[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Sun Jan 8 20:17:26 UTC 2017

Hello

Just to clarify first: I am in total agreement that ICANN  should
remain incorporated in the US. I have no intention to fight the imperialist
windmills.

While I agree that current ICANN's jurisdiction has worked  for 19 years, I
think we need to add that it has worked well for the majority.

For the minority, it has caused trouble occasionally which can be fixed by
providing some solutions and it does not have to change ICANN's
jurisdiction.

I am still researching about  this and need more evidence but can give you
a couple of examples:

1. ICANN is under no obligation to get an OFAC license for registrars
applicants who reside in sanctioned countries. Refer to:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en

 "Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules,
and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade
sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control
("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been
imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that
appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons
(the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services
to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to
SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption.
ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an
individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANNhas been
requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs,
but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been
granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is
under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC
could decide not to issue a requested license."

2. When an Iranian organizations wanted to join APRALO as an ALS  (no
application was submitted), we were informally advised that we might want
to look into problems that OFAC arises for such application. That was a
very informal advice probably from a not very well informed source. But we
need to look into this. (anecdotal evidence, might have a very easy
solution)

3. And the famous example of the Iranian ccTLD case. Which I have brought
up on this list multiple times. What solutions do we have for preventing
such cases happening in the future?  Are we just going to hope that US
courts will rule in favor of ICANN?

This is not only an Iranian related issue. It also affects ordinary people
in other countries who are on the sanctioned list.

I don't know if providing recommendations for solving the issues I raised
above is in the mandate of this group.  All I aim for is to find effective
solutions for problems similar to the ones I mentioned.

Farzaneh

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:22 PM, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> David, all
>
> I am similarly concerned.  Please see inline
>
> On 07/01/2017 21:55, McAuley, David wrote:
>
> In my personal opinion we are wandering blindly into unwise, unacceptable
> territory – very possibly inviting a quagmire of suppositions and opinions
> that would pose the near certainty of derailing our work.
>
>
> Agreed and I have a related concern.  As far as I am aware we have not
> defined nor agreed what purpose/end the results of the questionnaire would
> be put.  And how we would deal with the results, what weight the results
> would be given in determining our direction or way forward, or more
> importantly, any "findings" of the group (although I am a little at a loss
> to think how we might agree them).
>
> Given the lackluster support for the various alternatives on the last call
> I am concerned that there seems to be little support, or an acceptable
> level of comfort, for this approach as a whole.
>
>
>
> We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I am
> unconvinced that the questionnaire as currently proposed could actually
> lead to a “good” outcome so I don’t see the good at peril here.
>
>
>
> If we conclude that a questionnaire must go out then I support questions
> 1-3 as widely supported in the survey we did  – with no question 4.
>
>
> This would be my preference as well, especially as some of the alternate
> versions for Q4 seems to go far beyond the relatively limited mandate of
> this group.
>
>
>
> If any form of Q4 is to be included it must be fact-based, not
> opinion-based. Here is what I suggest as a compromise path to resolve the
> Q4 issue – basically one question in two parts:
>
>
>
> *Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has
> been unable to pursue its Mission because of its jurisdiction? If so,
> please provide documentation.*
>
>
>
> *Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative
> jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing its
> Mission? If so, please provide documentation.*
>
> Such a questionnaire could of course lead to a full-scale legal
> due-diligence exercise for suggested alternatives as we recently did with
> respect to California in Work Stream One (because we would need a
> demonstration that any such alternative, while possibly solving one
> perceived problem, did not allow others).
>
>
>
> Current jurisdiction has worked well for nineteen years and we just
> finished reorganizing things at great expense to better fit within
> California with enforceable Empowered Community powers. Is WS2 to change
> that?
>
>
> That is clearly not this group's mandate.
>
>
>
> I think we have a different mission than that to accomplish by June. Our
> mission is essentially to look at settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues
> and right now that seems like plenty to try to get done by June.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> That Q4 is still under consideration, after failing to gain a clear
> consensus and even getting substantially less support than question 5
> (which basically asked if Q’s 1-3 should go out if Q4 was rejected), is
> puzzling. How can we release Q4 in these circumstances?
>
>
>
> This is too important to “wing it and let’s see what happens.” We don’t do
> survey questions for a living. Don’t we at least need to guarantee that our
> questions stay within ICANN’s mission and call for answers to do the same?
> Mathieu, as I recall, said in chat that respondents often go beyond the
> bounds of what is asked – that tendency itself seems enough to delete
> Question 4 at the very least.
>
>
>
> We should just look at the jurisdiction of contracts and dispute
> settlements, as paragraph 06 of the Final Report puts it.
>
>
> A reasonable place to "restart" our work, I would suggest.
>
>
>
> Finally, the questionnaire is sensitive enough that we will likely
> encounter the same debate when we run it by the full CCWG.
>
>
> Most likely.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 07, 2017 1:23 PM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire:
> RESPONSE REQUESTED
>
>
>
> 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 listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170108/272cf329/attachment-0001.html>