[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 8 14:31:04 UTC 2017
The fact that this group, whose mandate is to discuss issues/ problems
about current ICANN jurisdiction, formore than a monthnow has been
blocking a simple process of seeking public views on an open ended
question about the very mandate of the groups - asking, what people
think are the existing or possible issues/ problems with current ICANN
jurisdiction, is almost shocking.
Some people said, we cannot just ask about problems without also also
asking about advantages of current jurisdictions, and we said, no
problem, do it, add to the question. Then they said, we should also know
the possible problems with any alternative offered, and we said, sure,
please do ask. But none of these accommodations has meant anything.
Members here have actually said, seeking public inputs can be dangerous,
who knows what can come in. And it will derail the process!! Public
inputs will derail the process?! Even if we send out a question, we
should mould the question in manners that people are able to say only
some things and not others.
This is as good or bad a parade of anti democratic anti public sentiment
as one can ever come across. Such views are reported from 17th-18th
century, when democratic institutions had just begun to take shape -
about how masses can be dangerous, and one has to be very careful about
letting high matters be put into public hands. But in 21st century?!
I have witnessed scores if not hundreds of questionnaires and
consultations by public body -- all of them aim to get the largest
possible set of relevant information. While the questions are specific,
I have never seen them intend to circumvent the kind of responses that
could come. And most of them, in fact, have open ended question(s) in
addition to very specific ones. So, what is it about ICANN that it must
be so nervous and secretive? What makes it afraid?
parminder
On Sunday 08 January 2017 01:09 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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; Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de
> <mailto: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 <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>:
>
> 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 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%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-
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>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
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170108/905aeef0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list