[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Sat Jan 7 20:59:10 UTC 2017

Hello Greg,

Thanks for the follow-up, my reasons are quite simple:

1. The goal is to find out if there are indeed valid problems. Hence the
question should be framed as such

2. Since this is not an exercise of "advantages vs disadvantages", asking
for advantages now will not be as useful as knowing the disadvantages,
confirming they are indeed valid problems and then we criticise those
problems (including stating possible advantages we will loose if we needed
to solve the problem identifed).

3. We just cannot exhaust the advantages via this question and if the
responses we get is what we will be basing our discussions on then we
should not start this process on a competitive grounds.

4. It is not clear what exactly we intend to use the advantages for at this
initial stage but it's clear why we are asking for disadvantages.

For clarity this is not a redline for me and I will be fine if the group
does not accept the suggestion  so long as adequate reason is provided (I
note Paul opposes, will be good to read reasons). Irrespective of the
group's decision, it should be clear that the volume of advantages vis
disadvantages would not matter but the substance of the responses will be
most important. Hence I hope we will address each of the problems
identified adequately (including addressing them with points that may
exceed those in the responses).

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 7 Jan 2017 8:10 p.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20170107/95a1a48e/attachment.html>