[Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question

Sun Dec 4 21:25:16 UTC 2016

Dear All,
First of all, I agree with Grec that we are still working on the text of
the third question and yet to decide what /how many questions will be sent
out once APPROVED by CCWG Plenary.
Secondly, I agree with Paul and David ,to some extent that ,we need to
soften the language and not directly criticise   the current jurisdiction
rather to seek for additional/ complementary or optional jurisdiction.
However, it is too early that people pronounce strong opposition or strong
support as we need to fine tine the text.
Finally , at the level of CCWG only the opposition of the CCWG Members are
to be taken into account
We therefore need to continue to work together. I fully d understand the
oppositions taken by our US colleagues that perhaps have not considered
seriously the problem of non US people
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-04 21:54 GMT+01:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

> Greg
>
> I tend to agree with Paul and David.
>
> If there is WG agreement that this is a useful question I would ask that
> we also consider the following small edit:
> Remove "What do you think" in the first line - replace with "What are" - I
> am not a fan of speculation on matters such as this.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 04/12/2016 19:01, McAuley, David wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your efforts to move this along.
>
>
>
> I oppose the question. In my personal opinion this is beyond what our WS2
> should be looking at (for reasons I have previously stated) and has the
> potential for a major distraction for us.
>
>
>
> If the group decides to send such a question forward, I tend to agree with
> Paul about specificity, and would change part of the last sentence of the
> question from “…identify the future risks of those jurisdictions, …” to
> “…identify the risks of those jurisdictions, …”.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> On the list and the most recent Jurisdiction Subgroup call, we have been
> discussing a proposal to add another question to the questionnaire being
> prepared by this group. Specifically, we've been discussing
>
>
>
> 1.  Whether this question should be sent out by the Subgroup; and
>
>
>
> 2.  The drafting of the question.
>
>
>
> On the first point, there was a fairly even split (among the few who
> responded) on the call.  On the list, there were about twice as many
> responses opposed to sending the question, at least as originally drafted.
>
>
>
> Before revisiting whether to send the question out, we should continue to
> refine the question, so that it's clear what proposed question we're
> considering.
>
>
>
> I've gone through the email thread discussing this question, and I've
> pulled out the various formulations of the question.  I've also pulled out
> the comments that had suggestions regarding the scope and wording of the
> question.  These appear directly below.  That way, we can all see how the
> discussion evolved on the list. Taking into account the various
> formulations and the various comments, as well as the language of Annex 12,
> I've prepared the following proposed formulation for the Group's review and
> comment:
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fourth proposed formulation*
>
> What do you think are the advantages or problems, if any, relating to
> ICANN being under U.S. jurisdiction and subject to U.S. and California law,
> 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.  Also, in terms of likely future risk, please
> mention specific ways in which U.S. or California laws safeguard or
> interfere with, or are likely to be used or interfere with, ICANN's ability
> to carry out its policies throughout the world.
>
> For any problem identified, please identify other jurisdictions, if any,
> where that problem would not occur.  For each such jurisdiction, please
> specify whether those jurisdictions would support the outcomes of
> CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, identify the future risks of those
> jurisdictions, and discuss the risks associated with changing
> jurisdictions.
>
>
>
> PLEASE REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER PROPOSED
> REVISIONS.  Thank you.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> *Original proposed formulation*:
>
> What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of
> the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response
> with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, if there are existing
> and past instances that highlight such problems please indicate them.
>
> *Comment:*
>
> *It should, however, be made by specific reference to existing laws that
> could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to
> customers in other countries.*
>
> *Comment:*
>
> *If we were to go in this direction we would also need to add something
> like "What do you think the problems would be, if any, of changing
> jurisdiction..."*
>
> *Second proposed formulation*:
>
> What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of
> the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response
> with appropriate examples, analysis, etc. Especially, please indicate if
> there are existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also,
> in terms of future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws
> etc of the US state that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to
> provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in
> non US countries.
>
> *Comment:*
>
> *An unbiased question would also ask about advantages and protections, and
> ways in which the current jurisdictional arrangement supports ICANN's
> ability to carry out its mission.  I also find the focus on the concept of
> the "jurisdiction of the US state over ICANN," to be quite puzzling.  The
> primary focus of this group has been on the effects of "governing law"
> (whether it results from a legal or physical location of ICANN or from a
> contractual provision, etc.)  and not on some idea that the US Government
> is somehow poised to strike and exercise unilateral power over ICANN in
> some undefined (and possibly non-existent) fashion.*
>
> *Comment:*
>
> *I would oppose this as it relates to future risks unless the responders
> also identified other potential jurisdictions where those future risks
> would not be realized and assessed the future risks of those potential
> jurisdictions of transfer.*
>
> Third proposed formulation/comment:
>
> What do you think are the problems, if any, with continued jurisdiction of
> the US state over ICANN, as a US non-profit? Please justify your response
> with appropriate examples, analysis, etc.
>
>
> *... with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case and
> other studies, analysis, ... * Especially, please indicate if there are
> existing and past instances that highlight such problems. Also, in terms of
> future likelihood, please mention specific institutions/ laws etc of the US
> state
>
>
>
> *I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk analysis.  Risk
> is real and analyzing it is a common activity. Also in terms of likely
> risk, please ... *that could be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to
> provide global governance services to all people of the world, including in
> non US countries.
>
> *Comment:*
>
> *If we are going to allow speculation as to potential future issues that
> have not arisen and may never arise based on analysis that is grounded only
> in theory without any connection to practice then the natural question is
> whether those speculative harms would be ameliorated by changing
> jurisdiction and also whether changing would give rise to other, different,
> speculative harms.  If we want to just guess, let's guess not only about
> the horrors of remaining in the US, but also the horrors of moving.*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161204/0f17ee21/attachment-0001.html>