- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #40 - 1 August 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #40– 1 August 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/QAIhB A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D30AD2.FA467DD0] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Action Items: * (none) Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/Jurisdiction-2017…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/Jurisdiction-2017…> Decisions: * (none) Requests: * (none) Documents Presented * OFAC Presentation<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/OFAC%20Presentati…> * OFAC AND OTHER SANCTIONS QUESTIONS FOR ICANN LEGAL<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/OFAC%20AND%20OTHE…>

2 1

Issues List
by Greg Shatan Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

All, Here is the proposed issues list in its current state, downloaded from Google Drive. Greg

4 4

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

+1 so long as ICANN legal is fine with what was prepared by staff. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 5:20 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote: I agree we should have written responses, but they could be prepared by ICANN staff from transcripts rather than by ICANN legal more formally? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <+1%20415-738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Aug 1, 2017 9:17 PM, "parminder" <parminder(a)itforchange.net> wrote: > That would be an equivalent, but not sure if all the questions were able > to be comprehensively responded to in the call (where I was not present). > Written replies ensures completeness, both of the range of questions/ > responses, and of a particular response, which may or may not happen in a > quick tele-chat ... > > Is there an issue with getting written replies? If required they could > come with legal disclaimer etc. > > I second the request for written replies to all OFAC related questions > that were submitted by this group. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 02 August 2017 09:15 AM, avri doria wrote: > > Hi, > > With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers? > > avri > > > > On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Kavouss, > > Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a > matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual > participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether > to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which > questions). Thank you. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > > Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I > nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting > and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. > Regards > Kavouss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Hello Kavouss, A national holiday is what I meant. I was actually trying to emphasize why your concern should be considered. However it seem that didn't get to you well. :-) As to the question on whether a meeting has been postponed due to holiday(mostly US holiday) in the working group (CCWG) since this process since started in 2014. I am sure I have seen some of them in the past and can take the pain of searching the archive if it will really help you believe but most importantly if it will help better support my point for consideration but I guess it doesn't matter anymore. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 1, 2017 1:32 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Seun, I never ever referred to public holidays of any country as there might be several public holiday .I was just referring to National Holidays and not public holidays. Pls give me an example by which any meeting was organized in the past on 4th of July?¨ I certainly remember NONE Pls kindly read the statement before being sent Regards Kavouss On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Greg, all > > In the past, meetings have been shifted due to holidays in the US. Now I > understand that majority of the active participants in this working group > are probably from that side hence the shifting. > > Nevertheless that should not mean that the active participant in the > minority be denied when it comes to their scenario. I think it will not be > appropriate (in this context) to ask for consensus on this particular > subject matter since the outcome will be obvious(owning to the balance in > the group). > > I believe what will be appropriate is to have a consensus agreement that > NO meeting will be scheduled on any country's public holiday (so long as > there is at least one member of the group raising the concern). > > Regards > PS: Occasionally I for one like to have the meeting during public holiday > so it gives me more volunteer time. ;-) > Sent from my mobile > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On Aug 1, 2017 1:08 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Kavouss, > > I'm sorry that my efforts to determine the sense of the group with regard > to rescheduling did not meet with your approval. I can only try my best. > For your information, I did not receive any of your four emails objecting > to the formulation of the question until after I sent out my agenda email. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Greg, >> >> You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift >> back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled. >> >> I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change >> the date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your >> question to ask >> >> Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially >> planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August >> >> Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the >> question decide that : >> >> *"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as >> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."* >> >> *You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing >> whether or not the charge to initial date was opposed.* >> >> *You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like >> you * >> >> *How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.* >> >> I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and >> strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the >> new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day. >> >> Pls do not impose your views >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < >> kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Greg, >>> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views . >>> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in >>> the last part of this message. >>> Thank you very much for your message. >>> >>> There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or >>> double standards in that message as briefly discussed below >>> >>> >>> >>> *Your introductory / opening part of the message.* >>> >>> *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup >>> for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based >>> on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”. * >>> >>> *Reply * >>> >>> *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not >>> appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and >>> they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a >>> categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into >>> a total divergence manner * >>> >>> *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam >>> Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion >>> planned for this week,* >>> >>> *Reply* >>> >>> *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should >>> in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If >>> she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She >>> will do at the subsequent meeting.* >>> >>> *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect >>> to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial >>> well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that >>> I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms >>> and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.* >>> >>> *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff >>> as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC, >>> as I mentioned we need to clearly know the application and implementation >>> of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not >>> agreed or rejected by you.* >>> >>> *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an >>> email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is >>> a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the >>> Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”* >>> >>> *Reply.* >>> >>> *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well >>> coordinated view ha ha???* >>> >>> *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful >>> country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do >>> not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to >>> sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while >>> I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been >>> no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all* >>> >>> *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep >>> the call schedule as is”.* >>> >>> *Reply* >>> >>> *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting >>> from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you >>> did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you >>> asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my >>> intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.* >>> >>> *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether >>> there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not >>> know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant* * >>> >>> *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and >>> since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we >>> need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare >>> NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to >>> say it is a disproportionate comparison* >>> >>> *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk >>> to the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN >>> Staff REQUIREMENT you need to raise the following question * >>> >>> *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for >>> Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda >>> but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August, >>> the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the >>> meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss >>> respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland >>> and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long >>> time ago* >>> >>> *Question* >>> >>> *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to >>> revert back to Wednesday 02 August* >>> >>> *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling >>> changes.* >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as >>>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2. >>>> >>>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF): >>>> >>>> 1. Agenda >>>> 2. Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding >>>> OFAC and sanctions matters. (These are largely unedited, so there are some >>>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.) >>>> 3. Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's >>>> meeting. >>>> >>>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and >>>> future calls: >>>> a. *The call will start on time.* >>>> b. Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will >>>> not be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or >>>> comments should be raised on the list. >>>> c. We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible, >>>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list). >>>> I hope that this will make calls more productive. >>>> >>>> I look forward to our call. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > >

1 0

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

All, First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2. I have attached the following (in Word and PDF): 1. Agenda 2. Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC and sanctions matters. (These are largely unedited, so there are some ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.) 3. Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's meeting. Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove useful. *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and future calls: a. *The call will start on time.* b. Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will not be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or comments should be raised on the list. c. We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible, and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list). I hope that this will make calls more productive. I look forward to our call. Greg

3 8

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Hello Greg, all In the past, meetings have been shifted due to holidays in the US. Now I understand that majority of the active participants in this working group are probably from that side hence the shifting. Nevertheless that should not mean that the active participant in the minority be denied when it comes to their scenario. I think it will not be appropriate (in this context) to ask for consensus on this particular subject matter since the outcome will be obvious(owning to the balance in the group). I believe what will be appropriate is to have a consensus agreement that NO meeting will be scheduled on any country's public holiday (so long as there is at least one member of the group raising the concern). Regards PS: Occasionally I for one like to have the meeting during public holiday so it gives me more volunteer time. ;-) Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 1, 2017 1:08 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss, I'm sorry that my efforts to determine the sense of the group with regard to rescheduling did not meet with your approval. I can only try my best. For your information, I did not receive any of your four emails objecting to the formulation of the question until after I sent out my agenda email. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Greg, > > You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift > back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled. > > I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change > the date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your > question to ask > > Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially > planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August > > Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the > question decide that : > > *"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as there > was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."* > > *You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing whether > or not the charge to initial date was opposed.* > > *You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like > you * > > *How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.* > > I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and > strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the > new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day. > > Pls do not impose your views > > Regards > > Kavouss > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Greg, >> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views . >> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in the >> last part of this message. >> Thank you very much for your message. >> >> There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or double >> standards in that message as briefly discussed below >> >> >> >> *Your introductory / opening part of the message.* >> >> *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup >> for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based >> on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”. * >> >> *Reply * >> >> *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not >> appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and >> they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a >> categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into >> a total divergence manner * >> >> *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam >> Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion >> planned for this week,* >> >> *Reply* >> >> *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should >> in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If >> she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She >> will do at the subsequent meeting.* >> >> *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect >> to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial >> well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that >> I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms >> and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.* >> >> *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff >> as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC, >> as I mentioned we need to clearly know the application and implementation >> of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not >> agreed or rejected by you.* >> >> *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an >> email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is >> a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the >> Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”* >> >> *Reply.* >> >> *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well >> coordinated view ha ha???* >> >> *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful >> country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do >> not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to >> sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while >> I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been >> no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all* >> >> *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep >> the call schedule as is”.* >> >> *Reply* >> >> *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting >> from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you >> did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you >> asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my >> intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.* >> >> *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether >> there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not >> know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant* * >> >> *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and >> since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we >> need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare >> NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to >> say it is a disproportionate comparison* >> >> *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk to >> the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN Staff >> REQUIREMENT you need to raise the following question * >> >> *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for >> Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda >> but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August, >> the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the >> meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss >> respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland >> and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long >> time ago* >> >> *Question* >> >> *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to >> revert back to Wednesday 02 August* >> >> *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling >> changes.* >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as >>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2. >>> >>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF): >>> >>> 1. Agenda >>> 2. Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC >>> and sanctions matters. (These are largely unedited, so there are some >>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.) >>> 3. Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's >>> meeting. >>> >>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove >>> useful. >>> >>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and >>> future calls: >>> a. *The call will start on time.* >>> b. Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will not >>> be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or >>> comments should be raised on the list. >>> c. We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible, >>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list). >>> I hope that this will make calls more productive. >>> >>> I look forward to our call. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

2 1

Respecting peoples and their National Holidays
by Kavouss Arasteh July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Dear Greg, Thank you very much for your message. There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or double standards in that message as briefly discussed below *Your introductory 7 opening part of the message.* *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”. * *Reply * *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into a total divergence manner * *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion planned for this week,* *Reply* *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She will do at the subsequent meeting.* *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.* *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC, as I mentioned we need to clearly know the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.* *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”* *Reply.* *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well coordinated view ha ha???* *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all* *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep the call schedule as is”.* *Reply* *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.* *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant* * *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to say it is a disproportionate comparison* *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk to the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN Staff REQUIREMENT you need to raise the following question * *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August, the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long time ago* *Question* *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to revert back to Wednesday 02 August* *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling changes.* *Regards* *Kavouss *

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300
by Bernard Turcotte July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

All, Unfortunately Sam Eisner cannot join our Wednesday 2 August 1300 meeting but could participate on Tuesday 1 August 1300 to cover the topics of OFAC and Choice of Law from the ICANN perspective. As such Greg is suggesting that we move our scheduled meeting to Tuesday 1 August 1300 and cancel the Wednesday 2 August 1300 meeting. Please advise acct-staff(a)icann.org by 23:59 UTC 27 July if you have serious objections to this change of date. Greg will consider the responses and confirm his decision regarding this by the EOB tomorrow to allow everyone to plan accordingly. For Greg Shatan Bernard Turcotte ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

8 16

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300
by Bernard Turcotte July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

Kavouss, Staff has no authority to move the meeting, this is either a plenary or sub-group decision. As staff I can however confirm the process that was used to move the meeting. There was a poll of Jurisdiction participants (see below) who were given several days to object to the moving the meeting - no one did within the time specified - the only responses to this request were positive. Greg, upon reviewing the result of the poll, as per the process in the poll, confirmed that the meeting would be moved and staff sent calendar invites to confirm this (below also) Thank You. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 ===================================== ** *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:26 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>; ACCT-Staff ( acct-staff(a)icann.org) <acct-staff(a)icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300 All, Unfortunately Sam Eisner cannot join our Wednesday 2 August 1300 meeting but could participate on Tuesday 1 August 1300 to cover the topics of OFAC and Choice of Law from the ICANN perspective. As such Greg is suggesting that we move our scheduled meeting to Tuesday 1 August 1300 and cancel the Wednesday 2 August 1300 meeting. Please advise acct-staff(a)icann.org by 23:59 UTC 27 July if you have serious objections to this change of date. Greg will consider the responses and confirm his decision regarding this by the EOB tomorrow to allow everyone to plan accordingly. For Greg Shatan Bernard Turcotte ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 =================================== From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 4:57 PM Subject: Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting | 13:00 UTC | 1 August 2017 *Meeting moved to Tuesday, 1 August @ 13:00 UTC!!* *Please join the Work Stream 2 - **Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #40 <https://community.icann.org/x/QAIhB>** on Tuesday, 1 August @ 13:00 UTC*. Additional time zone support here <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=JURISDICTION+SUBG…>

2 1

RESPONSE REQUESTED: Questions for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC and other sanctions
by Greg Shatan July 31, 2017

July 31, 2017

All, Please respond to this email thread with any questions you have for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC or other sanctions-related matters. As you know, Sam Eisner of ICANN Legal will be joining us in our call on Tuesday, August 1 to discuss these topics. It would be good to provide some of our questions to ICANN Legal in advance, and for the Subgroup to have an idea of the questions particular participants have. I look forward to your responses to this email, which I will pass on to ICANN Legal. Best regards, Greg

4 4