Dear Greg

Pls indicate what do you mean by

I have taken the remaining elements of your text into account and given them due consideration

To this part I am ok but you continued

 but they are not included in the document,

What is the meaning of you have tajen into account but not included in the document

This is senseles confusing frustrating

Either you have taken them into acount thus they should have been included

Or if they were not included in the doc, the term " They have been taken into account " ids totally senseless

I do not know with what language I should talk to you

Do you speak French

Pls I am tired to be confused

I am spending hours and hours to concvinve you that these points should be addressed like two other examples that were included ( Netherland Antiles .... and .... )

I do not know why I am pushed to be confused.

You should not decide to reject them You are expected to be fair.$I kniow many of you do not intend to address point raised by some of us because you want to tailored the report in a way that satifsfy you.

Pls once again include them in one way or other

I am not convinced

Regards

Kavouss

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Kavouss, 

I have taken the remaining elements of your text into account and given them due consideration, but they are not included in the document, for the reasons I have twice set forth with great care and detail.  Please read my detailed explanations and respond to the substance contained in them if you have any remaining concerns.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Greg

Sorry to disturb you at your religeous feast .Pls kindly refer me to the area of the text when other elements sent to you few hours ago has bedn taken into account .Just few mints for you to highlight those, if considred as you know where they have been included and with what language which may not be exactly identical as proposed

Sorry to bother you again

Regards

Kavouss

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Kavouss, 

As previously noted, I have responded in detail (twice) regarding the remaining elements of your suggested text.  Please read these responses.  I assure you it will take far less time to read them than it took me to write them.  Please reply to the points raised in these responses if you have any remaining concerns.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg

In addition to the elements of my last proposal that you have  included in the last version you have posted quite recently , I have had other proposal  which I did ask you to look at them and include them either in the itroduction ,as relevant, or preamble to the Recommendation . See below

Greg

1.The last sentence reads” unless the results of the study demonstrate that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to pursue these licenses.”To this effect the first sentensce below “ what Criteria……inappropriate Because you qualify the study by being inappropriate and I did suggest what criteria will be use to make the judgement

Thus the first sentence would fir .You may include my comment by modifying the sentence as follows

UNLESS ,USING APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, THE RESULTS OF STUDY DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO PURSUE THESE STUDIES.

This has been covered in part

 

2.

Generally, ICANN  should pursue the application for general license at arliest time and should  remind the registries not to copy and paste the general agreements found in US-based registrars.

This also fits

 This has been covered in part

3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.

This part is talking about awareness that was extensively discussed and thus fits

This has been covered in part

4. There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions

This could be included in appropriate part .if it does not fit with the recommends part

This has NOT been covered in part

5.Examples of that are related to Godaddy and Online Nic, which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction coountries. This could be included in the introductory part of the OFAC sanctions and registrar

This has NOT been covered in part

6 Registrars  should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.

This could be included either in the recommends part or preamble of the recommend part

This seems not covered.

Pls kindly advise about those which are not covered in any part of the report or if covered , I have nor seen it

I am grateful to you for that guidance

Regards

Kavouss