WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Greg What do you mean by sub group decides You are blocking all my roquets I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group I am tired of thus sort of blacking. You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent. Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour Pls explain. You act negatively to all my proposal You di not want to find a solution for these problems You just wasting our time We disagree with your working method. Either behave or ..... Reply. Explain There are motivation behind your unfair actions Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Dear all, Let me, once again, call everyone to remain respectful and collegiate as our group has characterized to be since the beginning. We are all volunteers and we all deserve respect to the work we do and to our points of view. I understand there might be frustration when our views do not gain traction at a subgroup level but we need to keep our energy focused on building solutions and in line with our working methods. That is, if a subgroup considers that a given request is relevant to the work the subgroup is carrying then the subgroup may request follow up or action on the item. If the subgroup considers a given topic or request does not seem to add to the subgroups work at that particular point in time, then the subgroup members are encouraged to focus their energy in continue to build consensus on the topics being discussed. That doesn’t rule out, of course, any views or requests but it does subject said views or requests to the decision making process of each subgroup or the plenary as the case may be. My respect and recognition to all members and participants of the different subgroups. Let us continue in good spirit the work that we have been trusted with. Kind regards, León
El 01/08/2017, a las 16:35, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Greg What do you mean by sub group decides You are blocking all my roquets I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group I am tired of thus sort of blacking. You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent. Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour Pls explain. You act negatively to all my proposal You di not want to find a solution for these problems You just wasting our time We disagree with your working method. Either behave or ..... Reply. Explain There are motivation behind your unfair actions Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Thank you, Leon, This subgroup is handling perhaps the most sensitive issue in Work Stream Two - and we are now at the difficult time near the end of deliberations if we are to get our report out on schedule. Greg has, as rapporteur, what is basically a near-impossible job and he has handled it willingly and essentially by himself - and, in my personal opinion, fairly. I thought Sam's presentation yesterday was very informative and it is all on record - her presentation as well as her extemporaneous answers to questions. Again, in my personal opinion, this is sufficient record. I disagree with the criticisms and voice my support for Greg's leadership. I hope and trust that we can all remain constructively engaged as we do the heavy-lifting to bring this important work to conclusion. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 6:13 PM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me, once again, call everyone to remain respectful and collegiate as our group has characterized to be since the beginning. We are all volunteers and we all deserve respect to the work we do and to our points of view. I understand there might be frustration when our views do not gain traction at a subgroup level but we need to keep our energy focused on building solutions and in line with our working methods. That is, if a subgroup considers that a given request is relevant to the work the subgroup is carrying then the subgroup may request follow up or action on the item. If the subgroup considers a given topic or request does not seem to add to the subgroups work at that particular point in time, then the subgroup members are encouraged to focus their energy in continue to build consensus on the topics being discussed. That doesn't rule out, of course, any views or requests but it does subject said views or requests to the decision making process of each subgroup or the plenary as the case may be. My respect and recognition to all members and participants of the different subgroups. Let us continue in good spirit the work that we have been trusted with. Kind regards, León El 01/08/2017, a las 16:35, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> escribió: Greg What do you mean by sub group decides You are blocking all my roquets I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group I am tired of thus sort of blacking. You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent. Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour Pls explain. You act negatively to all my proposal You di not want to find a solution for these problems You just wasting our time We disagree with your working method. Either behave or ..... Reply. Explain There are motivation behind your unfair actions Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Greg's leadership of this subgroup has been fair and evenhanded, especially given the sensitivity of the subject matter and diversity of members' views. If members feel that certain questions deserve written responses that go beyond or expand upon yesterday's exchange with Sam I have no objection to that. Philip S. Corwin Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 11:31 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Thank you, Leon, This subgroup is handling perhaps the most sensitive issue in Work Stream Two – and we are now at the difficult time near the end of deliberations if we are to get our report out on schedule. Greg has, as rapporteur, what is basically a near-impossible job and he has handled it willingly and essentially by himself – and, in my personal opinion, fairly. I thought Sam’s presentation yesterday was very informative and it is all on record – her presentation as well as her extemporaneous answers to questions. Again, in my personal opinion, this is sufficient record. I disagree with the criticisms and voice my support for Greg’s leadership. I hope and trust that we can all remain constructively engaged as we do the heavy-lifting to bring this important work to conclusion. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 6:13 PM To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me, once again, call everyone to remain respectful and collegiate as our group has characterized to be since the beginning. We are all volunteers and we all deserve respect to the work we do and to our points of view. I understand there might be frustration when our views do not gain traction at a subgroup level but we need to keep our energy focused on building solutions and in line with our working methods. That is, if a subgroup considers that a given request is relevant to the work the subgroup is carrying then the subgroup may request follow up or action on the item. If the subgroup considers a given topic or request does not seem to add to the subgroups work at that particular point in time, then the subgroup members are encouraged to focus their energy in continue to build consensus on the topics being discussed. That doesn’t rule out, of course, any views or requests but it does subject said views or requests to the decision making process of each subgroup or the plenary as the case may be. My respect and recognition to all members and participants of the different subgroups. Let us continue in good spirit the work that we have been trusted with. Kind regards, León El 01/08/2017, a las 16:35, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> escribió: Greg What do you mean by sub group decides You are blocking all my roquets I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group I am tired of thus sort of blacking. You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent. Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour Pls explain. You act negatively to all my proposal You di not want to find a solution for these problems You just wasting our time We disagree with your working method. Either behave or ..... Reply. Explain There are motivation behind your unfair actions Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
On Wednesday 02 August 2017 09:01 PM, McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction wrote:
Thank you, Leon,
This subgroup is handling perhaps the most sensitive issue in Work Stream Two – and we are now at the difficult time near the end of deliberations if we are to get our report out on schedule.
Greg has, as rapporteur, what is basically a near-impossible job and he has handled it willingly and essentially by himself – and, in my personal opinion, fairly.
I thought Sam’s presentation yesterday was very informative and it is all on record – her presentation as well as her extemporaneous answers to questions. Again, in my personal opinion, this is sufficient record.
Are you against being provided written responses (with whatever disclaimer) against each question asked? What is the point is asking for and listing a set of questions from the sub group if they do not get responses parminder
I disagree with the criticisms and voice my support for Greg’s leadership. I hope and trust that we can all remain constructively engaged as we do the heavy-lifting to bring this important work to conclusion.
Best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Sent:* Tuesday, August 01, 2017 6:13 PM *To:* Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear all,
Let me, once again, call everyone to remain respectful and collegiate as our group has characterized to be since the beginning.
We are all volunteers and we all deserve respect to the work we do and to our points of view.
I understand there might be frustration when our views do not gain traction at a subgroup level but we need to keep our energy focused on building solutions and in line with our working methods. That is, if a subgroup considers that a given request is relevant to the work the subgroup is carrying then the subgroup may request follow up or action on the item. If the subgroup considers a given topic or request does not seem to add to the subgroups work at that particular point in time, then the subgroup members are encouraged to focus their energy in continue to build consensus on the topics being discussed.
That doesn’t rule out, of course, any views or requests but it does subject said views or requests to the decision making process of each subgroup or the plenary as the case may be.
My respect and recognition to all members and participants of the different subgroups. Let us continue in good spirit the work that we have been trusted with.
Kind regards,
León
El 01/08/2017, a las 16:35, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> escribió:
Greg
What do you mean by sub group decides
You are blocking all my roquets
I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all
This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group
I am tired of thus sort of
blacking.
You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent.
Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected
I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively
You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour
Pls explain.
You act negatively to all my proposal
You di not want to find a solution for these problems
You just wasting our time
We disagree with your working method.
Either behave or .....
Reply. Explain
There are motivation behind your
unfair actions
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Subgroup members I want to respectfully note my full support for Greg’s process here. We act as a subgroup. No individual member has any right that I am aware of to demand action from ICANN, from the CCWG or from the Subgroup. In particular, I want to publicly defend Greg against any claim that he is “not acting properly” or that his behavior is either “unprecedented” or “unacceptable” or “unfair.” I also disagree that Greg is “wasting . . . time” or that he needs to “behave” or that there are “motivations” (presumably nefarious) “behind his actions.” Quite to the contrary Greg has been a model of decorum and neutrality in a difficult position and any suggestion otherwise is without factual foundation. Regards to all Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 5:36 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg What do you mean by sub group decides You are blocking all my roquets I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group I am tired of thus sort of blacking. You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent. Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour Pls explain. You act negatively to all my proposal You di not want to find a solution for these problems You just wasting our time We disagree with your working method. Either behave or ..... Reply. Explain There are motivation behind your unfair actions Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
I agree with you (on this ☺️) Paul On 2 Aug. 2017 09:33, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Subgroup members
I want to respectfully note my full support for Greg’s process here. We act as a subgroup. No individual member has any right that I am aware of to demand action from ICANN, from the CCWG or from the Subgroup.
In particular, I want to publicly defend Greg against any claim that he is “not acting properly” or that his behavior is either “unprecedented” or “unacceptable” or “unfair.” I also disagree that Greg is “wasting . . . time” or that he needs to “behave” or that there are “motivations” (presumably nefarious) “behind his actions.” Quite to the contrary Greg has been a model of decorum and neutrality in a difficult position and any suggestion otherwise is without factual foundation.
Regards to all
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh *Sent:* Tuesday, August 1, 2017 5:36 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Greg
What do you mean by sub group decides
You are blocking all my roquets
I raised questions they were answered incomplete or not answered at all
This us my right to ask written answer and gas nothing to do with the approval if the group
I am tired of thus sort of
blacking.
You are not acting properly and I formally register complaint for such unfair tressent.
Your behaviour is not acceptable and categorically rejected
I do not agree that you treat a member of the group so aggressively
You have interrupted me with an unprecedented behaviour
Pls explain.
You act negatively to all my proposal
You di not want to find a solution for these problems
You just wasting our time
We disagree with your working method.
Either behave or .....
Reply. Explain
There are motivation behind your
unfair actions
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Aug 2017, at 21:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
It's hard to express this without sounding myself as if I'm being slightly disrespectful, for which I apologise to Kavouss in advance. However it seems to me that all his shrill complaints are simply straight out of one of the chapters in Negotiation and International Diplomacy 101 amd we shouldn't take them to heart, just like a pre-flop bet in Texas Hold 'Em. As I've said before, I always feel it is a pleasure to watch how the game is played in the majors. Nigel PS: I do think that Greg is not being unfair, merely attempting to promote collegiality, which is a noble aim. If we all considered the question "how can we work together" rather than the "I want" then I believe progress will be enhanced.
In particular, I want to publicly defend Greg against any claim that he is “not acting properly” or that his behavior is either “unprecedented” or “unacceptable” or “unfair.”
Dear Leon, Thank you very much for your support for Greg and lack of even partial support to my rights as a participant to this Group to ask that written answers be given to my questions raised pursuant to the list of questions published by Greg I do not understand what is wrong with asking such légitimâtes req On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
It's hard to express this without sounding myself as if I'm being slightly disrespectful, for which I apologise to Kavouss in advance.
However it seems to me that all his shrill complaints are simply straight out of one of the chapters in Negotiation and International Diplomacy 101 amd we shouldn't take them to heart, just like a pre-flop bet in Texas Hold 'Em.
As I've said before, I always feel it is a pleasure to watch how the game is played in the majors.
Nigel
PS: I do think that Greg is not being unfair, merely attempting to promote collegiality, which is a noble aim. If we all considered the question "how can we work together" rather than the "I want" then I believe progress will be enhanced.
In particular, I want to publicly defend Greg against any claim that he is “not acting properly” or that his behavior is either “unprecedented” or “unacceptable” or “unfair.”
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Leon Dear Greg Thank you very much for your support for Greg and lack of even partial support to my rights as a participant to this Group to ask that written answers be given to my questions raised pursuant to the list of questions published by Greg I do not understand what is wrong with asking such legitimates request i.e. There were a list of questions Some of them were answered, some of them were not answered. Those answered required to be supported by written answers to better understand that What is wrong deal Leon, Pls without getting in philosophical argument, please clearly REPLY What is wrong with that request ? Why the group should approve that written answers given to my questions? The majority of this group composed of those that do not want any change to the existing situation while minority have serious difficulties with some of the existing arrangements . Dear Leon, Do you believe that Greg is authorized by CCWG to stop this minority to express their views. Too ask questions to ask answers to their question verbally or in written form? I do not understand you’re rational not to address this clear question What is the problem that a written answer be given to questions of substance when raised and demanded. Why there is a need that the group should approve such a need The need to answer raised by the people behind the questions and NOT THE GROUP. I would appropriate to receive answers. By the way there were support to provide written answers to my questions raised Moreover, other questions raised in the attachment provided by Greg WERE NOT EVEN DISCUSSED NOTR ANSWERED. They must be answered. By the way, there are a very small minority that categorically disagree with me irrespective the substance of the issue as they act with hostility I certainly disapprove their unexpected behavior and DOT CARE OF THEIR SYSTEMATIC OBJECTION .See support to Greg . *In summary, Dear Leon, Dear Greg and Dear Sam;* *I need written answers to my questions in addition to the transcript which are not formal ALL* Best Regards Kavouss On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Leon, Thank you very much for your support for Greg and lack of even partial support to my rights as a participant to this Group to ask that written answers be given to my questions raised pursuant to the list of questions published by Greg I do not understand what is wrong with asking such légitimâtes req
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
It's hard to express this without sounding myself as if I'm being slightly disrespectful, for which I apologise to Kavouss in advance.
However it seems to me that all his shrill complaints are simply straight out of one of the chapters in Negotiation and International Diplomacy 101 amd we shouldn't take them to heart, just like a pre-flop bet in Texas Hold 'Em.
As I've said before, I always feel it is a pleasure to watch how the game is played in the majors.
Nigel
PS: I do think that Greg is not being unfair, merely attempting to promote collegiality, which is a noble aim. If we all considered the question "how can we work together" rather than the "I want" then I believe progress will be enhanced.
In particular, I want to publicly defend Greg against any claim that he is “not acting properly” or that his behavior is either “unprecedented” or “unacceptable” or “unfair.”
