[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Mon Jan 9 23:51:33 UTC 2017

Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some
support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be
able to gain consensus support.  Below (and attached in redline) is my
suggested combination:

Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been
unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability
mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide
documentation, including  specific examples and  references to specific
laws.

Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative
jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual
operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please
provide documentation, including  specific examples, references to specific
laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.

I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding
Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org
> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
>
>
> In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10
> January is at 13:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> *Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
>
> Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
> *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <
> milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> What time is the call tomorrow?  I apologize, but I lost track of our
> scheduling decisions.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>;
> 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with
> finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning
> its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far
> too much time on this questionnaire matter.
>
>
>
> *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 <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM
> *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L'
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.”  If
> that is my choice I choose none.  If the idea of separation gains any
> traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any
> better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu <milton at gatech.edu>]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out.  Some
> feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing.
> While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the
> idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not
> going to try any longer to change their minds.
>
>
>
> MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive
> at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach”
> are they not?
>
> The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the
> others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable
> to a broader range of WG participants.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=hkHuO6pAbFTyCqdbOGTfbuIMRHWwpEYn1sKtA6h-Tpg&e=>
> 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/20170109/7173fb79/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Question 4 Combination.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170109/7173fb79/Question4Combination-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Question 4 Combination.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170109/7173fb79/Question4Combination-0001.pdf>