Grec,
Thanks for the message,
Whether you strongly object or simply object to my statement that does not change the situation.
According to your calculation ,out of 22 there  were 8 US in the last it was 50/50 .It is a clear IMBALANCE .i.e. one third US and 2/ 3  all other countries in one and 50% US and 50% other countries .WAS is not a clear Imbalance.
Please be kindly totally neutral and not defend something which was not valid
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-05 23:39 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,

On the call today (which you attended), we decided that the questions the Subgroup approves would be presented to the CCWG for a first and second reading before being sent out.  This is consistent with the approach taken with the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup questionnaire.  I assume that resolves your current concern.  Also, as I'm sure you are aware, any deliverable approved by the Subgroup will then go to the CCWG for a first and second reading as well.  The Jurisdiction Subgroup is no different than any other subgroup in regard to these working methods.

However, I strongly object to any attempt to delegitimize the work of the Jurisdiction Subgroup based on the completely incorrect statement that there are very few participants in the group other than "US nationals or US affiliated" persons.

I am confident that we can "count on" the work of this Subgroup as fully and completely as any other Subgroup.  Any implication otherwise is incorrect at best.  Assuming arguendo that this is an appropriate way to analyze the validity of a working group or subgroup, the facts actually destroy your conclusion rather than supporting it.

I'm sure the Co-Chairs are aware of the actual facts, which is that our group is large and geographically diverse.  To remind them (and you), the list of participants is below.  At least 40 of the 63 participants are non-US.  

Actual participation is similar.  On the call last week, 14 out of 22 participants attending the call were non-US: Amrita Vasudevan, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Parminder Jeet Singh, Paul McGrady, Pedro da Silva, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Vinay Kesari, Wale Bakare.  

On this week's call, the balance was "only" 50/50, if you include Javier Rua-Jovet (Puerto Rico) who was an observer/guest (and new NARALO rep to ALAC).  Without Javier, non-US participants were again in the majority.

As you can see, the concern you raise is not only baseless, it is completely counterfactual. I thank you for the opportunity to examine the facts and point this out.

Best regards,

Greg



 
  1. Greg Shatan - Co-Rapporteur
  2. Vinay Kesari - Co-Rapporteur
  3. Adebunmi Akinbo
  4. Agustina Callegari
  5. Alain Bidron
  6. Amrita Vasudevan
  7. Andreea Brambilla
  8. Andrew Harris
  9. Avri Doria
  10. Ayden Férdeline
  11. Barbara Wanner
  12. Cheryl Langdon-Orr
  13. Christopher Wilkinson
  14. Claudio Lucena
  15. Corinne Cath
  16. David McAuley
  17. Doaa Shendy
  18. Edward Morris
  19. Erich Schweighofer
  20. Farzaneh Badii
  21. Finn Petersen
  22. Ghislain de Salins
  23. Griffin Barnett
  24. Guru Acharya
  25. Haoran Huang
  26. Herb Waye
  27. Jean-Jacques Subrena
    ​t​
  28. Jeff Neuman
  29. Jimson Olufuye
  30. John Curran
  31. Jordan Carter
  32. Jorge Cancio
  33. Jyoti Panday
  34. Kavouss Arasteh
  35. Konstantinos Komaitis
  36. Mary Uduma
  37. Matthew Shears
  38. Mike Rodenbaugh
  39. Milton Mueller
  40. Nigel Roberts
  41. Pär Brumark
  42. Parminder Jeet Singh
  43. Paul McGrady
  44. Paul Rosenzweig
  45. Pedro da Silva
  46. Phil Buckingham
  47. Philip Corwin
  48. Phillip Marano
  49. Pranesh Prakash
  50. Rafael Perez Galindo
  51. Renu Sirothiya
  52. Robin Gross
  53. Samantha Eisner
  54. Simon Jansson
  55. Snehashish Ghosh
  56. Sonigitu Ekpe
  57. Steve DelBianco
  58. Steve Metalitz
  59. Tijani Ben Jemaa
  60. Tatiana Tropina
  61. Tom Dale
  62. Vidushi Marda
  63. Wale Bakare



On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Grec,
The limited no. of participant except US nationals or US affiliated in your group is very few thus you can not and shall not count on that .The CCWG is the most legal, valid, and countable .
Pls note that there is a total imbalance of participation of non US.
I have already made known this fact to CCWG Co-Chairs.
No questions should be sent out before being discussed and agreed
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-05 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,

Based on our work plan, we will get to remedies after we identify and agree upon issues.  If there are issues for which immunity should be considered as a possible remedy, we will discuss this concept at that time.  The same is true of the concept of "additional jurisdiction."  I have not seen the third issue raised in this group, nor is it mentioned in Annex 12, so I can't say that this issue is in scope for this subgroup.

"Question 3" is on the agenda as item #3.  Please be more cautious in raising complaints of "suppression," as there was no suppression.  The additional question is on the mailing list, just in a different email thread, as it has been all along.  

Now that you've brought up the issue of support for this question, I need to say that your count is incorrect.  There has been a good deal more opposition than support for sending out this third question.  Nonetheless, we've given this question the best chance to gain further support by continuing to discuss how it could be revised, which is only fair.  But it's also fair to understand that support for this question has been limited so far, compare to those who have voiced objections to it.

Greg



On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Grec,

When you address the following ISSUES:

1.Immunity taking into account who / what is immune vis a vis whom / what?

2. Provision of additional jurisdiction such as what, Swiss jurisdiction or what?

3. Sovereignty of States via a vis Californian Law or law of any State? 

Please kindly put back the question 3 which was on the mailing list till yesterday evening Central European time but it was suppressed as results of only two objections while many others were in favour of it with some language aligbnment

Regards


2016-12-05 6:09 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,


Here is the agenda for Meeting #12 at 19:00 UTC on December 5.  Please continue to discuss the "experience solicitation" questions and the proposed additional question between now and then.  Attention to the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing is also important to keep our work moving forward.

Greg

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction