[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]

Sat Dec 31 18:20:06 UTC 2016

Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful.  Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist.  Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits.  asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-) 
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not.  It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical.  Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all
Paul
--
Paul Rosenzweig
Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan  gregshatanipc at gmail.com :

>I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
>
>Greg
>
>On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji  < seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote:
>>The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
>>
>>Regards 
>>PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
>>
>>Sent from my LG G4
>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>>On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" < gregshatanipc at gmail.com > wrote:
>>>REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment).  I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
>>>
>>>To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
>>>
>>>Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
>>>Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
>>>Question 2 -- No change
>>>Question 3 -- No change.
>>>Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
>>>
>>>Thank you for your responses.
>>>
>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>From:  Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
>>>Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
>>>Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
>>>To:  ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>
>>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. 
>>>
>>>Please respond here, rather than there.  Thank you.
>>>
>>>Greg
>>>
>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>From:  Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
>>>Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
>>>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
>>>To: " accountability-cross-community at icann.org " < accountability-cross-community at icann.org >
>>>
>>>
>>>All:
>>>
>>>Two quick but important points:
>>>
>>>1.  We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. 
>>> I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email.     
>>>
>>>With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG.  If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
>>>
>>>2.  Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of 
>>>problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each 
>>>problem  on our list.  We are still working on 
>>>problems .  For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
>>> problem .  We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
>>> problem it is intended to solve.  If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our 
>>>problems , we won't discuss it.  
>>>
>>>We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any 
>>>problems  it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location.  "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way.  Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of 
>>>problems .  I strongly suggest we refocus on 
>>>problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies.  Once we've agreed on a list of 
>>>problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
>>>
>>>Our working method of dealing with 
>>>problems  first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4.  Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues.  Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for 
>>>problems  will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
>>>
>>>Greg
>>>The following responses were received on the Accountability list :
>>>
>>>Parminder : 
>>>Greg/ All
>>>I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
>>>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.
>>>( * For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
>>>ENDS
>>>
>>>Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
>>>
>>> Kavouss Arasteh: 
>>>Grec,
>>>Tks again,
>>>As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
>>>I could agree with formulation of Parminder
>>>Regards
>>>Kavouss 
>>>
>>>Sam Lanfranco:
>>>Greg, 
>>>
>>>Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a  Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue . It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.  
>>>
>>>Sam Lanfranco
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>>Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20161231/2eb9360a/attachment-0001.html>