Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
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
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
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
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
And yet, unsurprisingly, I agree with Phil :) So you were just ahead of the curve Seun. I will need time to read this completely and offer more detailed reasons 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: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 4:28 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data: 1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or 2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities? The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction. 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 Seun Ojedeji Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>,[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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. a 2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views. Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US. Please kindly understand the concerns of others . Pls kindly do not push for status quo. WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law . I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear All, It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding. Every one pushes for its own views. There is no common points to discuss. We should drop the entire agenda. Refer the matter back to CCWG. A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter. There is no fair basis for discussion Look at those commenting' who they are . Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp This is not .It is not dividing . THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding. But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp. People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others. The issue is clear. Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>? Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views. Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US. Please kindly understand the concerns of others . Pls kindly do not push for status quo. WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law . I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment Regards Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
There is mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference. There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Dear All, It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding. Every one pushes for its own views. There is no common points to discuss. We should drop the entire agenda. Refer the matter back to CCWG. A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter. There is no fair basis for discussion Look at those commenting' who they are . Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp This is not .It is not dividing . THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding. But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp. People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others. The issue is clear. Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>? Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views. Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US. Please kindly understand the concerns of others . Pls kindly do not push for status quo. WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law . I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. a 2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >: Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data: 1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or 2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities? The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:(202)%20559-8597> /Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:(202)%20559-8750> /Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:(202)%20255-6172> /Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions. Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
There *is* mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg! Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM To: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions. Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > wrote: There is mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference. There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> ; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Dear All, It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding. Every one pushes for its own views. There is no common points to discuss. We should drop the entire agenda. Refer the matter back to CCWG. A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter. There is no fair basis for discussion Look at those commenting' who they are . Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp This is not .It is not dividing . THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding. But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp. People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others. The issue is clear. Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>? Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views. Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US. Please kindly understand the concerns of others . Pls kindly do not push for status quo. WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law . I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment Regards Kavouss 2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear Phil, Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction. This is the question I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed. a 2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> >: Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data: 1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or 2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities? The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:(202)%20559-8597> /Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:(202)%20559-8750> /Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:(202)%20255-6172> /Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Greg, Thank you very much for the time and efforts that you have demonstrated so far . The text in c said Quote any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. " This does not cover the scenario is not limited to the agreement with ICANN. Please consult cases contained in the hyperlink provided by Mathieu . In some cases there is no direct link with ICANN Agreement. If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD . I therefore suggest to add a qualifier to the last four words ibn c) by ," as the case may be and to add to ADD d) “choice of law” or venue of jurisdiction " Then it may go . In reply to John I disagree with his suggestion as he said Quote "There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections" Unquote As this is the most critical and delicate issue we need to have full consensus and NOT SO-CALLED rough consensus . Rough consensus mainly introduced by IETF many years ago for other more technical and more simple cases. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on the définition of .SO-CALLED rough consensus 2017-01-08 8:41 GMT+01:00 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>:
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
There *is* mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I find it hard to understand the below formulation. Nothing ICANN does in respect of its seat will affect the ability of a court for that jurisdiction to issue judicial decisions affecting ICANN. ICANN's (or rather IANA's)role in respect of ccTLDs is very limited. It can only act in respect of an existing ccTLD where there has been 'substantial misbehaviour'. This has been accepted by the ccNSO and GAC over 6 years of constructive working together, interpreted definitively in an aid to construction (the Framework of Interpretation), and confirmed by a resolution of the ICANN board. Since money doesn't change hands between ccTLD managers and IANA, OFAC's remit is somewhat faint. But the same problems arise whatever jurisdiciton you pick for ICANN's seat UNLESS you want to give them immunity even for their own negligence. Having seen and been a victim at first hand the misbehaviour of ICANN v1.0, there is NO WAY that ICANN should have or deserves special immunities, no matter what it's location. On 08/01/17 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD .
On Sunday 08 January 2017 10:40 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I find it hard to understand the below formulation.
Nothing ICANN does in respect of its seat will affect the ability of a court for that jurisdiction to issue judicial decisions affecting ICANN.
Everything that a court can do to force ICANN's hand is based on the seat of ICANN, unless given special immunities (which I see below that you are against). This is apart from in any case being able to enforce its writ "to the extent of" of ICANN's operation in that country.
ICANN's (or rather IANA's)role in respect of ccTLDs is very limited.
It can only act in respect of an existing ccTLD where there has been 'substantial misbehaviour'. This has been accepted by the ccNSO and GAC over 6 years of constructive working together, interpreted definitively in an aid to construction (the Framework of Interpretation), and confirmed by a resolution of the ICANN board.
OFAC application to ccTLD or any other relationship with residents of a sanctioned country has absolutely nothing to do with what ICANN decides. It is a matter of US state's power and prerogative.
Since money doesn't change hands between ccTLD managers and IANA, OFAC's remit is somewhat faint.
All kinds of transactions even without money exchange get covered under OFAC.
But the same problems arise whatever jurisdiciton you pick for ICANN's seat UNLESS you want to give them immunity even for their own negligence.
Having seen and been a victim at first hand the misbehaviour of ICANN v1.0, there is NO WAY that ICANN should have or deserves special immunities, no matter what it's location.
If you do not trust non- traditional country jurisdiction based oversights to manage ICANN -- for instance, by community mechanisms, enforceable through private channels -- then you would have to go for an international law, and judicial oversight, system. You can chose one of them - (1) ICANN incorporated in the US, but with jurisdictional immunities, or (2) ICANN under international law. But the world would not accept to be under US government's legal, legislative and executive oversight. What is being said of the Internet, can be extended to practically all aspects of our society's working, as we get increasingly globally intertwined. If this is the global governance model that you got to offer to us - to come under US gov's oversight - then, thanks, we are better off in our nationalised contexts - for the Internet, and for everything else. parminder
On 08/01/17 10:24, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD .
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, The scenario that you mention relates to section (a) of the footnote ("(a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California") and not to (c) ("any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN"). As for the issue of Consensus, the definition of Consensus and of Full Consensus are both set forth in the CCWG Charter: a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree This CCWG (like the CCWG-IANA) operates on the basis of Consensus, as defined above. This definition of Consensus is also used in all of the GNSO Policy Development Working Groups and has been used by the GNSO for many years, regardless of the complexity or criticality of the issues. We should be consistent with the Charter and use the defined terms "Full Consensus" and "Consensus," rather than the term "rough consensus." Our decision-making method is dictated by the Charter, which states that we shall seek to act by consensus. While it is always nice to achieve Full Consensus, it is not required under the Charter. Best regards, Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Thank you very much for the time and efforts that you have demonstrated so far . The text in c said Quote any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. " This does not cover the scenario is not limited to the agreement with ICANN. Please consult cases contained in the hyperlink provided by Mathieu . In some cases there is no direct link with ICANN Agreement. If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD . I therefore suggest to add a qualifier to the last four words ibn c) by ," as the case may be and to add to ADD d) “choice of law” or venue of jurisdiction " Then it may go . In reply to John I disagree with his suggestion as he said Quote "There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections" Unquote As this is the most critical and delicate issue we need to have full consensus and NOT SO-CALLED rough consensus . Rough consensus mainly introduced by IETF many years ago for other more technical and more simple cases. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on the définition of .SO-CALLED rough consensus
2017-01-08 8:41 GMT+01:00 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>:
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
There *is* mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
All, Can we please refocus on discussing the various alternatives for Question 4? We need to see if we can arrive at a version of Question 4 that will get consensus (as defined in the Charter) support of the subgroup. So far we have not been able to do so, unlike Questions 1-3. I am trying to allow every opportunity to arrive at a version of Question 4 that will get that level of support. That is why the process has gone on as long as it has. We will be looking to complete this discussion on the call Tuesday at 13:00, in advance of the next Plenary call on January 11 at 19:00. It would be really good to make headway on the list before then. I think that an underlying problem is that it is unclear what the purpose of Question 4 is, or at least there is no common understanding of the purpose of Question 4. If we can come to consensus on the purpose, then the wording of the question itself will be much easier. If we don't have a common understanding of what we're trying to accomplish with Question 4, that will be a significant impediment to arriving at a version of the question that will get consensus support. So I suggest we also try to arrive at a common understanding of what the purpose of Question 4 is. Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
The scenario that you mention relates to section (a) of the footnote ("(a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California") and not to (c) ("any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN").
As for the issue of Consensus, the definition of Consensus and of Full Consensus are both set forth in the CCWG Charter:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
This CCWG (like the CCWG-IANA) operates on the basis of Consensus, as defined above. This definition of Consensus is also used in all of the GNSO Policy Development Working Groups and has been used by the GNSO for many years, regardless of the complexity or criticality of the issues.
We should be consistent with the Charter and use the defined terms "Full Consensus" and "Consensus," rather than the term "rough consensus."
