[Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions

Mon Nov 28 14:25:11 UTC 2016

Of course.   Independent documentation would be a primary resource
irrespective of who pointed us to it.  We would also accept direct
experience conveyed by a participant.  What we don't want is "I heard ..."
or "my understanding is that ..."

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key:
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Perez Galindo,
Rafael
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 4:04 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions

+1 To Mike Rodenbaugh

If we really want to gather all relevant information and have the broadest
possible input to maximize the quality of our discussions and of course of
our output, we should not constraint our sources of possible knowledge.

My point is that to run the risk of having too much information is always
preferable to the risk of having too little and miss out on important issues
and experiences that could very well feed our discussions. That is why we
should broaden the request, even if we have to separate the questions or
organize it in a way that satisfies concerns expressed by some.

Rafael

________________________________

De: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
Fecha: 23. November 2016 um 20:31:08 MEZ
De: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Asunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions

I think we want the broadest range of experiences, but of course would not
consider hearsay.  If anyone can point us to documents about anyone else's
experiences, then what is the harm in considering those documents?  To me,
the worse risk is that we don't hear about them at all because the person
who had the experience does not see our survey.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchcon
sulting.com>> wrote:
+1  Everyone has opinions and second hand information.  We want primary
sources on t his ...

P

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchcons
ulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/<http://www.r
edbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>>
My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/

From:
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at i
cann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:06 PM
To: CW Mail
<mail at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] first draft of fact solicitation questions

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B1.415.738.8087>
http://rodenbaugh.com<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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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