[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Sat Jan 7 21:28:19 UTC 2017

Edit: "...I note that *Phil*...." not Paul

Cheers!

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 7 Jan 2017 9:59 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20170107/048d45d9/attachment-0001.html>