Thanks Greg, kindly find inline Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 9 Jan 2017 06:46, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Seun, The goal of Question 4 was not merely to identify problems. This may have been the goal of those who originally proposed it, but that goal became broader in the discussions that followed, so that the goal was to get inputs from the community on both problems and positive features of ICANN's current jurisdiction in all meanings of that term. Advantages would be helpful in terms of (a) determining whether any solution also removed advantages, and (b) comparing the current jurisdictional set-up to any future or alternate jurisdictional set-up. SO: I thought as much as well but I felt it will be more useful when we know what problems exist before specifically stating what advantages we might loose but I guess one can always do the mapping and since the responses will not be the sole source of discussion then I am fine. Overall, though, I think the goal of Question 4 is not particularly clear, or at least there is no consensus on what the goal of Question 4 should be. This is the foundation of the current issue in finding a version of Question 4 that gets broad support. SO: My personal concern is on the timing of all these as I feel it's too early to go into the jurisdiction issues without haven experienced the current structure and legal arrangements for a while. That said, I don't think the goal of question 4 should be difficult to get and you seem to have clearly stated it which is "...to get inputs from the community on both problems and positive features of ICANN's current jurisdiction in all meanings of that term...with the hope of resolving some of the identified problems as much as feasible" Just like a few others; at the moment I do not know of ANY problem that would be significant enough to warrant a change in jurisdiction but I think there may be "non-jurisdictional change" to address certain problems that may be identified. Overall, the more we maintain opposition to sending out the question, the more it gives an unnecessary impression so let's just get on and have something documented as from an MS process for once on this topic. Regards Greg On Sun, Jan 8, k2017 at 2:04 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Greg,

Kindly find inline

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 8 Jan 2017 7:19 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Seun,

Why do you believe that the goal of Question 4 is only to find out problems?

SO: This is what I believe question 4 was about. i.e identifying problems and determing their solutions as appropriate. What's the goal then if I may ask?

Also, we won't be basing our discussions solely on these responses. The responses will simply be one set of inputs to our discussion, but they will not limit our discussions.

SO: Noted. I guess I will just rest my case then.

You say "it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages." Can you clarify what you are thinking of as the reason(s) why we are asking for disadvantages?

SO: This is based on what I understood to be the goal of question 4 as stated above. i.e I understand we are asking for disadvantages in other to identify problems. I do not understand why we are asking for advantages, could you enlighten me on that bit?

Regards

Thanks!

Greg

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello Greg,

Thanks for the follow-up, my reasons are quite simple:

1. The goal is to find out if there are indeed valid problems. Hence the question should be framed as such

2. Since this is not an exercise of "advantages vs disadvantages", asking for advantages now will not be as useful as knowing the disadvantages, confirming they are indeed valid problems and then we criticise those problems (including stating possible advantages we will loose if we needed to solve the problem identifed).

3. We just cannot exhaust the advantages via this question and if the responses we get is what we will be basing our discussions on then we should not start this process on a competitive grounds.

4. It is not clear what exactly we intend to use the advantages for at this initial stage but it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages.

For clarity this is not a redline for me and I will be fine if the group does not accept the suggestion so long as adequate reason is provided (I note Paul opposes, will be good to read reasons). Irrespective of the group's decision, it should be clear that the volume of advantages vis disadvantages would not matter but the substance of the responses will be most important. Hence I hope we will address each of the problems identified adequately (including addressing them with points that may exceed those in the responses).

Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 7 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Seun,

Why do you suggest removing "advantages"?

Greg

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello Greg,

Thanks for sending in this summary. I think the suggestion about removing "advantages" will be applicable to any of the question 4 alternatives.

For instance I prefer "alternative 1" without including advantages. So I suggest modifying text of "alternative 6" to the following:

"Remove advantages from any alternative that gains more traction"

In that case, I will choose alternative 1+6

Regards

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6. Following a wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining the draft questionnaire. I encourage those who missed the call to review the recording and notes.

Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the Preamble and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final discussion on our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00). Question 2 had no revisions suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested.

The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents) and also in text below. *Please review this version of the Preamble and Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments for this portion.*

We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose of the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire, a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself. With these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had left on the call. Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary conclusions on Question 4.

The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current version) are in the second draft document (Word and PDF). Please look at the alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for Question 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you could support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) is "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in order to support it.*

We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please provide your thoughts and responses before then. Thank you.

Greg

*VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW*

*PREAMBLE*

The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2 accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s deliberations.

As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/5...> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of policies.

To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider and respond to the following specific questions. In this regard, the subgroup is asking for concrete, factual submissions (positive, negative, or neutral) that will help ensure that the subgroup’s deliberations are informed, fact-based, and address real issues. The subgroup is interested in all types of jurisdiction-related factual experiences, not just those involving actual disputes/court cases.

*QUESTION 1*

Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way?

If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects.

*QUESTION 2*

Has ICANN's jurisdiction* affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in?

If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects.

*QUESTION 3*

Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions above?

If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links. Please provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party accounts such as news reports; please do not provide your own version of events.

------------------------------

[1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31.

* For this Questionnaire, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.

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