[CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Fri Dec 16 18:06:04 UTC 2016

Reviewing the text of proposed Q4 (below), it's such an open-ended fishing expedition that playing with language in an attempt to improve it is IMHO unlikely to bear useful results.

That said, in my view is that it would be more acceptable if only the text marked in bold was sent and the remainder relating to “future risk”  discarded -- as speculation on the future is as limitless as the human imagination, and scenarios can be spun that have low to no probability of ever occurring. Such speculation should also be measured against the fact that ICANN has held the same legal status since its inception and it has not interfered with “ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world”.

That latter portion of the question also invites input on proposed alternative jurisdictions which is bound to be incomplete and unverifiable absent very extensive new legal and policy research. And it prematurely raises the possibility of changing ICANN’s locus of incorporation before any convincing evidence, much less a consensus decision, has been made that continued status as a California non-profit – the legal framework for which the enhanced accountability measures were designed at great cost in time and legal input – is so worrisome or dangerous that research on alternative jurisdictions should be undertaken.

4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. In terms of likely future risk, please mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or interfere with, or may be used to safeguard or interfere with, ICANN's ability to carry out its policies throughout the world. For any disadvantage identified, please identify alternatives (including other jurisdictions), if any, where that problem would not occur. For each such jurisdiction or other alternative, please specify whether and how it would support the outcomes of CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the risks of those jurisdictions or other alternatives, and discuss the risks associated with changing from the current situation.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 11:14 AM
To: milton at gatech.edu; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear Milton

Good to know that you do not oppose it.

Maybe we only have to improve the language: let's work on that.

regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>

Datum: 16. Dezember 2016 um 15:06:26 MEZ

An: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>, mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>

Betreff: RE: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Jorge:

Bear in mind that I do not oppose sending out Q4. I just don’t want it to be part of the same exercise as the other questions. As noted before, the less focused the intent of a survey is, the less meaningful the results will be. IF you want to send out a poorly phrased, open-ended, unfocused question, feel free to do so. Just don’t pollute a potentially meaningful set of questions with it.

--MM

From: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]

Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 5:23 PM

To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>

Subject: AW: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear Milton

I feel the supposed dangers of the fourth question are being exaggerated – we are mature enough to distinguish well-reasoned opinions from mere hypothesis. And respondents are also well-prepared to deal with 4 instead of 3 questions – I do not see any serious danger of overburdening them because of that. We could make clear that respondents only have to answer what they deem relevant.

Without wanting to repeat myself: to exclude a question that was supported by a slight majority in the poll indicates some fear on what could back in terms of substance – not because it would be useless, but because some in the group would not like the arguments being made.

I’m of the opinion that if we have good arguments and continue with a rational conversation there is no reason for such a fear whatsoever.

BTW: did the CCWG Plenary decide on this? Or give any direction? I would not like to spend time on a topic already decided…

Kind regards

Jorge

Von: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2016 23:13

An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>>; mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr%3cmailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>

Betreff: RE: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Jorge

Question 4 clearly does not have consensus support from the group. What DOES has clear overwhelming consensus is: a) Questions 1-3, and b) support for sending out the first 3 questions if 4 does not have sufficient support.

Worse, Q4 basically defeats the purpose of the entire fact-finding mission.

Our first 3 questions are short, clear and simple and factual in terms of what is needed to answer them The 4th question is worded in a wooly and confusion manner and is asking for opinions, not facts.

You have to understand that the time and attention span of survey respondents is limited. If you throw a long, ambiguous and unclear question at them you get fewer responses. And by asking for opinions rather than facts, Q4 taints the rest of the questions and we are likely to get more opinions and fewer facts as a result.

Let’s bring this to a close and send out the factual questions by themselves. If people want to initiate another process to send out a completely different kind of question, let it be done separately.

--MM

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch%3cmailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 5:06 AM

To: mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr%3cmailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>

Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear CCWG

I apologize for not being able to attend today’s call due to other prior engagements.

Let me add that I’m in support of sending out all 4 questions prepared in the Jurisdiction Group.

I feel that at this point of our discussions, where we are trying to gather as many facts, experiences and reasoned opinions as possible which are relevant for the influence that ICANN’s jurisdiction has on its operations and accountability mechanisms, we should not rule out questions (as question nr. 4) that have been considered important by an important part of the Subgroup (in fact, by a slight majority of it).

At later stages we may determine whether ingoing responses regarding that question are factual or are mere opinions without a well-founded basis.

At this moment I think that excluding relevant questions could give rise to wrong perceptions and could potentially prevent us from knowing relevant experiences/assessments covered only by question nr. 4.

@staff: please note these comments in the relevant part of the call.

Thanks and

Best regards

Jorge

Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mathieu Weill

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2016 08:44

An: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org%3cmailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>>

Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Dear Colleagues,

On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached two documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary.

Best

Mathieu

De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37 À : Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr%3cmailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org%3cmailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>

Objet : Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

Co-Chairs and Staff:

The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire. The first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the questions) and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup.

The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup to get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions.

These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion.

Greg

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-----

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>

Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161216/330fe827/attachment-0001.html>