[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Sun Jan 8 06:11:06 UTC 2017

It depends on what you want to achieve with the responses. If you really
want to know about most irritating qualities of Seun then ask that,
validate them, and then decide if it's bearable.

By the way, nothing requires anyone to respond to both advantages and
disadvantages. Like I said it's clear what we want to use disadvantages
for, may I know what we want to use advantages for at this time?

Regards
PS: I am not a fan of the fact that we've started this discussion but since
that is the case (and am somewhat convinced it's probably better it's
done), then we should do it right and in most efficient way. Up till today,
I still can't think of any current problem that would warrant change of
jurisdiction. Hence I look forward to reading the disadvantages.

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 8 Jan 2017 12:32 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Which question do you believe would give more the more useful data:

1.       Describe (name of individual)’s most endearing and most irritating
qualities?, or

2.       Describe (name of individual)’s most irritating qualities?

The first yields a far more comprehensive and balanced response. So does
asking about both advantages and disadvantages of jurisdiction.

*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*

*Virtualaw LLC*

*1155 F Street, NW*

*Suite 1050*

*Washington, DC 20004*

*202-559-8597/Direct*

*202-559-8750/Fax*

*202-255-6172/Cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji
*Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 4:28 PM
*To:* Greg Shatan
*Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction

*Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
REQUESTED

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

------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170108/d59ac9af/attachment-0001.html>