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hi, With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers? avri On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
That would be an equivalent, but not sure if all the questions were able to be comprehensively responded to in the call (where I was not present). Written replies ensures completeness, both of the range of questions/ responses, and of a particular response, which may or may not happen in a quick tele-chat ... Is there an issue with getting written replies? If required they could come with legal disclaimer etc. I second the request for written replies to all OFAC related questions that were submitted by this group. parminder On Wednesday 02 August 2017 09:15 AM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I agree we should have written responses, but they could be prepared by ICANN staff from transcripts rather than by ICANN legal more formally? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Aug 1, 2017 9:17 PM, "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
That would be an equivalent, but not sure if all the questions were able to be comprehensively responded to in the call (where I was not present). Written replies ensures completeness, both of the range of questions/ responses, and of a particular response, which may or may not happen in a quick tele-chat ...
Is there an issue with getting written replies? If required they could come with legal disclaimer etc.
I second the request for written replies to all OFAC related questions that were submitted by this group.
parminder
On Wednesday 02 August 2017 09:15 AM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hello, I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide. Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions. A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hi all, If correct, I noticed that the captioning sent to the mailing list afterwards did not include AD chat messages. There were really important questions asked in the chat and should be well documented. With regards, Wale On 2 Aug 2017 07:10, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide. Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions. A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Wale, The Adobe Connect chat transcript can be found using the link to the meeting page, https://community.icann.org/x/QAIhB. This link is also noted in the body of the ‘Notes’ email to the Jurisdiction list. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D30C42.BBC808A0] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 From: <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Reply-To: "wales.baky@googlemail.com" <wales.baky@googlemail.com> Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:08 AM To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Hi all, If correct, I noticed that the captioning sent to the mailing list afterwards did not include AD chat messages. There were really important questions asked in the chat and should be well documented. With regards, Wale On 2 Aug 2017 07:10, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide. Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions. A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote: Hi, With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers? avri On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus[avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=Lzx6rUZLs8ti2ULcH_vITrtDdLXMw54Isdd_U2ZmPtY&s=fVW5lMogxLqHo9gtG420RewZis9e1bIgi-Mmz8VU3Tc&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Seun There's a difference between an informal briefing from a lawyer, and a formal, written Opinion. Informal briefings can, to some extent, skate over the detail and technicalities (though I wouldn't expect them to miss the important points). A written opinion, however, must be carefully considered, and must be comprehensive. That is to say, many billable hours = costly. Now, it really is worth doing this where there is a specific, well drawn "qualified question" to be answered. But a widely drawn brief is a recipe for a result that is (a) confusing additionally or alternatively confused; and (b) extremely expensive. I'm as keen as Kavouss and Paul to have a briefing on how ICANN-PTI's obligations have changed since transition, both in law (I suspect not at all ) and de facto (which clearly has changed, from changes in the way existing policy is being interpreted). But let's have focus. On 02/08/17 07:10, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide.
Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions.
A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote: > Kavouss, > > Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a > matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual > participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether > to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which > questions). Thank you. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I > nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting > and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. > Regards > Kavouss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 8:35 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: Seun There's a difference between an informal briefing from a lawyer, and a formal, written Opinion. SO: Am clear on that. However does that mean informal briefing can't be written down (with appropriate disclaimer included if necessary)? Informal briefings can, to some extent, skate over the detail and technicalities (though I wouldn't expect them to miss the important points). SO: This is all that I believe is important for now. We should get informal response to all the "unique" questions raised and then look at which of the responses require/warrants more formal response. Regards A written opinion, however, must be carefully considered, and must be comprehensive. That is to say, many billable hours = costly. Now, it really is worth doing this where there is a specific, well drawn "qualified question" to be answered. But a widely drawn brief is a recipe for a result that is (a) confusing additionally or alternatively confused; and (b) extremely expensive. I'm as keen as Kavouss and Paul to have a briefing on how ICANN-PTI's obligations have changed since transition, both in law (I suspect not at all ) and de facto (which clearly has changed, from changes in the way existing policy is being interpreted). But let's have focus. On 02/08/17 07:10, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello,
I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide.
Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions.
A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote: > Kavouss, > > Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a > matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual > participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether > to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which > questions). Thank you. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I > nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting > and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. > Regards > Kavouss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ 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
+1 Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Seun Ojedeji Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2017 08:11 An: avri doria <avri@apc.org> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Hello, I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide. Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions. A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote: Hi, With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers? avri On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Co- Chairs Dear all I know some of you on holidays and some others as usual provide unqualified support to Greg. Yes it is good that the CO-CHAIRS of parent Group support the rapporteur of the sub-groups BUT such support is legitimate if the rapporteurs actions or inactions are justified and appropriate. Should the approach taken by the sub groups’ Rapporteurs are not justified or contented by participants then the co-chairs of the parent group shall refrain from taking positions notr they shall act as teaching the Group members providing guidelines for them as we are all individual acting according to our thoughts and policies we follow and do not need instruction nor do we need advice from co-chairs. Having said that, I wish to come back to the real issue. Jurisdiction is, one the most difficult and most complex WS2 subjects It was given to someone that may find himself in fight and struggle internally with himself. On the one hand he must be absolutely impartial and neutral, on the other hand, as a human being he has to follow his own way of thinking and his guideline. These are two contradictory situations. Sometimes experienced people find a way forward to maintain a balance between these two contradictory circumstances. Some other, may not be able to do so in spite of their intention. Moreover, there are members of ws2 SUBGROUPS that categorically object to the views of some other member irrespective of the substance of the issue as these people have considered and are considering other motivations than those associated with subject. Some of these objections stemmed from personal relations with other members and some others stems from some types of” Pbobia” ( dislike, hostility ,jealousness and …..) I do not care about these sort of reactions as come in all cases from specific persons one supporting each other’s and I have multiple evidence of such unfounded opposition against others. Now coming back to the case in question ; Written reply to the questions raised at 01 August meeting of Jurisdiction Group:. After some 35 meetings of the sub-group costing considerable amount of money to ICANN and more importantly to the limited 14-20-25 participants they invested time, efforts and … to participate and contribute to the subject *we came back to square one which was ; lovcation of ICANN and Applicable LAW .* One of the Co- chairs, unexpectedly and without any discussion at the level of CCW, all of the sudden came with his brilliant unexpected idea of “Consensus building idea “ *“Thomas, * *Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the liberty to highlight relevant parts.* *We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. And work on solutions that are founded on this” .* Among the issue for which we desperately looking for solution is applicability of OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD . After some discussions it was suggested by rapporteur that Samantha Eisner from ICANN legal Department be invited to shed some light on the issue. To that effect, the Jurisdiction sub-Rappoteur asked participants to raise their questions and a handful of the members so did. These questions were assembled in a note from the rapporteur and was put on the agenda of the 01 August meeting of sub group. The legal staff of ICANN after some introductory part which were almost cut and paste from document which were already made available o by the Rapporteurs as well as by others including extensive amount of material available on OFAC website or on Google ,she took the questions Note and arbitrarily selected some of them and replied to them in which at several occasions she stated that *“ We not know or I do not know* “.Some of the questions were not answered at all as having 15 questions there were no chances to discuss them. As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document, I have asked at several occasions to request the speaker to kindly provide *a written version of her reply to the questions discussed as well as written answers to the questions which were not raised due to lack of sufficient time . * *This request was immediartely rejected by the Rapporteur saying that to take such decision we need a consensus decision by the group.* This was a strange course action. The reasons that I asked the written answer were given above (As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document) Later on I had some support regarding the need to have written answers. In view of the above, and considering that the issue is complex and broad, I need written versions of the answers given to the questions taking into account those raised during the call as well as answers to questions which were not provided due to lack of time. This is a valid and legitimate request which due to arguments launched above are required for those who either wish to have a more formal answer or those whose Mother Tongue is not English . Regards Kavouss On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Seun Ojedeji *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. August 2017 08:11 *An:* avri doria <avri@apc.org> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Hello,
I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide.
Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions.
A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
I’ve had it. I’m openly declaring on the record my view that Kavouss Arasteh is comporting himself as a “bad actor.” He may disagree on principle with any number of points but his tone, manner, and insinuations are detrimental and indeed hostile to the process. I understand diplomacy but in the words of H.L. Mencken "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Principal Consultant <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:07 AM To: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear Co- Chairs Dear all I know some of you on holidays and some others as usual provide unqualified support to Greg. Yes it is good that the CO-CHAIRS of parent Group support the rapporteur of the sub-groups BUT such support is legitimate if the rapporteurs actions or inactions are justified and appropriate. Should the approach taken by the sub groups’ Rapporteurs are not justified or contented by participants then the co-chairs of the parent group shall refrain from taking positions notr they shall act as teaching the Group members providing guidelines for them as we are all individual acting according to our thoughts and policies we follow and do not need instruction nor do we need advice from co-chairs. Having said that, I wish to come back to the real issue. Jurisdiction is, one the most difficult and most complex WS2 subjects It was given to someone that may find himself in fight and struggle internally with himself. On the one hand he must be absolutely impartial and neutral, on the other hand, as a human being he has to follow his own way of thinking and his guideline. These are two contradictory situations. Sometimes experienced people find a way forward to maintain a balance between these two contradictory circumstances. Some other, may not be able to do so in spite of their intention. Moreover, there are members of ws2 SUBGROUPS that categorically object to the views of some other member irrespective of the substance of the issue as these people have considered and are considering other motivations than those associated with subject. Some of these objections stemmed from personal relations with other members and some others stems from some types of” Pbobia” ( dislike, hostility ,jealousness and …..) I do not care about these sort of reactions as come in all cases from specific persons one supporting each other’s and I have multiple evidence of such unfounded opposition against others. Now coming back to the case in question ; Written reply to the questions raised at 01 August meeting of Jurisdiction Group:. After some 35 meetings of the sub-group costing considerable amount of money to ICANN and more importantly to the limited 14-20-25 participants they invested time, efforts and … to participate and contribute to the subject we came back to square one which was ; lovcation of ICANN and Applicable LAW . One of the Co- chairs, unexpectedly and without any discussion at the level of CCW, all of the sudden came with his brilliant unexpected idea of “Consensus building idea “ “Thomas, Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the liberty to highlight relevant parts. We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. And work on solutions that are founded on this” . Among the issue for which we desperately looking for solution is applicability of OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD . After some discussions it was suggested by rapporteur that Samantha Eisner from ICANN legal Department be invited to shed some light on the issue. To that effect, the Jurisdiction sub-Rappoteur asked participants to raise their questions and a handful of the members so did. These questions were assembled in a note from the rapporteur and was put on the agenda of the 01 August meeting of sub group. The legal staff of ICANN after some introductory part which were almost cut and paste from document which were already made available o by the Rapporteurs as well as by others including extensive amount of material available on OFAC website or on Google ,she took the questions Note and arbitrarily selected some of them and replied to them in which at several occasions she stated that “ We not know or I do not know “.Some of the questions were not answered at all as having 15 questions there were no chances to discuss them. As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document, I have asked at several occasions to request the speaker to kindly provide a written version of her reply to the questions discussed as well as written answers to the questions which were not raised due to lack of sufficient time . This request was immediartely rejected by the Rapporteur saying that to take such decision we need a consensus decision by the group. This was a strange course action. The reasons that I asked the written answer were given above (As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document) Later on I had some support regarding the need to have written answers. In view of the above, and considering that the issue is complex and broad, I need written versions of the answers given to the questions taking into account those raised during the call as well as answers to questions which were not provided due to lack of time. This is a valid and legitimate request which due to arguments launched above are required for those who either wish to have a more formal answer or those whose Mother Tongue is not English . Regards Kavouss On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> > wrote: +1 Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Im Auftrag von Seun Ojedeji Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2017 08:11 An: avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org> > Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Hello, I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide. Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions. A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org> > wrote: Hi, With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers? avri On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Sir, If you categorize me as “bad actor.” On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
I’ve had it.
I’m openly declaring on the record my view that Kavouss Arasteh is comporting himself as a “bad actor.”
He may disagree on principle with any number of points but his tone, manner, and insinuations are detrimental and indeed hostile to the process.
I understand diplomacy but in the words of H.L. Mencken "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
Principal Consultant
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:07 AM *To:* <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear Co- Chairs
Dear all
I know some of you on holidays and some others as usual provide unqualified support to Greg.
Yes it is good that the CO-CHAIRS of parent Group support the rapporteur of the sub-groups BUT such support is legitimate if the rapporteurs actions or inactions are justified and appropriate.
Should the approach taken by the sub groups’ Rapporteurs are not justified or contented by participants then the co-chairs of the parent group shall refrain from taking positions notr they shall act as teaching the Group members providing guidelines for them as we are all individual acting according to our thoughts and policies we follow and do not need instruction nor do we need advice from co-chairs. Having said that, I wish to come back to the real issue. Jurisdiction is, one the most difficult and most complex WS2 subjects
It was given to someone that may find himself in fight and struggle internally with himself.
On the one hand he must be absolutely impartial and neutral, on the other hand, as a human being he has to follow his own way of thinking and his guideline. These are two contradictory situations.
Sometimes experienced people find a way forward to maintain a balance between these two contradictory circumstances. Some other, may not be able to do so in spite of their intention.
Moreover, there are members of ws2 SUBGROUPS that categorically object to the views of some other member irrespective of the substance of the issue as these people have considered and are considering other motivations than those associated with subject. Some of these objections stemmed from personal relations with other members and some others stems from some types of” Pbobia” ( dislike, hostility ,jealousness and …..) I do not care about these sort of reactions as come in all cases from specific persons one supporting each other’s and I have multiple evidence of such unfounded opposition against others.
Now coming back to the case in question ; Written reply to the questions raised at 01 August meeting of Jurisdiction Group:.
After some 35 meetings of the sub-group costing considerable amount of money to ICANN and more importantly to the limited 14-20-25 participants they invested time, efforts and … to participate and contribute to the subject *we came back to square one which was ; lovcation of ICANN and Applicable LAW .*
One of the Co- chairs, unexpectedly and without any discussion at the level of
CCW, all of the sudden came with his brilliant unexpected idea of
“Consensus building idea “
*“Thomas, *
*Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the liberty to highlight relevant parts.*
*We have concluded that the **Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations**, and that **the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. **With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that **we focus on the solution that gets most traction**. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. **And work on solutions that are founded on this” .*
Among the issue for which we desperately looking for solution is applicability of OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD .
After some discussions it was suggested by rapporteur that Samantha Eisner from ICANN legal Department be invited to shed some light on the issue.
To that effect, the Jurisdiction sub-Rappoteur asked participants to raise their questions and a handful of the members so did. These questions were assembled in a note from the rapporteur and was put on the agenda of the 01 August meeting of sub group.
The legal staff of ICANN after some introductory part which were almost cut and paste from document which were already made available o by the Rapporteurs as well as by others including extensive amount of material available on OFAC website or on Google ,she took the questions Note and arbitrarily selected some of them and replied to them in which at several occasions she stated that *“ We not know or I do not know* “.Some of the questions were not answered at all as having 15 questions there were no chances to discuss them.
As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document, I have asked at several occasions to request the speaker to kindly provide *a written version of her reply to the questions discussed as well as written answers to the questions which were not raised due to lack of sufficient time . *
*This request was immediartely rejected by the Rapporteur saying that to take such decision we need a consensus decision by the group.*
This was a strange course action.
The reasons that I asked the written answer were given above (As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document)
Later on I had some support regarding the need to have written answers.
In view of the above, and considering that the issue is complex and broad, I need written versions of the answers given to the questions taking into account those raised during the call as well as answers to questions which were not provided due to lack of time.
This is a valid and legitimate request which due to arguments launched above are required for those who either wish to have a more formal answer or those whose Mother Tongue is not English .
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
+1
Jorge
*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Seun Ojedeji *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. August 2017 08:11 *An:* avri doria <avri@apc.org> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Hello,
I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide.
Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions.
A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
avri
On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Dear all, Let me again support this request from Kavouss so eloquently explained by Benedicto. And I call for mutual understanding on all sides, especially from Greg and the co-chairs: the feeling of not being listened to, of having to repeat requests or positions time and again, or the sentiment of not being taken into account is quite frustrating, especially when operating from positions portrayed by others as "minority" positions or as requiring "express support from many"- whilst other positions are apparently taken instantly as "the majority" and are only subjected to a "non objection" standard... this all is very delicate and perceptions are sometimes influenced by our different cultural, linguistic, and professional backgrounds... a most delicate task for our rapporteur and the CCWG co-chairs... kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br> Datum: 4. August 2017 um 02:24:09 MESZ An: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, acct-staff@icann.org <acct-staff@icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Dear colleagues, this email is to support the request made by Kavouss, also supported by Benedicto and Jorge. As Jorge rightly mentiones in his email, this is a very delicate issue and we must bear in mind our different backgrounds and cultural and linguistic differences. Best regards Olga 2017-08-04 2:35 GMT-03:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear all,
Let me again support this request from Kavouss so eloquently explained by Benedicto.
And I call for mutual understanding on all sides, especially from Greg and the co-chairs: the feeling of not being listened to, of having to repeat requests or positions time and again, or the sentiment of not being taken into account is quite frustrating, especially when operating from positions portrayed by others as "minority" positions or as requiring "express support from many"- whilst other positions are apparently taken instantly as "the majority" and are only subjected to a "non objection" standard...
this all is very delicate and perceptions are sometimes influenced by our different cultural, linguistic, and professional backgrounds... a most delicate task for our rapporteur and the CCWG co-chairs...
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br> Datum: 4. August 2017 um 02:24:09 MESZ An: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Thomas Rickert < thomas@rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, acct-staff@icann.org < acct-staff@icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear all,
Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like.
Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.
Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.
Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…
Best regards,
Benedicto
________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Greg
I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT
Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript.
Two of these three times she referred to me.
Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.
pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important.
Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.
What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student
We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work
We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems
What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?
Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.
Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?
Cheers
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com< mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I am certainly happy to discuss a request for written answers to focused legal questions. Questions of the form is OFAC a problem? are to indefinite for legal answer. As expressed, many of the questions proposed were of this indefinite variety. Others were so broad in scope (e.g. provide a summary of OFAC) as to be huge time investments for no apparent gain. Better questions would be of the form: Identify cases in which OFACs application has had a legal impact on ICANNs operations? I have not gone through the proposed questions item by item but I would be happy to work on finding from that list the sorts of questions that lawyers can actually answer and seeking written responses. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals Best regards, Benedicto _____ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each others problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sams invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Dear Greg, Dear Distinguished colleagues in Jurisdiction Sub-Group During the last call, unfortunately and unintendedly I was, to some extent, emotional and went beyond what usually I do. In this family of CCWG, there have been circumstances in which hard discussion and heated disputes occurred but we should be bear in mind that we must always maintain necessary degree of tolerance and patience at these circumstances and respect each other irrespective of the majority or minority spectrum. We are all human being and may unintendedly and momentarily loose our cold blood. I have formally admired the hard work of Greg in the last f2f meeting in Johannesburg and I continue to admire him and appreciate his valuable efforts. The issue in his hand is delicate, sensitive and complex. If there is not sufficient progress it is merely because of that and if there are other reasons for speed of progress the whole group in a collegial and collective manner should share the responsibilities and burden and not Greg I have sent a short message to my dear Friend Greg and expressed my sincere regret if my emotional intervention has grieved him and I am sure he has not taken it seriously. I informed him, that, as usual, I do my best to further collaborate with him and with the group with a view to find out whether there are ways and means to for the resolution the problems that we are facing. I wish all of you, in particular. My dear friend Greg, a very nice week-end On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
I am certainly happy to discuss a request for written answers to focused legal questions. Questions of the form “is OFAC a problem?” are to indefinite for legal answer. As expressed, many of the questions proposed were of this indefinite variety. Others were so broad in scope (e.g. “provide a summary of OFAC”) as to be huge time investments for no apparent gain. Better questions would be of the form: “Identify cases in which OFAC’s application has had a legal impact on ICANN’s operations?”
I have not gone through the proposed questions item by item – but I would be happy to work on finding from that list the sorts of questions that lawyers can actually answer and seeking written responses.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear all,
Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like.
Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.
Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.
Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…
Best regards,
Benedicto
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Greg
I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT
Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript.
Two of these three times she referred to me.
Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.
pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important.
Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.
What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student
We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work
We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems
What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?
Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.
Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?
Cheers
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
Regards
Kavouss
On Friday 04 August 2017 07:06 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I am certainly happy to discuss a request for written answers to focused legal questions. Questions of the form “is OFAC a problem?” are to indefinite for legal answer.
DId anyone frame that question or alike? Is will be good to respect colleague's sense of question making. I remember the long discussion earlier on how many of us were blamed for not knowing what evidence collection is or how questionnaires are made. I see us going down that path again.
As expressed, many of the questions proposed were of this indefinite variety. Others were so broad in scope (e.g. “provide a summary of OFAC”) as to be huge time investments for no apparent gain. Better questions would be of the form: “Identify cases in which OFAC’s application has had a legal impact on ICANN’s operations?”
I have known lawyers to be way more worthy persons than just do the work of a legal assistant in unearthing old cases of a certain kind -- which btw it seems AI does better than legal assistants now-a-days. If, for instance, I were to explore a new kind of a business in a new country I know it to be a very lawyer-ly thing to do -- of course for good fees -- to provide me advice on the kind of legal risks that may prospectively be faced by any such venture. Have you heard of such things?
I have not gone through the proposed questions item by item – but I would be happy to work on finding from that list the sorts of questions that lawyers can actually answer and seeking written responses.
When will the South stop having to learn from the North - -I mean, we from developing countries from the developed ones!? Now if we indeed did send ICANN legal some foolish questions, why not let them tell us that they are not able to respond to them, rather building gate-keeping devices here which our long experience now tells us are basically interests-motivated, and intended to keep this group on the narrow and straight path of deciding nothing substantial -- and providing entirely novel interpretations to what the question of ICANN jurisdiction really is, and always has been. I was just now reading somewhere, fake news is one thing, but fake history is entirely another level. parminder
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear all,
Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like.
Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.
Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.
Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…
Best regards,
Benedicto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Greg
I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT
Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript.
Two of these three times she referred to me.
Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.
pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important.
Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.
What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student
We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work
We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems
What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?
Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.
Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?
Cheers
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals... Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other's problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam's invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
Dear Milton, Dear All, I think it is well too early to discard any of the issues and concerns expressed so far provided they are kept in line with the overall guidance provided by the Johannesburg CCWG meeting. I would certainly prefer to engage in focused work towards preparing a final report. I must however be clear about one thing: we think the report is not an end in itself; we consider its value will be judged by the extent it provides adequate consideration to concerns that were expressed throughout the process in a way, naturally, that is acceptable to everyone. My earlier comments must therefore be rather interpreted as a reflection of the importance we attach to making sure that the framework that will guide the next phase of our work will be drafted carefully, taking into account different aspects judged by participants as necessary to provide an overall adequate and balanced framework. I agree with you, on the other hand, that we are losing precious time discussing this particular procedural aspect - which, by the way, could already have been addressed smoothly and rapidly by providing satisfaction to a request that, in our view, is legitimate. Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________________ De: Mueller, Milton L [milton@gatech.edu] Enviado: segunda-feira, 7 de agosto de 2017 8:51 Para: Benedicto Fonseca Filho; Kavouss Arasteh; Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
participants (20)
-
Arasteh -
avri doria -
Benedicto Fonseca Filho -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Greg Shatan -
John Laprise -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
McAuley, David -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
MSSI Secretariat -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Olawale Bakare -
Olga Cavalli -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji