[Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 18:39:34 UTC 2016
Dear All,
The issue raised by Parminder and to s'omettent by Avri is valid
We have many other questions to raise among which is how we could put ICANN
also under Public Law which is currently exempted under UA Acts of Immunity.
We are dealing with Global multistakeholder and NOT
American multistakeholder
Regards
Kavouss
2016-11-26 19:33 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
>
> Again, I have no objection to finding out more about specific US laws that
> "could" be used to interfere with ICANN's ability to provide service to
> customers in other countries. I just don't want it to be part of the
> fact-finding solicitation.
>
> CW and I proposed a couple of "has happened, has affected you" questions;
> you are proposing a "could happen, might affect anyone" question. Both are
> valid, but it's a mistake to mix those two. We want to keep them very
> distinct. If nothing has actually happened to you and you have no specific
> cases to cite, you simply shouldn't respond to the factual solicitation. I
> don't want to see the fact-finding results complicated and polluted by a
> bunch of hypotheticals and opinions, which is what is sure to happen if you
> tack a Parminderesque question onto the other two.
>
> If you want to organize a separate, second solicitation, go ahead.
> Although I think that kind of speculation could easily take place on the
> list and by soliciting opinions from legal experts. At any rate nothing
> confines this group to a single solicitation.
>
> --MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
> > Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 11:57 AM
> > To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation
> questions
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > But you ignored my first and last paragraph that dealt with your survey
> > questions:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ....
> >
> > But first we need more of the background information, the so-called
> facts.
> > We
> > have to remember that with NTIA oversight, the application of some
> laws
> > may
> > have been different than it might be going forward. We need to
> understand
> > whether that is the case or not, and whether there are laws that
> could now
> > be
> > applied to ICANN's activities that were not applied before.
> >
> > In other words my answer also addressed the need for a further question
> that
> > does relate to real and existing issues, just going beyond ones with a
> previous
> > case history.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 26-Nov-16 11:37, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >> While I strongly support keeping the incorporation in CA in the US
> > >> because the yet to tested accountability process depends on that, I
> > >> also support an effort to look for immunity from laws that affect
> > >> ICANN ability to serve clients internationally - be they governments,
> > >> companies or individuals. This immunity should be restricted to
> > >> ICANN performance of its mission in relation to international
> > >> entities and _not_ relate to contract law, labor law or local
> ordinances on
> > garbage pickup.
> > > I don't object to "efforts to look for immunity from laws that affect
> ICANN's
> > ability to serve clients internationally." I just don't think modifying
> the current
> > questions is the right way to go about that. You are mixing up two
> distinct
> > efforts. One is an attempt to gather facts and cases about real,
> existing issues.
> > The other is an attempt to erect new safeguards to guard against
> possible but
> > hypothetical problems. The hypotheticals can be discussed and developed
> > within the jurisdiction subgroup, there is no need to circulate
> questions about
> > them.
> > >
> > > If you mix those two things up you will undermine and possibly destroy
> the
> > value of the first, and possibly both, because it will not be clear what
> we are
> > asking people. So, please, keep our questions focused and clear, and
> pursue
> > other agendas in other ways.
> > >
> > > --MM
> > >
> > >> I do not think that this immunity can be gained in the WS2 timeframe,
> > >> but I do believe that WS2 could initiate yet another CCWG effort to
> > >> work on that, if the consensus of the group were to do so.
> > >>
> > >> But first we need more of the background information, the so-called
> > >> facts. We have to remember that with NTIA oversight, the application
> > >> of some laws may have been different than it might be going forward.
> > >> We need to understand whether that is the case or not, and whether
> > >> there are laws that could now be applied to ICANN's activities that
> were
> > not applied before.
> > >>
> > >> avri
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 26-Nov-16 05:08, parminder wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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@
> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> > >>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> > >> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20161126/1ab1ac84/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list