Kavouss: Make sure that all comments are taken (and read) into account during all these discussions and kept in the public record for future generations to see. However, this does not mean that they will end up in the final document. The most important part of this process, which I can attest to be open and transparent, is the debating of all ideas. In the end is the whole group (in this specific case, its appointed members) that reaches consensus on the final document at hand. You can also add your comments during the open public comment periods for these documents. -ed On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 12:27 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Jonathan,
Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply.
I can only reply to your kind message exactly as I replied to Chuke.
An individual categorically objecting me and repeatedly referred to a certain country ' law and certain country court s and referred to past practices of that country and / or those courts of that country
This is not acceptable
I do not know what we are doing here at all in this process.
Let him brings whatever he decides as corresponding to past practices ?????? and Court opinion ????
Why we ask the people to comment when no comment is accepted? We have been doing this works always with rush and rush.
We have been ignoring comments of participants .My comments were openly and publicly ignored and rejected during several CWG meetings in the name of time constrains.
It seems that some people wish to do the work among /between themselves in a private manner and no one else is allowed to talk .If he talks he is told that his comments does not comply with past practice nor is it compatible with decision , opinion or order of certain courts
Everything seems to purely formalistic
This is not an open, democratic, transparent, fair button-up multistakeholder approach.
It is a dictated approach via past practices and court opinion, practices of some particular country style
When i am told that the draft shall be considered as final and definitive even if it is being sent for comments there is no opportunity at all to make any farther comments ,what so ever, because our top high qualify man does speak for every body and no comments is accepted is it not non democratic ?
With his sharp criticism he pushed me from commenting by imposing his interoperation and his views of legal text on me.
I still does not understand what is the legal meaning of “collectively and unanimously " as the term " unanimously also includes collectively"
Nor I am in agreement with «breaching repeatedly" as breaching itself is breaching even if not repeated it is breaching and contravene the agreement
I also do not agree with the term “jointly and severally”.
I also disagree saying X will do an action as «will is a deterministic verb and no one could guarantee that anyone else will something. The proper term is shall (mandatory) or should (optional / quasi mandatory)
There are many. Other parts that I have commented on
What you all saying in the name of «time constrain" that I must ignore all this and blindly agree with what you are dictating me
You have decided to reject my comments
You then need to acknowledge that all comments that I have made are valid but due to time constrains you are not able to take them into account nor discuss and analyses them
Best Regards
Kavouss _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship