Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions
+1 To Mike Rodenbaugh If we really want to gather all relevant information and have the broadest possible input to maximize the quality of our discussions and of course of our output, we should not constraint our sources of possible knowledge. My point is that to run the risk of having too much information is always preferable to the risk of having too little and miss out on important issues and experiences that could very well feed our discussions. That is why we should broaden the request, even if we have to separate the questions or organize it in a way that satisfies concerns expressed by some. Rafael ________________________________ De: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Fecha: 23. November 2016 um 20:31:08 MEZ De: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions I think we want the broadest range of experiences, but of course would not consider hearsay. If anyone can point us to documents about anyone else's experiences, then what is the harm in considering those documents? To me, the worse risk is that we don't hear about them at all because the person who had the experience does not see our survey. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: +1 Everyone has opinions and second hand information. We want primary sources on t his ... P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:06 PM To: CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions I agree with CW on this one -- we are looking for first person facts, experiences and "anecdotal evidence." The facts are best known by the participants, and third parties (viewing events from the outside) often make assumptions about what happened or otherwise get things wrong. Greg On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Mike: I might see the point of broadening, if possible, the scope and catchment of the questions, but perhaps not in that way. We should be dealing with Principals (in the sense of directly with those responsible for the entities concerned). Not their surrogates or other third parties. Otherwise we risk receiving second hand information with which the Principals may not agree, and inviting 'bulk' replies from interested organisations. We should also be cautious about receiving anonymous hearsay. Just a thought CW On 23 Nov 2016, at 17:20, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: These seem well-stated, except perhaps they should not be looking only for personal experience, but broaden the request to seek any experience the responder is aware of? So I suggest something like: 1. Are you aware of any instance in which anyone's business, privacy, or ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, has been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 2. Are you aware of any instance in which ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: CW and I have agreed on the following draft: Request for stakeholder input on jurisdiction issues The Jurisdiction subgroup of the CCWG Accountability is asking for the community to provide factual input on the following questions: 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Of course. Independent documentation would be a primary resource irrespective of who pointed us to it. We would also accept direct experience conveyed by a participant. What we don't want is "I heard ..." or "my understanding is that ..." Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Perez Galindo, Rafael Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 4:04 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions +1 To Mike Rodenbaugh If we really want to gather all relevant information and have the broadest possible input to maximize the quality of our discussions and of course of our output, we should not constraint our sources of possible knowledge. My point is that to run the risk of having too much information is always preferable to the risk of having too little and miss out on important issues and experiences that could very well feed our discussions. That is why we should broaden the request, even if we have to separate the questions or organize it in a way that satisfies concerns expressed by some. Rafael ________________________________ De: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Fecha: 23. November 2016 um 20:31:08 MEZ De: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions I think we want the broadest range of experiences, but of course would not consider hearsay. If anyone can point us to documents about anyone else's experiences, then what is the harm in considering those documents? To me, the worse risk is that we don't hear about them at all because the person who had the experience does not see our survey. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcon sulting.com>> wrote: +1 Everyone has opinions and second hand information. We want primary sources on t his ... P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons ulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/<http://www.r edbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@i cann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:06 PM To: CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions I agree with CW on this one -- we are looking for first person facts, experiences and "anecdotal evidence." The facts are best known by the participants, and third parties (viewing events from the outside) often make assumptions about what happened or otherwise get things wrong. Greg On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Mike: I might see the point of broadening, if possible, the scope and catchment of the questions, but perhaps not in that way. We should be dealing with Principals (in the sense of directly with those responsible for the entities concerned). Not their surrogates or other third parties. Otherwise we risk receiving second hand information with which the Principals may not agree, and inviting 'bulk' replies from interested organisations. We should also be cautious about receiving anonymous hearsay. Just a thought CW On 23 Nov 2016, at 17:20, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: These seem well-stated, except perhaps they should not be looking only for personal experience, but broaden the request to seek any experience the responder is aware of? So I suggest something like: 1. Are you aware of any instance in which anyone's business, privacy, or ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, has been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 2. Are you aware of any instance in which ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: CW and I have agreed on the following draft: Request for stakeholder input on jurisdiction issues The Jurisdiction subgroup of the CCWG Accountability is asking for the community to provide factual input on the following questions: 1. Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. 2. Has ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in? If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant documents. Dr. Milton L. Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ 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
participants (2)
-
Paul Rosenzweig -
Perez Galindo, Rafael