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@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@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@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@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@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@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@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