[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

[Greg Shatan]

Seun,

Why do you suggest removing "advantages"?

Greg

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Greg,
>
> Thanks for sending in this summary. I think the suggestion about removing
> "advantages" will be applicable to any of the question 4 alternatives.
>
> For instance I prefer "alternative 1" without including advantages. So I
> suggest modifying text of "alternative 6" to the following:
>
> "Remove advantages from any alternative that gains more traction"
>
> In that case, I will choose alternative 1+6
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 7 Jan 2017 7:23 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> We made some good progress on our call on Friday, January 6.  Following a
> wide-ranging discussion, we were able to make some headway on refining the
> draft questionnaire.  I encourage those who missed the call to review the
> recording and notes.
>
> Specifically, we came to a preliminary conclusion on revising the Preamble
> and Question 1, subject to comment on this list and a final discussion on
> our next call (Tuesday, January 10 at 13:00).  Question 2 had no revisions
> suggested, and Question 3 had only one revision suggested.
>
> The Preamble and Questions 1, 2 and 3 (with the proposed revision in
> "track changes") are in the first document below (Word and PDF documents)
> and also in text below.  *Please review this version of the Preamble and
> Questions 1-3 and provide support (or lack of support) and/or comments for
> this portion.*
>
> We also discussed several aspects of Question 4, including the purpose of
> the question; whether the question is different in nature from Questions
> 1-3; whether or not the question should be included in this questionnaire,
> a subsequent questionnaire or not at all; the types of responses desired
> (and the types expected); and the drafting of the question itself.  With
> these topics and seven drafting alternatives (and the ability to pick and
> choose elements of those alternatives), this required more time than we had
> left on the call.  Therefore, we did not come to any preliminary
> conclusions on Question 4.
>
> The drafting alternatives for Question 4 (including the current version)
> are in the second draft document (Word and PDF).  Please look at the
> alternatives carefully, particularly if you have not supported sending
> question 4 in its current form. * Please review the options for Question
> 4 and respond, indicating (a) Which version(s) of Question 4 you could
> support and which you would object to, and (b) If the answer to (a) is
> "none," how you would change or combine one or more alternatives in order
> to support it.*
>
> We will conclude this discussion on our call of January 10, so please
> provide your thoughts and responses before then.  Thank you.
>
> Greg
>
> *VERSION OF PREAMBLE AND QUESTIONS 1-3 FOR REVIEW*
>
> *PREAMBLE*
>
> The newly-adopted ICANN bylaws created several Work Stream 2
> accountability subgroups. One of them, the subgroup on Jurisdiction, is
> posing the questions below for community input into the subgroup’s
> deliberations.
>
> As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi)
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article27>
> and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723827&preview=/58723827/58726532/Main%20Report%20-%20FINAL-Revised.pdf>
> ,[1] the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction*-related
> questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for
> dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation
> of policies.
>
> To help the subgroup in these endeavors we are asking you to consider and
> respond to the following specific questions. In this regard, the subgroup
> is asking for concrete, factual submissions (positive, negative, or
> neutral) that will help ensure that the subgroup’s deliberations are
> informed, fact-based, and address real issues. The subgroup is interested
> in all types of jurisdiction-related factual experiences, not just those
> involving actual disputes/court cases.
>
> *QUESTION 1*
>
> Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain
> name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction* in any way?
>
> If the answer is Yes, please describe specific cases, situations or
> incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any
> relevant documents.  Please note that “affected” may refer to positive
> and/or negative effects.
>
> *QUESTION 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, situations or
> incidents, including the date, the parties involved, and links to any
> relevant documents.  Please note that “affected” may refer to positive
> and/or negative effects.
>
> *QUESTION 3*
>
> Do you have copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of
> experiences of other parties that would be responsive to the questions
> above?
>
> If the answer is yes, please provide these copies and/or links.  Please
> provide either first-person accounts or reliable third-party accounts such
> as news reports; please do not provide your own version of events.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [1] *See* CCWG-Accountability Main Report, paragraphs 6 and 234, and
> Annex 12, paragraphs 25-31.
>
> *  For this Questionnaire, “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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170107/87da138b/attachment-0001.html>