[Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions

[Greg Shatan]

I agree with CW on this one -- we are looking for first person facts,
experiences and "anecdotal evidence."  The facts are best known by the
participants, and third parties (viewing events from the outside) often
make assumptions about what happened or otherwise get things wrong.

Greg

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:04 PM, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
wrote:

> Mike: I might see the point of broadening, if possible, the scope and
> catchment of the questions, but perhaps not in that way.
>
> We should be dealing with Principals (in the sense of directly with those
> responsible for the entities concerned). Not their surrogates or other
> third parties.
> Otherwise we risk receiving second hand information with which the
> Principals may not agree, and inviting 'bulk' replies from interested
> organisations.
>
> We should also be cautious about receiving anonymous hearsay.
>
> Just a thought
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Nov 2016, at 17:20, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
>
> These seem well-stated, except perhaps they should not be looking only for
> personal experience, but broaden the request to seek any experience the
> responder is aware of?  So I suggest something like:
>
> 1.       Are you aware of any instance in which anyone's business,
> privacy, or ability to use or purchase DNS-related services, has been
> affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
>
> If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents,
> including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant
> documents.
>
> 2.       Are you aware of any instance in which ICANN's jurisdiction
> affected any dispute resolution process or litigation related to domain
> names?
>
> If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents,
> including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant
> documents.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> CW and I have agreed on the following draft:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Request for stakeholder input on jurisdiction issues*
>>
>>
>>
>> The Jurisdiction subgroup of the CCWG Accountability is asking for the
>> community to provide factual input on the following questions:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.       Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or
>> purchase DNS-related services, been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any
>> way?
>>
>> If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents,
>> including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant
>> documents.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.       Has ICANN's jurisdiction affected any dispute resolution
>> process or litigation related to domain names you have been involved in?
>>
>> If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases or incidents,
>> including the date, the parties involved, and links to any relevant
>> documents.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161123/189b6828/attachment-0001.html>