[Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional Question

Mon Dec 5 07:44:17 UTC 2016

Paul,
The basis is the hierarchy principle .
We are sub group of CCWG and any question going outside MUST be validated
and approved by CCWG .
Moreover, we need to act in accordance to our charter that provide any
question to outside MUST be approuved  by the entire CCWG and not by a
small group which have at the maximum 20 participants.
If the co-chairs decide differently ,then there would be serious
disagreement
 from MEMBERS of CCWG.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-04 23:39 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> What is you basis for that Kavouss?
>
> --
> Paul
> Sent from myMail app for Android
> Sunday, 04 December 2016, 05:33PM -05:00 from Kavouss Arasteh
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com:
>
>
> Dear Grec,
> I am sorry to say that this sub group shall not to send out any question
> untill and unless is approved by CCWG Plenary.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-12-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3apranesh@cis%2dindia.org>>:
>
> Dear Greg,
> I like this fourth formulation the best of the alternatives so far,
> however, there is one part that I see as being problematic:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Rather than the focus on "other jurisdictions", the focus should be on the
> concrete alternatives that the survey respondent has in mind, and this is
> pre-judging the issue.
>
> I, for instance, have been proposing the idea of "jurisdictional
> resilience" which isn't about opposing US jurisdiction but rather
> concentration in any one jurisdiction of governmental powers over core DNS
> bodies (ICANN, PTI, and RZM).
>
> Your formulation allows me to express this as a problem, but the solution
> I propose wouldn't be captured by your formulation since my solution isn't
> one involving swapping one jurisdiction for another.
>
> I would suggest forcing people to propose concrete alternatives, but not
> prejudging the form of those alternatives as you inadvertently seem to have
> done.
>
> Also, I for this:
>
> or are likely to be used or interfere with
>
>
> I would instead suggest:
> "or may potentially be used or interfere with"
> since, as Yogi Berra said, it's tough to make predictions, especially
> about the future.  So, instead of a prediction ("likely"), we could replace
> it with a risk potential.
>
> I hope that makes sense, and that we agree on the need for slightly more
> open-ended formulation for the solutions paragraph.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>>
> [2016-12-03 23:47:13 -0500]:
>
> 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 list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asip%253Apranesh@ostel.co> |
> xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3axmpp%253Apranesh@cis%2dindia.org>
> https://twitter.com/pranesh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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/20161205/e1eabd43/attachment-0001.html>