[Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions

[parminder]

On Saturday 26 November 2016 01:55 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Sorry, Parminder, I see this as a request for opinions, not facts. The
> whole point of this exercise is to gain specific factual cases that
> show actual issues, not to provide people with an excuse to complain
> about what the “think are the problems.” I would reject adding such a
> question to the list 
>

 Milton, you probably mean, you are against adding such a question :). I
dont see you have any authority to reject anything any more than I have
to reject your original formulation.

Was not the community accountability mechanism instituted just on the
basis of "what people think are the problems"? I saw no efforts to
gather facts with surveys 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 absence of a community accountability mechanism ?

If any such known 'facts' exist I am unaware of them and will like to know.

In case of the question of ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation
analytical facts are rather more evident, as raised in the civil society
statement.

The process we employ can lead towards certain kind of outcomes rather
than others. And I see this particular process being aimed at
foreclosing the jurisdiction of incorporation question. This is fact the
"application of public laws question" because immunity from such
application can be obtained even without changing ICANN's place of
jurisdiction.

Meaning ICANN can stay incorporated as US non profit in California, and
it exempted from application form various public laws as per the US
immunity act that I cited. I also said that, as far as I can understand,
it is possible to keep the private disputes arising from ICANN's
organisational system, including those about enforcement of community
powers, to be subject to US/ Californian law, strictly only for such
dispute resolution as per ICANN bylaws. We need to hear from this group
why this is not possible or not preferred...

parminder


>  
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:54 PM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation
> questions
>
>  
>
> I will like to add a general question to the below:
>
> 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.
>
> parminder
>
>  
>
> On Wednesday 23 November 2016 09:50 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>      
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>
>     Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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/20161126/0deccc82/attachment-0001.html>