[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Sun Jan 8 07:39:16 UTC 2017

We are only discussing a questionnaire here, not the conclusions of the
subgroup.  Let us not jump to conclusions.

Greg

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:37 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> There *is* mutual understanding; just not mutual agreement. There’s a
> difference.
>
>
>
> There seems to be rough consensus with a few vocal dissenters. No problem.
> We issue a majority and a minority report expressing the broad consensus of
> the ws2 jurisdiction wg while noting the objections.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> Consulting Scholar
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 7, 2017 6:11 PM
> *To:* Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>;
> Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; León Felipe
> Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> It is midnight here. This discussion will lead to nowhere .There is no
> mutual understanding.
>
> Every one pushes for its own views.
>
> There is no common points to discuss.
>
> We should drop the entire agenda.
>
> Refer the matter back to CCWG.
>
> A STRONG OPPOSITION to discuss a choice of juridiction then we discuss
> this matter.
>
> There is no fair basis for discussion
>
> Look at those commenting' who they are .
>
> Parminder,  occasionally Pedro Kavouss  and the rest are coming from
> opposition camp
>
> This is not  .It is not dividing .
>
> THIS DISCUSSION WILL GET NOQWHERE  untill and unless there is a mutual
> understanding.
>
> But one camp does not wish to consider the problem of other camp.
>
> People going from right to left from up to down but confusing others.
>
> The issue is clear.
>
> Why we are obliged to accept the CA OR FERDERAL JURISDICTION>?
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2017-01-08 0:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push
> the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN
> CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another
> jurisdiction.
>
> This is the question
>
> I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another
> jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
>
> Your views is fully respected as it express your association, affiliation
> and patriotisme but others have different views.
>
> Tell me if in a case of dispute why two parties can not opt 7 choice for a
> diffèrent jurisdiction than that of US.
>
> Please kindly understand the concerns of others .
>
> Pls kindly do not push for status quo.
>
>  WHY one should be obliged to accept the CA OR FEDERAL LAW. WHY THEY
> SHOULD BE DEPROVED from agreeing on diffèrent juridiction say Swiss law .
>
> I am not looking for any confrontation with you or people in your camp but
> I wish to establish a balance situation and fair treatment
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-01-08 0:44 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> Yes I agree with you on that but the way the statement is formulated push
> the people to reach the same conclusions as you reached. Since ICANN IS IN
> CA then there is not any possibility to agree on a choice of another
> jurisdiction.
>
> This is the question
>
> I believe that the parties must be given a choice to opt for another
> jurisdiction if mutually agreed.
>
> a
>
>
>
> 2017-01-08 0:32 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:
>
> 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170108/f3e21c40/attachment-0001.html>