<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>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.</div><div>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.</div><div>Finally , at the level of CCWG only the opposition of the CCWG Members are to be taken into account</div><div>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 </div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-12-04 21:54 GMT+01:00 matthew shears <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Greg <br>
</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Paul and David. <br>
</p>
<p>If there is WG agreement that this is a useful question I would
ask that we also consider the following small edit:<br>
</p>
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. <br>
<br>
Matthew<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div class="m_7977360651460100835moz-cite-prefix">On 04/12/2016 19:01, McAuley, David
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div class="m_7977360651460100835WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Hi
Greg,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Thank
you for your efforts to move this along.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">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, …”.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Best
regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">David<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">David
McAuley<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">International
Policy Manager<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt">Verisign
Inc.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><a href="tel:(703)%20948-4154" target="_blank" value="+17039484154">703-948-4154</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
<a class="m_7977360651460100835moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>
[<a class="m_7977360651460100835moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, December 03, 2016 11:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="m_7977360651460100835moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Ws2-jurisdiction] Proposed Additional
Question<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">All,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">1.
Whether this question should be sent out by the
Subgroup; and<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">2.
The drafting of the question.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">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:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><b><u><span style="color:rgb(116,27,71)">Fourth proposed formulation</span></u></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span style="color:rgb(116,27,71)">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? </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span style="color:rgb(116,27,71)">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><span style="color:rgb(116,27,71)">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">PLEASE
REPLY TO THIS EMAIL WITH YOUR COMMENTS AND FURTHER
PROPOSED REVISIONS. Thank you.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><u>Original
proposed formulation</u>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>Comment:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>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.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>Comment:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>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..."</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><u>Second
proposed formulation</u>:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>Comment:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>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.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>Comment:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>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.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">Third
proposed formulation/comment:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt">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.<br>
<i>... with appropriate examples, references to specific
laws, case and<br>
other studies, analysis, ...<br>
</i> 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<br>
<i>I think it might be good to couch this in terms of risk
analysis. Risk<br>
is real and analyzing it is a common activity.<br>
Also in terms of likely risk, please ...<br>
</i>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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>Comment:</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><i>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.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_7977360651460100835mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="m_7977360651460100835moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_7977360651460100835moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre class="m_7977360651460100835moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<a href="tel:+44%207712%20472987" target="_blank" value="+447712472987">+ 44 771 2472987</a></pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>