Our decision-making method is dictated by the Charter, which states that we shall seek to act by consensus. While it is always nice to achieve Full Consensus, it is not required under the Charter.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Greg, Thank you very much for the time and efforts that you have demonstrated so far . The text in c said Quote any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. " This does not cover the scenario is not limited to the agreement with ICANN. Please consult cases contained in the hyperlink provided by Mathieu . In some cases there is no direct link with ICANN Agreement. If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD . I therefore suggest to add a qualifier to the last four words ibn c) by ," as the case may be and to add to ADD d) “choice of law” or venue of jurisdiction " Then it may go . In reply to John I disagree with his suggestion as he said Quote "There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections" Unquote As this is the most critical and delicate issue we need to have full consensus and NOT SO-CALLED rough consensus . Rough consensus mainly introduced by IETF many years ago for other more technical and more simple cases. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on the définition of .SO-CALLED rough consensus
2017-01-08 8:41 GMT+01:00 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>:
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
There *is* mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Monday 09 January 2017 11:21 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
snip
I think that an underlying problem is that it is unclear what the purpose of Question 4 is, or at least there is no common understanding of the purpose of Question 4. If we can come to consensus on the purpose, then the wording of the question itself will be much easier. If we don't have a common understanding of what we're trying to accomplish with Question 4, that will be a significant impediment to arriving at a version of the question that will get consensus support.
So I suggest we also try to arrive at a common understanding of what the purpose of Question 4 is.
1. This sub group is dealing with the issue of ICANN's jurisdiction, with “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. 2. Dealing with an issue would normally mean dealing with the problems, if any, in relation to that issue. We indeed seemed to agree here that 'problems' is a better word than 'issues', because it is "problem", if any, that need attention, and not just "issues". 3. In light of the above, to ask the public/ community about "information/ facts about the nature of problems about current ICANN's jurisdiction", to me appears to be the most logical and clear thing to do. That is precisely what Q4 seeks to do. What is so unclear about the purpose of Q4? Greg, I am surprised that even you say that "it is unclear what the purpose of the Q 4 is". We seem to have entered into some kind of Wonderland, of Alice's fame, where clear things are not clear things... parminder
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
The scenario that you mention relates to section (a) of the footnote ("(a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California") and not to (c) ("any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN").
As for the issue of Consensus, the definition of Consensus and of Full Consensus are both set forth in the CCWG Charter:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
This CCWG (like the CCWG-IANA) operates on the basis of Consensus, as defined above. This definition of Consensus is also used in all of the GNSO Policy Development Working Groups and has been used by the GNSO for many years, regardless of the complexity or criticality of the issues.
We should be consistent with the Charter and use the defined terms "Full Consensus" and "Consensus," rather than the term "rough consensus."
Our decision-making method is dictated by the Charter, which states that we shall seek to act by consensus. While it is always nice to achieve Full Consensus, it is not required under the Charter.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Greg, Thank you very much for the time and efforts that you have demonstrated so far . The text in c said Quote any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. " This does not cover the scenario is not limited to the agreement with ICANN. Please consult cases contained in the hyperlink provided by Mathieu . In some cases there is no direct link with ICANN Agreement. If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD . I therefore suggest to add a qualifier to the last four words ibn c) by ," as the case may be and to add to ADD d) “choice of law” or venue of jurisdiction " Then it may go . In reply to John I disagree with his suggestion as he said Quote "There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections" Unquote As this is the most critical and delicate issue we need to have full consensus and NOT SO-CALLED rough consensus . Rough consensus mainly introduced by IETF many years ago for other more technical and more simple cases. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on the définition of .SO-CALLED rough consensus
2017-01-08 8:41 GMT+01:00 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>>:
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote:
There _is_ mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>,[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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ 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
Let me say /*what actually is not clear */in this exercise, which is getting a bit surreal. What is not clear is the /*nature of, or rather the purpose of, opposition to sending out question 4*/. I will request Greg to put the finger where the real non-clarity is. A lot of people say, their opposition to the question is solely about how it worded that it being "inefficient" in getting useful information. Others, but often the same as making the above objection, say, the opposition to the question is becuase it takes us to areas way beyond our mandate. (Looking at the emails of just the last few days, and the call transcripts, will testify to veracity of my above formulation) These two evidently are very different kinds of objections, and normally should not logically be pursued at least by the same person(s). And the problem is, when one tries to address one kind of objection, it merely slips into the other kind, and then vice versa, which is absolutely frustrating. If the question is merely "inefficient", sending it out would not really cause anyone any mortal harm, and one can agree to send it out just because others - less intelligent and efficient beings - badly want to. Why would we practically stop out work for more than a month now -- a much larger inefficiency -- to deal with this small inefficiency . This is absolutely beyond me. Which brings us to the other objection -- which in my view is the real one -- people say, this will take us to the territory of people pointing to the problems with application of US public laws, or general jurisdiction, over ICANN, and this they for some reason fear, or simply think is beyond this sub group's mandate to be taking about. I said this during the call, and have been saying it, if there indeed is a mandate confusion here, lets first sought that out. To repeat, no, the problem is not with the clarity of the purpose of the question, but with the purpose of opposition to it. I would want the co-chairs to formulate this as the problem, rather than the non problem of the purpose of q4 which is self evident in its wording. parminder On Monday 09 January 2017 11:21 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
Can we please refocus on discussing the various alternatives for Question 4?
