model and underline the element of public trust that is a key element of its mission. The PSC believes that such a presence is not about reducing accountability. Indeed it will provide for more acceptance and confidence in ICANN as it will have a legal personality that is additional to its US presence. (...)" Kavouss Arasteh: can we advance on questions given the time remaining. David McAuley (RySG): I think we should stick to the remit found in Annex 12 Greg Shatan: Agree with DM. Vinay Kesari: Hi Greg, all - I unfortunately have to step away a few mins early. If I could just ask everyone to also devote some thought to how we're getting this questionnaire out, who it will be sent out to, etc. (once of course the questions are settled), we could perhaps come to that separately on list or on the next call. David McAuley (RySG): I remain "con" on questions asking for answers going beyond direct experience, with respect Avri Doria: i remain pro, also with respect. Greg Shatan: temperature check - who wants to add an additional question to this (and would need to define the question). No clear result. Parminder: I am still unable to hear or understand what is the danger of that additional question Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly look at my suggestion to amend Q1 and Q 2 Jeff Neuman 2: I like impact on the DNS and/or their participation in the ICANN multistakeholder community Parminder: yes, id work with avri and others who supported Parminder: you want it done now? Avri Doria: you confused it. Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff , I tend to agree with you , to some extent Avri Doria: check for narrow, cross for borader. Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: like Avri, I favour a wider or additional question. Kavouss Arasteh: Jean- Jaques+1 Parminder: lets do it in the next two days and close it on the elist Avri Doria: cross is red, check is green Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): broader Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I have very bad connection, but please note my support for Avri's points Kavouss Arasteh: Made some progress - we have to develop the questions more. Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): +1 Avri Parminder: we cannot issue two questionnaires in quick succession ... that is even logistically not wise, apart from logically not ok David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Parminder - two questionnaires is not good Greg Shatan: Let us work on the list on defining that additional question Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: There is significant support for an additional question. Let's please have a small group elaborate this additional question in the next 1-2 days. Parminder: i can cut paste from the list -- but it will be impossible to close it Parminder: there have been suggestions on an proposed text, we should go by that, without an entirely fresh text Kavouss Arasteh: Pedro, in principle, I agree to either broader the existing questions or draft additional questions$ Parminder: I mean additional question of course Avri Doria: ok Greg Shatan: (lost connexion) Bernard Turcotte: We are at the top of the hour - as proposed by GS we will pursue the questionnaire discussion on list. Meeting Adjourned. Documents Presented · Experience Questions.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/Experience%20Ques…> · InfluenceofExistingJurisdictions (1).pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/InfluenceofExisti…> · MultipleLayersofJurisdiction.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63148220/MultipleLayersofJ…>

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup: Agenda for Meeting #11 at 13:00 UTC today
by Vinay Kesari Nov. 29, 2016

Nov. 29, 2016

Dear all, Please find attached the agenda for today's subgroup meeting at 13:00 UTC. Below are links to the two documents we have been working on, for ease of reference. 1. "What is the influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction(s) relating to resolution of disputes (i.e., choice of law and venue) on the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?" - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_ DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing 2. "Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction" document: https://docs.google.com/ document/d/1oE9xDIAJhr4Nx7vNO_mWotSXuUtTgJMRs6U92yTgOH4/edit?usp=sharing I'm also taking the liberty of pasting below the reformulated “experience” questions referenced in the agenda, which Greg had sent via email about 8 hours ago. Regards, Vinay & Greg ---------------- *1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way?* *If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “effects” may be positive or negative.* *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 “effects” may be positive or negative.* *3. Do you have copies of and/or links to any 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.* *_____________________________* ** 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 or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. *

2 1

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions
by Perez Galindo, Rafael Nov. 28, 2016

Nov. 28, 2016

+1 To Mike Rodenbaugh If we really want to gather all relevant information and have the broadest possible input to maximize the quality of our discussions and of course of our output, we should not constraint our sources of possible knowledge. My point is that to run the risk of having too much information is always preferable to the risk of having too little and miss out on important issues and experiences that could very well feed our discussions. That is why we should broaden the request, even if we have to separate the questions or organize it in a way that satisfies concerns expressed by some. Rafael ________________________________ De: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> Fecha: 23. November 2016 um 20:31:08 MEZ De: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions I think we want the broadest range of experiences, but of course would not consider hearsay. If anyone can point us to documents about anyone else's experiences, then what is the harm in considering those documents? To me, the worse risk is that we don't hear about them at all because the person who had the experience does not see our survey. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: +1 Everyone has opinions and second hand information. We want primary sources on t his ... P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:06 PM To: CW Mail <mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions I agree with CW on this one -- we are looking for first person facts, experiences and "anecdotal evidence." The facts are best known by the participants, and third parties (viewing events from the outside) often make assumptions about what happened or otherwise get things wrong. Greg On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, CW Mail <mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Mike: I might see the point of broadening, if possible, the scope and catchment of the questions, but perhaps not in that way. We should be dealing with Principals (in the sense of directly with those responsible for the entities concerned). Not their surrogates or other third parties. Otherwise we risk receiving second hand information with which the Principals may not agree, and inviting 'bulk' replies from interested organisations. We should also be cautious about receiving anonymous hearsay. Just a thought CW On 23 Nov 2016, at 17:20, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: These seem well-stated, except perhaps they should not be looking only for personal experience, but broaden the request to seek any experience the responder is aware of? So I suggest something like: 1. Are you aware of any instance in which anyone's business, privacy, or ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, has been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 2. Are you aware of any instance in which ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: CW and I have agreed on the following draft: Request for stakeholder input on jurisdiction issues The Jurisdiction subgroup of the CCWG Accountability is asking for the community to provide factual input on the following questions: 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 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 or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@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

2 1

Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document
by Greg Shatan Nov. 23, 2016

Nov. 23, 2016

Here is the current state of this document.

6 5