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 *