We need to see if we can arrive at a version of Question 4 that will get consensus (as defined in the Charter) support of the subgroup. So far we have not been able to do so, unlike Questions 1-3.
I am trying to allow every opportunity to arrive at a version of Question 4 that will get that level of support. That is why the process has gone on as long as it has.
We will be looking to complete this discussion on the call Tuesday at 13:00, in advance of the next Plenary call on January 11 at 19:00. It would be really good to make headway on the list before then.
I think that an underlying problem is that it is unclear what the purpose of Question 4 is, or at least there is no common understanding of the purpose of Question 4. If we can come to consensus on the purpose, then the wording of the question itself will be much easier. If we don't have a common understanding of what we're trying to accomplish with Question 4, that will be a significant impediment to arriving at a version of the question that will get consensus support.
So I suggest we also try to arrive at a common understanding of what the purpose of Question 4 is.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
The scenario that you mention relates to section (a) of the footnote ("(a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California") and not to (c) ("any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN").
As for the issue of Consensus, the definition of Consensus and of Full Consensus are both set forth in the CCWG Charter:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
This CCWG (like the CCWG-IANA) operates on the basis of Consensus, as defined above. This definition of Consensus is also used in all of the GNSO Policy Development Working Groups and has been used by the GNSO for many years, regardless of the complexity or criticality of the issues.
We should be consistent with the Charter and use the defined terms "Full Consensus" and "Consensus," rather than the term "rough consensus."
Our decision-making method is dictated by the Charter, which states that we shall seek to act by consensus. While it is always nice to achieve Full Consensus, it is not required under the Charter.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Greg, Thank you very much for the time and efforts that you have demonstrated so far . The text in c said Quote any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. " This does not cover the scenario is not limited to the agreement with ICANN. Please consult cases contained in the hyperlink provided by Mathieu . In some cases there is no direct link with ICANN Agreement. If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD . I therefore suggest to add a qualifier to the last four words ibn c) by ," as the case may be and to add to ADD d) “choice of law” or venue of jurisdiction " Then it may go . In reply to John I disagree with his suggestion as he said Quote "There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections" Unquote As this is the most critical and delicate issue we need to have full consensus and NOT SO-CALLED rough consensus . Rough consensus mainly introduced by IETF many years ago for other more technical and more simple cases. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on the définition of .SO-CALLED rough consensus
2017-01-08 8:41 GMT+01:00 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>>:
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM *To:* John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote:
There _is_ mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>,[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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Greg Please kindly then delete the last of part of the C) : any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. or please add a qualifier before that as follows: any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN, if applicable and as the case may be Regards Kavouss 2017-01-09 5:26 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
The scenario that you mention relates to section (a) of the footnote ("(a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California") and not to (c) ("any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN").
As for the issue of Consensus, the definition of Consensus and of Full Consensus are both set forth in the CCWG Charter:
a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
This CCWG (like the CCWG-IANA) operates on the basis of Consensus, as defined above. This definition of Consensus is also used in all of the GNSO Policy Development Working Groups and has been used by the GNSO for many years, regardless of the complexity or criticality of the issues.
We should be consistent with the Charter and use the defined terms "Full Consensus" and "Consensus," rather than the term "rough consensus."
