Proposed Additional Question
All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: *Fourth proposed formulation* What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg *Original proposed formulation*: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. *Comment:* *It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.* *Comment:* *If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."* *Second proposed formulation*: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. *Comment:* *An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.* *Comment:* *I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.* Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. *... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state *I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. *Comment:* *If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
Greg, Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer. Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“ Best, Erich ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
I'm slightly puzzled about this. Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr). My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation. In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder. And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding. Please expand on your thinking! On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Nigel, Thank you for the comments, Pls kindly point out, where you found reference to " International Law " ? I do not see any direct reference to that Law However, if there is such reference which could the impression that attempt is being made to depart from Multistakeholder Approach to Multilateral Approach, then one should recall that ,the existing arrangements concluded under transition plan was based on Multistakeholder. Any attempt to deviate / depart from that could contradict one of the conditions of transition. While ,in principle, I support the third question draft, we need to make sure that we maintain all conditions of transition. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-04 11:04 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Erich, Nigel and all, "International law" gets us into a bit of a morass. First, we need to define what is meant by "international law." "International law" is often used to mean the laws that governs relations between states; this is sometimes called "public international law." Public international law (or international public law) concerns the treaty relationships between the nations and persons which are considered the subjects of international law. Norms of international law have their source in either: custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law. Public international law issues can include the law of treaties, international responsibility, State succession, State and diplomatic immunities, the law of international organizations, international investment law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and international trade law. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/practice-landing/public-international-law "Private international law," by contrast typically refers to relations between private entities. One definition is: Private International Law is the legal framework composed of conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments, which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context. http://www.oas.org/dil/private_international_law.htm On the other hand "private international law" is sometimes defined as being the same as "conflict of laws" -- dealing with situations about which law applies to disputes between private parties of different nations and/or where there are contacts with other nations and/or courts. The relationship between international law and the tasks of this subgroup is not entirely clear, at least not to me, and I tend to think a reference to international law would further muddle this question. But we should be open to some further discussion on the matter. Greg On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Taking into account the comments so far, here's a second version of the fourth (current) formulation: *Fourth Formulation -- Second Draft* What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. In terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or may be used to safeguard or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any disadvantage identified, please identify alternatives (including other jurisdictions), if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction or other alternative, please specify whether and how it would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the risks of those jurisdictions or other alternatives, and discuss the risks associated with changing from the current situation. _________________ * 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. On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Erich, Nigel and all,
"International law" gets us into a bit of a morass. First, we need to define what is meant by "international law." "International law" is often used to mean the laws that governs relations between states; this is sometimes called "public international law." Public international law (or international public law) concerns the treaty relationships between the nations and persons which are considered the subjects of international law. Norms of international law have their source in either: custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law. Public international law issues can include the law of treaties, international responsibility, State succession, State and diplomatic immunities, the law of international organizations, international investment law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and international trade law. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/practice- landing/public-international-law
"Private international law," by contrast typically refers to relations between private entities. One definition is: Private International Law is the legal framework composed of conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments, which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context. http://www.oas.org/dil/ private_international_law.htm On the other hand "private international law" is sometimes defined as being the same as "conflict of laws" -- dealing with situations about which law applies to disputes between private parties of different nations and/or where there are contacts with other nations and/or courts.
The relationship between international law and the tasks of this subgroup is not entirely clear, at least not to me, and I tend to think a reference to international law would further muddle this question. But we should be open to some further discussion on the matter.
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I'm very much ad idem with Greg on this, who has set this out in much more detail. Kavouss asked what I was responding to. It was this
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
My reservation is simply that I am not grasping how a possible future ICANN could be in under an international law jurisdiction without an intergovernmental agreement of some sort (let's call it a Treaty) and an agreement between ICANN and the country where it has its seat (let's call that a host country agreement). And, as I know this is the very scenario ICANN was set up in the form of a private law, non-profit organisation to avoid, I can't yet see how spending time and money on that concept advances matters much. I must be missing something. Is there another form of 'being under the jurisdiction under international law' that ICANN could choose? On 05/12/16 02:13, Greg Shatan wrote:
Erich, Nigel and all,
"International law" gets us into a bit of a morass. First, we need to define what is meant by "international law." "International law" is often used to mean the laws that governs relations between states; this is sometimes called "public international law." Public international law (or international public law) concerns the treaty relationships between the nations and persons which are considered the subjects of international law. Norms of international law have their source in either: custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law. Public international law issues can include the law of treaties, international responsibility, State succession, State and diplomatic immunities, the law of international organizations, international investment law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and international trade law. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/practice-landing/public-international-law
"Private international law," by contrast typically refers to relations between private entities. One definition is: Private International Law is the legal framework composed of conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments, which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context. http://www.oas.org/dil/private_international_law.htm On the other hand "private international law" is sometimes defined as being the same as "conflict of laws" -- dealing with situations about which law applies to disputes between private parties of different nations and/or where there are contacts with other nations and/or courts.
The relationship between international law and the tasks of this subgroup is not entirely clear, at least not to me, and I tend to think a reference to international law would further muddle this question. But we should be open to some further discussion on the matter.
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%2035305>, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%209353> Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at> http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at <http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at>
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Here's a slight change to the footnote, for accuracy and grammar's sake. The formulation is otherwise unchanged. This change will also be made in the footnote to the "experience solicitation" questions. Greg *Fourth Formulation -- Second Draft* What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. In terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or may be used to safeguard or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any disadvantage identified, please identify alternatives (including other jurisdictions), if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction or other alternative, please specify whether and how it would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the risks of those jurisdictions or other alternatives, and discuss the risks associated with changing from the current situation. _________________ * For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location *within *or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm very much ad idem with Greg on this, who has set this out in much more detail.
Kavouss asked what I was responding to. It was this
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
My reservation is simply that I am not grasping how a possible future ICANN could be in under an international law jurisdiction without an intergovernmental agreement of some sort (let's call it a Treaty) and an agreement between ICANN and the country where it has its seat (let's call that a host country agreement).
And, as I know this is the very scenario ICANN was set up in the form of a private law, non-profit organisation to avoid, I can't yet see how spending time and money on that concept advances matters much.
I must be missing something.
Is there another form of 'being under the jurisdiction under international law' that ICANN could choose?
On 05/12/16 02:13, Greg Shatan wrote:
Erich, Nigel and all,
"International law" gets us into a bit of a morass. First, we need to define what is meant by "international law." "International law" is often used to mean the laws that governs relations between states; this is sometimes called "public international law." Public international law (or international public law) concerns the treaty relationships between the nations and persons which are considered the subjects of international law. Norms of international law have their source in either: custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law . Public international law issues can include the law of treaties, international responsibility, State succession, State and diplomatic immunities, the law of international organizations, international investment law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and international trade law. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/practice-landing/public-inter national-law
"Private international law," by contrast typically refers to relations between private entities. One definition is: Private International Law is the legal framework composed of conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments, which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context. http://www.oas.org/dil/private_international_law.htm On the other hand "private international law" is sometimes defined as being the same as "conflict of laws" -- dealing with situations about which law applies to disputes between private parties of different nations and/or where there are contacts with other nations and/or courts.
The relationship between international law and the tasks of this subgroup is not entirely clear, at least not to me, and I tend to think a reference to international law would further muddle this question. But we should be open to some further discussion on the matter.
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%2035305>, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%209353> Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at> http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at <http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at>
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@ icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Good morning - I'm very much in line with Greg's approach. Following the debate now passively for a while, I wonder if it wouldn't help those that want to see more done in this area, if we wouldn't get a simple map that would explain the current legal situation. I think part of the intellectual challenge we are facing is that some are looking at (real or perceived) potential legal challenges from a political perspective, while others are looking at it from a business and/or legal perspective. An overview might help those that look at it from a political perspective. What do I mean? If we look at ICANN related 'international law' legal challenges, they might group around the following topics: 1) privacy (US privacy laws - EU privacy laws - other dominant national laws - international agreements that impact ICANN - relevant court cases - etc.) (identity real or potential problems, for example: A) international implications of national laws, extra-territorial effects. B) new Privacy Shield agreement between EU & US, how is it impacting our environment and is there something ICANN can and must do to help registrars/registries. C) new WHOIS. D) other challenges) 2) security 3) IPR 4) content liabilities 5) others My sense is that instead of continuing a largely intellectual debate, such a mapping exercise would help all players. This is a typical work a law firm can do that is familiar with our environment. And since they've done this many times for clients with similar backgrounds (Internet related firms/headquartered in the US but with exposure to other national legal norms), they will 'only' have to add ICANN specifications. Happy to help! Erika Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 4, 2016, at 8:06 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I'm very much ad idem with Greg on this, who has set this out in much more detail.
Kavouss asked what I was responding to. It was this
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
My reservation is simply that I am not grasping how a possible future ICANN could be in under an international law jurisdiction without an intergovernmental agreement of some sort (let's call it a Treaty) and an agreement between ICANN and the country where it has its seat (let's call that a host country agreement).
And, as I know this is the very scenario ICANN was set up in the form of a private law, non-profit organisation to avoid, I can't yet see how spending time and money on that concept advances matters much.
I must be missing something.
Is there another form of 'being under the jurisdiction under international law' that ICANN could choose?
On 05/12/16 02:13, Greg Shatan wrote: Erich, Nigel and all,
"International law" gets us into a bit of a morass. First, we need to define what is meant by "international law." "International law" is often used to mean the laws that governs relations between states; this is sometimes called "public international law." Public international law (or international public law) concerns the treaty relationships between the nations and persons which are considered the subjects of international law. Norms of international law have their source in either: custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law. Public international law issues can include the law of treaties, international responsibility, State succession, State and diplomatic immunities, the law of international organizations, international investment law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and international trade law. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/practice-landing/public-international-law
"Private international law," by contrast typically refers to relations between private entities. One definition is: Private International Law is the legal framework composed of conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments, which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context. http://www.oas.org/dil/private_international_law.htm On the other hand "private international law" is sometimes defined as being the same as "conflict of laws" -- dealing with situations about which law applies to disputes between private parties of different nations and/or where there are contacts with other nations and/or courts.
The relationship between international law and the tasks of this subgroup is not entirely clear, at least not to me, and I tend to think a reference to international law would further muddle this question. But we should be open to some further discussion on the matter.
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%2035305>, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%209353> Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at> http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at <http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at>
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Monday 05 December 2016 08:36 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I'm very much ad idem with Greg on this, who has set this out in much more detail.
Kavouss asked what I was responding to. It was this
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
My reservation is simply that I am not grasping how a possible future ICANN could be in under an international law jurisdiction without an intergovernmental agreement of some sort (let's call it a Treaty) and an agreement between ICANN and the country where it has its seat (let's call that a host country agreement).
And, as I know this is the very scenario ICANN was set up in the form of a private law, non-profit organisation to avoid, I can't yet see how spending time and money on that concept advances matters much.
A non profit is also under some law, public law, which in case of ICANN is US law/ jurisdiction... So, whether you want it or not, a government is fully and solidly in picture. We just seem to have developed some kind of a habit of seeing US gov as some kind of not-gov (whatever it means) and all other govs, or a constellation of them, as demoniacally gov in some way, something to be avoided like plague. This logic does not cut ice with any democratically minded non USian (i would say even democratically minded USians)....
I must be missing something.
Is there another form of 'being under the jurisdiction under international law' that ICANN could choose?
All law is made by govs - -that is definitional. You cannot get around that. And rule of law is a good thing, not a bad thing. US law, under which ICANN currently exists and works, and submits to, is made by the US gov, and international law by all govs together. The choice at this level is not between some private, non profit thing and international law but between US law and international law, where it is difficult to say which one is more governmental between the two... parminder
On 05/12/16 02:13, Greg Shatan wrote:
Erich, Nigel and all,
"International law" gets us into a bit of a morass. First, we need to define what is meant by "international law." "International law" is often used to mean the laws that governs relations between states; this is sometimes called "public international law." Public international law (or international public law) concerns the treaty relationships between the nations and persons which are considered the subjects of international law. Norms of international law have their source in either: custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law#Public_international_law.
Public international law issues can include the law of treaties, international responsibility, State succession, State and diplomatic immunities, the law of international organizations, international investment law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and international trade law. https://www.clearygottlieb.com/practice-landing/public-international-law
"Private international law," by contrast typically refers to relations between private entities. One definition is: Private International Law is the legal framework composed of conventions, protocols, model laws, legal guides, uniform documents, case law, practice and custom, as well as other documents and instruments, which regulate relationships between individuals in an international context. http://www.oas.org/dil/private_international_law.htm On the other hand "private international law" is sometimes defined as being the same as "conflict of laws" -- dealing with situations about which law applies to disputes between private parties of different nations and/or where there are contacts with other nations and/or courts.
The relationship between international law and the tasks of this subgroup is not entirely clear, at least not to me, and I tend to think a reference to international law would further muddle this question. But we should be open to some further discussion on the matter.
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
I'm slightly puzzled about this.
Under what circumstances could ICANN's jurisdiction be (a) under 'international law' and (b) not under the law of a particular state (for these purposes it doesn't matter if that state is the USA 0 as currently -, Switzerland, or Transdniestr).
My understanding is that international law only applies between states (this comes from my originating in a dualist state), and therefore for ICANN to be under 'international law', there would need to be a founding Treaty, subscribed to by Member States, and a Host Country Agreement specifying the privileges and immunities of the organisation.
In otherwords, ICANN would become multilateral, instead of multistakeholder.
And I thought that's what we'd just spent 20 years avoiding.
Please expand on your thinking!
On 04/12/16 09:48, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
Greg,
Nice work. I support this additional question, but would not exclude international law as such. There is some preliminary research work showing the challenges and encouraging the status quo. The argumentation line would be clearer.
Drafting proposal 3rd Paragraph, 2nd line: „ … specify whether those jurisdictions (incl. international law) would support …“
Best, Erich
ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. DDr. Erich Schweighofer Arbeitsgruppe Rechtsinformatik Institut für Europarecht, Internationales Recht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universität Wien Schottenbastei 10-16/2/5, 1010 Wien, AT Tel. +43 1 4277 35305 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%2035305>, Fax +43 1 4277 9353 <tel:%2B43%201%204277%209353> Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:Erich.Schweighofer@univie.ac.at> http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at <http://rechtsinformatik.univie.ac.at>
Von: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 4. Dezember 2016 05:47 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Greg And everyone – as I’ve said before, I think this question is speculative and not necessary at all. I would therefore continue to oppose adding it for the good and sufficient reason that moving ICANN’s corporate headquarters has, repeatedly, been deemed beyond the limited scope of this WG and for the equally good reason that only a small, vocal minority support further consideration of this question. If, however, we are going to go forward with this question over my objection, I would respectfully suggest some drafting issues. In particular, unlike your earlier draft questions (whose specificity I liked), this question is indefinite as to the meaning of jurisdiction being used in the phrase “under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law.” Most notably, as we have discussed, jurisdiction can mean venue, choice of law, or law of corporate organization. It can also mean subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. Given that ICANN will continue to have activities occurring in the US even if it were to move to Transdniester (thanks for that one Nigel) it will always be subject to US and California law … just as it will always be subject to EU law, UK law, and Indian law. I would at least recommend clarifying which of these meanings you intend. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> &search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2016 11:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
Hi, I support the question, with the change of s/What do you think are the advantages or problems/What are the advantages or disadvantages/ I think it is a necessary question. It is not about moving jurisdiction for that would be presupposing both a problem and a solution. Something we were told not do do, neither in the positive nor in the negative. This is a solicitation for information that covers an area there is a lot of speculation, both positive and negative about. I think that if it is invalid to include question that elicits solution like immunity, it is also wrong to prohibit questions for fear that they will be used for some solution one does not like like; the impossible change in jurisdiction. avri On 04-Dec-16 11:35, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
*_Fourth proposed formulation_*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> [2016-12-04 12:35:55 -0500]:
And everyone – as I’ve said before, I think this question is speculative and not necessary at all. I would therefore continue to oppose adding it for the good and sufficient reason that moving ICANN’s corporate headquarters has, repeatedly, been deemed beyond the limited scope of this WG and for the equally good reason that only a small, vocal minority support further consideration of this question.
I do not understand this objection. When was a vote taken on this? Each time I brought up the issue of ICANN's corporate headquarters during WS1, I was told that the appropriate time for that was during WS2. Now that possibility is being close too, just as I had predicted here: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-a... I add my voice to that of the "small, vocal minority". -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
Hi Greg, Thank you for your efforts to move this along. I oppose the question. In my personal opinion this is beyond what our WS2 should be looking at (for reasons I have previously stated) and has the potential for a major distraction for us. If the group decides to send such a question forward, I tend to agree with Paul about specificity, and would change part of the last sentence of the question from “…identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, …” to “…identify the risks of those jurisdictions, …”. Best regards, David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.
Thank you all for your comments so far. To be clear, the discussion on what the question should be is not an indicator of a decision (or even a tendency) to send out the question. The idea is to separate the issue of "what is the question" from "should we send out the question," then to develop the question. Once the question is relatively "stable," then we can make the most informed decision about whether to send the question out. Deciding whether to send the question out before deciding what the question is could be seen as putting the cart before the horse. In any event, developing the question gives us the best opportunity to see whether or not there is a question of this type that would get broad support as a question to be sent out. Greg On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 2:01 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your efforts to move this along.
I oppose the question. In my personal opinion this is beyond what our WS2 should be looking at (for reasons I have previously stated) and has the potential for a major distraction for us.
If the group decides to send such a question forward, I tend to agree with Paul about specificity, and would change part of the last sentence of the question from “…identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, …” to “…identify the risks of those jurisdictions, …”.
Best regards,
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Greg I tend to agree with Paul and David. If there is WG agreement that this is a useful question I would ask that we also consider the following small edit: Remove "What do you think" in the first line - replace with "What are" - I am not a fan of speculation on matters such as this. Matthew On 04/12/2016 19:01, McAuley, David wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your efforts to move this along.
I oppose the question. In my personal opinion this is beyond what our WS2 should be looking at (for reasons I have previously stated) and has the potential for a major distraction for us.
If the group decides to send such a question forward, I tend to agree with Paul about specificity, and would change part of the last sentence of the question from “…identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, …” to “…identify the risks of those jurisdictions, …”.
Best regards,
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*_Fourth proposed formulation_*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
_Original proposed formulation_:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
/Comment:/
/It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries./
/Comment:/
/If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."/
_Second proposed formulation_:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
/Comment:/
/An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion./
/Comment:/
/I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer./
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. /... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... / Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state /I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... /that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
/Comment:/
/If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving./
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
Dear All, First of all, I agree with Grec that we are still working on the text of the third question and yet to decide what /how many questions will be sent out once APPROVED by CCWG Plenary. Secondly, I agree with Paul and David ,to some extent that ,we need to soften the language and not directly criticise the current jurisdiction rather to seek for additional/ complementary or optional jurisdiction. However, it is too early that people pronounce strong opposition or strong support as we need to fine tine the text. Finally , at the level of CCWG only the opposition of the CCWG Members are to be taken into account We therefore need to continue to work together. I fully d understand the oppositions taken by our US colleagues that perhaps have not considered seriously the problem of non US people Regards Kavouss 2016-12-04 21:54 GMT+01:00 matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>:
Greg
I tend to agree with Paul and David.
If there is WG agreement that this is a useful question I would ask that we also consider the following small edit: Remove "What do you think" in the first line - replace with "What are" - I am not a fan of speculation on matters such as this.
Matthew
On 04/12/2016 19:01, McAuley, David wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your efforts to move this along.
I oppose the question. In my personal opinion this is beyond what our WS2 should be looking at (for reasons I have previously stated) and has the potential for a major distraction for us.
If the group decides to send such a question forward, I tend to agree with Paul about specificity, and would change part of the last sentence of the question from “…identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, …” to “…identify the risks of those jurisdictions, …”.
Best regards,
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
+1 While I appreciate Greg's efforts to refine the question, I see no clear reason to open a jurisdictional Pandora's Box that is almost sure to generate a substantial workload to little practical end. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of matthew shears Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2016 3:55 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question Greg I tend to agree with Paul and David. If there is WG agreement that this is a useful question I would ask that we also consider the following small edit: Remove "What do you think" in the first line - replace with "What are" - I am not a fan of speculation on matters such as this. Matthew On 04/12/2016 19:01, McAuley, David wrote: Hi Greg, Thank you for your efforts to move this along. I oppose the question. In my personal opinion this is beyond what our WS2 should be looking at (for reasons I have previously stated) and has the potential for a major distraction for us. If the group decides to send such a question forward, I tend to agree with Paul about specificity, and would change part of the last sentence of the question from "...identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, ..." to "...identify the risks of those jurisdictions, ...". Best regards, David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: Fourth proposed formulation What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN's policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg Original proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. Comment: It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries. Comment: If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..." Second proposed formulation: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion. Comment: I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer. Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. ... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. Comment: If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13516 - Release Date: 12/01/16
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue. I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM). Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another. I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done. Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential. I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph. Regards, Pranesh Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>:
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any,
where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue.
I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done.
Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential.
I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
Regards, Pranesh
Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
What is you basis for that Kavouss? -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com :
Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss
2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash < pranesh@cis-india.org > :
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue.
I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done.
Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential.
I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
Regards, Pranesh
Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel: +91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, No reason to be sorry. I will check with our Co-Chairs regarding the appropriate procedures. I do note that the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup sent out a questionnaire to SO/ACs on November 7. Prior to that, their draft questionnaire had a first and second reading at two CCWG plenary sessions (the second reading was at the F2F in Hyderabad). Greg On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
What is you basis for that Kavouss?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com:
Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss
2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apranesh@cis%2dindia.org>>:
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue.
I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done.
Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential.
I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
Regards, Pranesh
Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asip%253Apranesh@ostel.co> | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3axmpp%253Apranesh@cis%2dindia.or...> https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Phil and Matthew, Just to clarify, there is no WG agreement that this would be a useful question to send out, nor should one be inferred from the effort to refine the question. It's entirely possible that once we reach a stable draft of the question, there won't be agreement to move further with the question (and it's also entirely possible that there will be agreement to move forward with this question). In any case, your views (and those of David and Paul R.) are noted. Greg On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
No reason to be sorry. I will check with our Co-Chairs regarding the appropriate procedures.
I do note that the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup sent out a questionnaire to SO/ACs on November 7. Prior to that, their draft questionnaire had a first and second reading at two CCWG plenary sessions (the second reading was at the F2F in Hyderabad).
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
What is you basis for that Kavouss?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com:
Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss
2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apranesh@cis%2dindia.org>>:
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue.
I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done.
Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential.
I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
Regards, Pranesh
Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asip%253Apranesh@ostel.co> | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3axmpp%253Apranesh@cis%2dindia.or...> https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Grec, The questions sent by SO/AC Accountability WERE 1, Approved by CCWG in Hyderabad 2. It was sent after that to SO/AC which are internal constituencies of ICANN and not public as such Regards Kavouss 2016-12-05 0:43 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
No reason to be sorry. I will check with our Co-Chairs regarding the appropriate procedures.
I do note that the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup sent out a questionnaire to SO/ACs on November 7. Prior to that, their draft questionnaire had a first and second reading at two CCWG plenary sessions (the second reading was at the F2F in Hyderabad).
Greg
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
What is you basis for that Kavouss?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com:
Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss
2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apranesh@cis%2dindia.org>>:
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue.
I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done.
Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential.
I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
Regards, Pranesh
Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asip%253Apranesh@ostel.co> | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3axmpp%253Apranesh@cis%2dindia.or...> https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Paul, The basis is the hierarchy principle . We are sub group of CCWG and any question going outside MUST be validated and approved by CCWG . Moreover, we need to act in accordance to our charter that provide any question to outside MUST be approuved by the entire CCWG and not by a small group which have at the maximum 20 participants. If the co-chairs decide differently ,then there would be serious disagreement from MEMBERS of CCWG. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-04 23:39 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
What is you basis for that Kavouss?
-- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com:
Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss
2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apranesh@cis%2dindia.org>>:
Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue.
I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done.
Also, I for this:
or are likely to be used or interfere with
I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential.
I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
Regards, Pranesh
Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
All,
On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
2. The drafting of the question.
On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering.
I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment:
*Fourth proposed formulation*
What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?
Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world.
For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions.
PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.
Greg
*Original proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
*Comment:*
*It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.*
*Comment:*
*If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."*
*Second proposed formulation*:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
*Comment:*
*I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.*
Third proposed formulation/comment:
What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
*... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state
*I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries.
*Comment:*
*If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asip%253Apranesh@ostel.co> | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3axmpp%253Apranesh@cis%2dindia.or...> https://twitter.com/pranesh
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I love the idea of hierarchical control in a bottom-up organization. So … basically, what you are saying is that there are absolutely no rules on this and you are just trying to impose your view. I don’t really have a dog in this fight and am happy for Greg to do whatever he thinks best – but I decline to accept ex cathedra statements from a single member as canonical. P Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 2:44 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question Paul, The basis is the hierarchy principle . We are sub group of CCWG and any question going outside MUST be validated and approved by CCWG . Moreover, we need to act in accordance to our charter that provide any question to outside MUST be approuved by the entire CCWG and not by a small group which have at the maximum 20 participants. If the co-chairs decide differently ,then there would be serious disagreement from MEMBERS of CCWG. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-04 23:39 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >: What is you basis for that Kavouss? -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> : Dear Grec, I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apranesh@cis%2dindia.org> >: Dear Greg, I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far, however, there is one part that I see as being problematic: For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is pre-judging the issue. I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM). Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another. I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have done. Also, I for this: or are likely to be used or interfere with I would instead suggest: "or may potentially be used or interfere with" since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace it with a risk potential. I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph. Regards, Pranesh Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com> > [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]: All, On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing 1. Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and 2. The drafting of the question. On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who responded) on the call. On the list, there were about twice as many responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted. Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're considering. I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've pulled out the various formulations of the question. I've also pulled out the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the question. These appear directly below. That way, we can all see how the discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12, I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and comment: *Fourth proposed formulation* What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. Also, in terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction, please specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing jurisdictions. PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you. Greg *Original proposed formulation*: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them. *Comment:* *It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to customers in other countries.* *Comment:* *If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing jurisdiction..."* *Second proposed formulation*: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. *Comment:* *An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's ability to carry out its mission. I also find the focus on the concept of the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling. The primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law" (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a contractual provision, etc.) and not on some idea that the US Government is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.* *Comment:* *I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential jurisdictions of transfer.* Third proposed formulation/comment: What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. *... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US state *I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis. Risk is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in non US countries. *Comment:* *If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different, speculative harms. If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.* _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asip%253Apranesh@ostel.co> | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3axmpp%253Apranesh@cis%2dindia.or...> https://twitter.com/pranesh _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (12)
-
avri doria -
Erika Mann -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
matthew shears -
McAuley, David -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Pranesh Prakash -
Schweighofer Erich