Dear David, Dear Mathieu, Yes, while I appreciate initial work done by David, I also agree with Mathieu to provide the reasons to raise questions. We have all elements in the previous docs. provided by Grec, in justifying the questions to be raised. Pls kindly consult those material in order to expand the preamble Regards Kavouss 2016-12-07 11:22 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Dear David, All,

Thank you for this draft, I think it is an excellent basis. My only suggestion would be to expand a little bit more on the reason why the group is looking for input, and the kind of input. This will obviously resonate with the questions themselves, but stressing the fact that the group is looking for facts and concrete issues to ensure that its deliberations are fact-based and address real issues might be helpful to avoid any misinterpretation.

Best

Mathieu

*De :* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* McAuley, David *Envoyé :* mardi 6 décembre 2016 16:12 *À :* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Objet :* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues,

I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions we may send out for comment.

With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our consideration.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

Dear David, Thank you again. Yes some enhancement was done in the preamble. However, it is not clear why CCWG asking these questions at this stage. We need to extract passage from one of earlier doc. produced by Grec indicating why we postpone treating some issues and just concentrate on these questions. Absence of that explanation could result further debate at CCWG that we may not need to send these questions to outside as it would indicate our inability to do something inside the SO/AC. We need this supporting material to justify why and how we taking this approach Regards Kavouss 2016-12-07 18:15 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:

Thank you Mathieu and Kavouss,

I was a bit hesitant to do that given my un-involvement in seeking these questions and my tepid support of the questionnaire – a concern that I would not adequately capture this effort if I went beyond what was first sent.

Nonetheless I have taken a stab at a little further explanation to the recipients and attach a revised suggestion where the new language is marked in track-changes.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 7:42 AM *To:* Mathieu Weill *Cc:* McAuley, David; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

Dear David,

Dear Mathieu,

Yes, while I appreciate initial work done by David, I also agree with Mathieu to provide the reasons to raise questions.

We have all elements in the previous docs. provided by Grec, in justifying the questions to be raised.

Pls kindly consult those material in order to expand the preamble

Regards

Kavouss

2016-12-07 11:22 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:

Dear David, All,

Thank you for this draft, I think it is an excellent basis. My only suggestion would be to expand a little bit more on the reason why the group is looking for input, and the kind of input. This will obviously resonate with the questions themselves, but stressing the fact that the group is looking for facts and concrete issues to ensure that its deliberations are fact-based and address real issues might be helpful to avoid any misinterpretation.

Best

Mathieu

*De :* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* McAuley, David *Envoyé :* mardi 6 décembre 2016 16:12 *À :* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Objet :* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues,

I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions we may send out for comment.

With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our consideration.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

_______________________________________________ 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 tried not to nudge respondents one way or the other but did want to create a very general introduction to the questions not unlike that the SO/AC Accountability group did in their similar questionnaire to SOs/ACs. As many in this group may realize from my periodic interventions on list or on phone, I do want to stay within remit which I view more narrowly than some others. Nonetheless, I had hoped to be neutral in creating this preamble and not reflect a particular view. Given the views expressed so far I suggest that some alternative paragraphs be floated by those wishing a change and that way we can try to sort this so that we need not spend a great deal of time on it on the next call. I say that, however, subject to the wishes of Greg and/or Vinay as to how to proceed on this preamble. 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 parminder Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 6:16 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language. Hi All I do not agree to a partial quoting of the sub group's mandate in the preamble - -which appears to make it look like we are only concerned with where choice of law is available (private law) and not where it is not available (public laws). Such approaches become kind of 'creeping acquisition' whereby the mandate keeps shifting towards one side, away from the other. Second, I will like to know the status of the consideration of that other question which was proposed about how existing legal/institutional frameworks impacted ICANN's policy and operational work. Can the co-chairs clarify please? As argued often before, I do not agree to these 3 questions going out and not that other one. It should be one exercise, all of them together, or none of them. As they say 'in politics what we dont do is a important s what we do'. There has been a lot of support for this other, 4th , question, and I think that support must also count for not sending just 3 questions out in absence of enough agreement about the 4th question. That at least is my position. thanks, parminder On Tuesday 06 December 2016 08:41 PM, McAuley, David wrote: Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues, I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions we may send out for comment. With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our consideration. Best regards, David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

We worked on a scope document, but we were not able to resolve all aspects of the document, for reasons similar to the more recent discussion. At that point, we decided to work on identifying and responding to an issue that we could agree was within scope, which became the document "What is the influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction(s) relating to resolution of disputes (i.e., choice of law and venue) on the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms?" that we have been working on. Greg On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:53 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Dear all

Didn’t we agree already on a document where we restated the scope of our work? I’m not sure whether memory fails me here…

Regards

Jorge

*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *McAuley, David *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 07:32 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

I tried not to nudge respondents one way or the other but did want to create a very general introduction to the questions not unlike that the SO/AC Accountability group did in their similar questionnaire to SOs/ACs.

As many in this group may realize from my periodic interventions on list or on phone, I do want to stay within remit which I view more narrowly than some others. Nonetheless, I had hoped to be neutral in creating this preamble and not reflect a particular view.

Given the views expressed so far I suggest that some alternative paragraphs be floated by those wishing a change and that way we can try to sort this so that we need not spend a great deal of time on it on the next call. I say that, however, subject to the wishes of Greg and/or Vinay as to how to proceed on this preamble.

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 * parminder *Sent:* Thursday, December 08, 2016 6:16 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

Hi All

I do not agree to a partial quoting of the sub group's mandate in the preamble - -which appears to make it look like we are only concerned with where choice of law is available (private law) and not where it is not available (public laws). Such approaches become kind of 'creeping acquisition' whereby the mandate keeps shifting towards one side, away from the other.

Second, I will like to know the status of the consideration of that other question which was proposed about how existing legal/institutional frameworks impacted ICANN's policy and operational work. *Can the co-chairs clarify please? *

As argued often before, I do not agree to these 3 questions going out and not that other one. It should be one exercise, all of them together, or none of them. As they say 'in politics what we dont do is a important s what we do'. There has been a lot of support for this other, 4th , question, and I think that support must also count for not sending just 3 questions out in absence of enough agreement about the 4th question. That at least is my position.

thanks, parminder

On Tuesday 06 December 2016 08:41 PM, McAuley, David wrote:

Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues,

I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions we may send out for comment.

With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our consideration.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>

_______________________________________________

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