Our decision-making method is dictated by the Charter, which states that we shall seek to act by consensus. While it is always nice to achieve Full Consensus, it is not required under the Charter.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Greg, Thank you very much for the time and efforts that you have demonstrated so far . The text in c said Quote any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN. " This does not cover the scenario is not limited to the agreement with ICANN. Please consult cases contained in the hyperlink provided by Mathieu . In some cases there is no direct link with ICANN Agreement. If based on OFAC the case before the court is to act upon a ccTLD . I therefore suggest to add a qualifier to the last four words ibn c) by ," as the case may be and to add to ADD d) “choice of law” or venue of jurisdiction " Then it may go . In reply to John I disagree with his suggestion as he said Quote "There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections" Unquote As this is the most critical and delicate issue we need to have full consensus and NOT SO-CALLED rough consensus . Rough consensus mainly introduced by IETF many years ago for other more technical and more simple cases. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on the définition of .SO-CALLED rough consensus
2017-01-08 8:41 GMT+01:00 John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com>:
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
* Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D.Consulting Scholar http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AMTo: John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <jlaprise@gmail.com>>Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions. Greg On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote:There is mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference. There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D.Consulting Scholar http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kavouss ArastehSent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PMTo: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Dear All,It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.Every one pushes for its own views.There is no common points to discuss.We should drop the entire agenda.Refer the matter back to CCWG. A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.There is no fair basis for discussionLook at those commenting' who they are .Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition campThis is not .It is not dividing . THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.The issue is clear.Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?RegardsKavouss 2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:Dear Phil,Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.This is the questionI believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.Please kindly understand the concerns of others .Pls kindly do not push for status quo. WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatmentRegardsKavouss 2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:Dear Phil,Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.This is the questionI believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.a 2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <psc@vlaw-dc.com>>:Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities? The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction. Philip S. Corwin, Founding PrincipalVirtualaw LLC1155 F Street, NWSuite 1050Washington, DC 20004202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Seun OjedejiSent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PMTo: Greg ShatanCc: ws2-jurisdictionSubject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul Cheers!Sent from my LG G4Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <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). RegardsSent from my LG G4Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <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 <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 RegardsSent from my LG G4Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <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 PREAMBLEThe 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=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>,[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 1Has 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 2Has 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 3Do 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 listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.org <Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> ------------------------------No virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17_______________________________________________Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.org <Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> *
The fact that this group, whose mandate is to discuss issues/ problems about current ICANN jurisdiction, formore than a monthnow has been blocking a simple process of seeking public views on an open ended question about the very mandate of the groups - asking, what people think are the existing or possible issues/ problems with current ICANN jurisdiction, is almost shocking. Some people said, we cannot just ask about problems without also also asking about advantages of current jurisdictions, and we said, no problem, do it, add to the question. Then they said, we should also know the possible problems with any alternative offered, and we said, sure, please do ask. But none of these accommodations has meant anything. Members here have actually said, seeking public inputs can be dangerous, who knows what can come in. And it will derail the process!! Public inputs will derail the process?! Even if we send out a question, we should mould the question in manners that people are able to say only some things and not others. This is as good or bad a parade of anti democratic anti public sentiment as one can ever come across. Such views are reported from 17th-18th century, when democratic institutions had just begun to take shape - about how masses can be dangerous, and one has to be very careful about letting high matters be put into public hands. But in 21st century?! I have witnessed scores if not hundreds of questionnaires and consultations by public body -- all of them aim to get the largest possible set of relevant information. While the questions are specific, I have never seen them intend to circumvent the kind of responses that could come. And most of them, in fact, have open ended question(s) in addition to very specific ones. So, what is it about ICANN that it must be so nervous and secretive? What makes it afraid? parminder On Sunday 08 January 2017 01:09 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the subgroup. Let us not jump to conclusions.
Greg
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote:
There _is_ mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a difference.
There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem. We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM *To:* Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>
*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Dear All,
It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no mutual understanding.
Every one pushes for its own views.
There is no common points to discuss.
We should drop the entire agenda.
Refer the matter back to CCWG.
A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss this matter.
There is no fair basis for discussion
Look at those commenting' who they are .
Parminder, occasionally Pedro Kavouss and the rest are coming from opposition camp
This is not .It is not dividing .
THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE untill and unless there is a mutual understanding.
But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
The issue is clear.
Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation and patriotisme but others have different views.
Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Phil,
Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another jurisdiction.
This is the question
I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
a
2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:
1. Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating qualities?, or
2. Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?
The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM *To:* Greg Shatan *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul
Cheers!
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "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=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>,[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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ 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
Seun, Why do you believe that the goal of Question 4 is only to find out problems? The first three questions do not look only for problems. They ask about how ICANN's jurisdiction has affected the respondent, and go on to say "Please note that “affected” may refer to positive and/or negative effects." 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. 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? 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
I strongly oppose removing “advantages” from question 4. Only by considering advantages and disadvantages can we get comprehensive and balanced answers relating to jurisdictional considerations. 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 Seun Ojedeji Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 1:41 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED 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<mailto: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=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>,[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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
participants (8)
-
Greg Shatan -
John Laprise -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji