[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
John Laprise
jlaprise at gmail.com
Sun Jan 8 07:41:33 UTC 2017
Oops…my mistake. Thanks Greg!
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Consulting Scholar
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 1:39 AM
To: John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
Cc: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>; 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
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 <mailto: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/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> [mailto: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 <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr> ; Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:(202)%20559-8597> /Direct
202-559-8750 <tel:(202)%20559-8750> /Fax
202-255-6172 <tel:(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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20170108/20597d5e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list