Kavouss Again, I admire your professional skill in the area of multinational negotiation. It's always a great rule-of-thumb that if there's nothing to object to in the substance of a communication, then one must attack the messenger, of course. But the fact is you are plain wrong here. And I see no need to make apology for being so straightforward. (I'm from the County of Lancaster which has much common culture withh the County of York). I welcome Thomas's intervention which is helpful in the extreme. I really don't care if Thomas sent his email in personal capacity, as a member of the subgroup, as CCWG co-chair or as Grand Poobah, First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral,Archbishop, Lord Mayor and Lord High Everything Else. It's the objective content of the message that counts for all here, and it's really helpful to see this reminder of the delicate balance here. Nigel On 06/09/17 08:41, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Thomas Thank you for yr warning At some time frame you and other co-chairs mentioned that until the issue comes to CCWG Plenary you refrain intervening in the activities of sub groups . You have crossed that limit and for the second time intervening in this regard You intervened before on the activities of the Jurisdiction group when all of a sudden you stepped in and proposed a consensus aimed text to which few people including my self objected. However, should your comment was only as a participant to Jurisdiction group it is more than welcome but if it is in the capacity of co chair it contradict the policy of not intervening in the activities of any subgroup. I am sorry to be so straightforward Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Sep 2017, at 11:46, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction