Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Reply to farzaneh's Question
Greg, Pls kindly read your message below quote *"I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:* *"Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"* *It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses.* *The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.* *Best regards,"* 2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate of the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs. What I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call."
What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs). I was not speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I had coordinated.
I hope that clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs, I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of sub group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf. It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate group. I formally and officially request you to reply to that question which I will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your rational for reply. This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled
Dear Kavouss, All, Farzaneh raised a question to the jurisdiction subgroup, Greg indicated he would coordinate with the co-chairs to provide an answer. He did, then in his capacity as rapporteur of this group, he provided the requested answer, which I can confirm the co-chairs agree with. Even reviewing this now, I believe this has followed the appropriate process. I would also like to formally push back on the notion of “subordinate” that is used in this thread. Within the ICANN community we are all equal, and only endorse specific roles and responsibilities related to certain tasks, such as a rapporteur role or a co-chair role. Best regards, Mathieu De : Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Envoyé : dimanche 22 janvier 2017 21:35 À : Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Objet : Re: Reply to farzaneh's Question Greg, Pls kindly read your message below quote "I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question: "Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…" It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses. The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call. Best regards," 2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>: All, I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate of the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs. What I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call." What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs). I was not speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I had coordinated. I hope that clarifies matters. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of sub group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf. It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate group. I formally and officially request you to reply to that question which I will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your rational for reply. This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled
Dear Mathieu, Tks you for your message and thank for reply. I wish to receive the reply from co-chairs directly and not paraphrased or modified by Greg The term “subordinates “is a correct term and I will continue to use it, as appropriate. e.g. ws2 subgroup on jurisdiction is sub ordinated by CCWG Plenary, isn’t it true? This is the alphabet of hierarchical organigram that I have learned since decades .I do not see any difficulties to use it. Now, I have formally requested the co-chair to reply to the questions raised by Farzaneh and I still anxiously waiting for that. Unless you just want to convey your message through the third party (office of the co-chairs) I understand the co- chairs wish to finish the task irrespective of the quality or value or validity of the results. This is not something that we expect. Best Regards Kavouss 2017-01-23 8:45 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Kavouss, All,
Farzaneh raised a question to the jurisdiction subgroup, Greg indicated he would coordinate with the co-chairs to provide an answer. He did, then in his capacity as rapporteur of this group, he provided the requested answer, which I can confirm the co-chairs agree with. Even reviewing this now, I believe this has followed the appropriate process.
I would also like to formally push back on the notion of “subordinate” that is used in this thread. Within the ICANN community we are all equal, and only endorse specific roles and responsibilities related to certain tasks, such as a rapporteur role or a co-chair role.
Best regards,
Mathieu
*De :* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Envoyé :* dimanche 22 janvier 2017 21:35 *À :* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert *Objet :* Re: Reply to farzaneh's Question
Greg,
Pls kindly read your message below
quote
*"I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:*
*"Farzaneh Badii: (**07:28**) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"*
*It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses.*
*The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.*
*Best regards,"*
2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate of the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs. What I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call."
What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs). I was not speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I had coordinated.
I hope that clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note
A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of sub group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf.
It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate group.
I formally and officially request you to reply to that question which I will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your rational for reply.
This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled
Dear Kavouss, please allow me to disagree with the statement referring to the “co-chairs wish to finish the task irrespective of the quality or value or validity of the results.”. As you know, the CCWG has conducted very high quality work throughout its sessions and documents. WS2 will not be the exception. I am afraid you are misrepresenting our intentions or the way the CCWG works. It is not up to the Co-Chairs to assign any level of quality, value or validity to the groups work. That is up to each of the subgroups and the plenary. A reply to Farzaneh’s questions has been provided already as Mathieu has confirmed and as Greg has kindly agreed to convey with the Jurisdiction subgroup. I hope we can continue to constructively and collaboratively advance the work in this and other subgroups. Kind regards, León
El 23/01/2017, a las 02:49, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Mathieu, Tks you for your message and thank for reply.
I wish to receive the reply from co-chairs directly and not paraphrased or modified by Greg
The term “subordinates “is a correct term and I will continue to use it, as appropriate.
e.g. ws2 subgroup on jurisdiction is sub ordinated by CCWG Plenary, isn’t it true?
This is the alphabet of hierarchical organigram that I have learned since decades .I do not see any difficulties to use it.
Now, I have formally requested the co-chair to reply to the questions raised by Farzaneh and I still anxiously waiting for that. Unless you just want to convey your message through the third party (office of the co-chairs)
I understand the co- chairs wish to finish the task irrespective of the quality or value or validity of the results. This is not something that we expect.
Best Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-23 8:45 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>: Dear Kavouss, All,
Farzaneh raised a question to the jurisdiction subgroup, Greg indicated he would coordinate with the co-chairs to provide an answer. He did, then in his capacity as rapporteur of this group, he provided the requested answer, which I can confirm the co-chairs agree with. Even reviewing this now, I believe this has followed the appropriate process.
I would also like to formally push back on the notion of “subordinate” that is used in this thread. Within the ICANN community we are all equal, and only endorse specific roles and responsibilities related to certain tasks, such as a rapporteur role or a co-chair role.
Best regards,
Mathieu
De : Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Envoyé : dimanche 22 janvier 2017 21:35 À : Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Objet : Re: Reply to farzaneh's Question
Greg,
Pls kindly read your message below
quote
"I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:
"Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"
It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses.
The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.
Best regards,"
2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>:
All,
I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate of the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs. What I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call."
What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs). I was not speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I had coordinated.
I hope that clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note
A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of sub group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf.
It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate group.
I formally and officially request you to reply to that question which I will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your rational for reply.
This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled
Dear Leon, Thanks for reply The quality of works being done is much less than that of Work Stream 1. I do not understand why none of you did not make a formal reply to the question. No doubt none of you are facing that problem of jurisdiction that I with few other are facing.The sub group need to get advice from CCWG. When I raised the question of linage between " Applicable Law" and jurisdiction , proposing a référence note you disagreed with that. why? You did not take my valid point to introduce that référence foot note as aid memoire???? That was not expected. The CCWG meeting is now organized every two or three weeks with tens of agenda each having 10-20 mints . Certainly we can not discuss any thing but stamp what done at the level of the group. In sub group issues are given to 2 or three people, Greg , David and their syphathisans are always in those little little groups and dominate . When we raise concerns we are stopped to talk . There is some kind of repression here. This is not global multistakeholder group activities ? Sorry , pls kindly understand us. Best Regards Kavouss 2017-01-25 0:54 GMT+01:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>:
Dear Kavouss,
please allow me to disagree with the statement referring to the “co-chairs wish to finish the task irrespective of the quality or value or validity of the results.”. As you know, the CCWG has conducted very high quality work throughout its sessions and documents. WS2 will not be the exception.
I am afraid you are misrepresenting our intentions or the way the CCWG works. It is not up to the Co-Chairs to assign any level of quality, value or validity to the groups work. That is up to each of the subgroups and the plenary.
A reply to Farzaneh’s questions has been provided already as Mathieu has confirmed and as Greg has kindly agreed to convey with the Jurisdiction subgroup.
I hope we can continue to constructively and collaboratively advance the work in this and other subgroups.
Kind regards,
León
El 23/01/2017, a las 02:49, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Mathieu,
Tks you for your message and thank for reply.
I wish to receive the reply from co-chairs directly and not paraphrased or modified by Greg
The term “subordinates “is a correct term and I will continue to use it, as appropriate.
e.g. ws2 subgroup on jurisdiction is sub ordinated by CCWG Plenary, isn’t it true?
This is the alphabet of hierarchical organigram that I have learned since decades .I do not see any difficulties to use it.
Now, I have formally requested the co-chair to reply to the questions raised by Farzaneh and I still anxiously waiting for that. Unless you just want to convey your message through the third party (office of the co-chairs)
I understand the co- chairs wish to finish the task irrespective of the quality or value or validity of the results. This is not something that we expect.
Best Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-23 8:45 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Kavouss, All,
Farzaneh raised a question to the jurisdiction subgroup, Greg indicated he would coordinate with the co-chairs to provide an answer. He did, then in his capacity as rapporteur of this group, he provided the requested answer, which I can confirm the co-chairs agree with. Even reviewing this now, I believe this has followed the appropriate process.
I would also like to formally push back on the notion of “subordinate” that is used in this thread. Within the ICANN community we are all equal, and only endorse specific roles and responsibilities related to certain tasks, such as a rapporteur role or a co-chair role.
Best regards,
Mathieu
*De :* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Envoyé :* dimanche 22 janvier 2017 21:35 *À :* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert *Objet :* Re: Reply to farzaneh's Question
Greg,
Pls kindly read your message below
quote
*"I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:*
*"Farzaneh Badii: (**07:28**) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"*
*It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses.*
*The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.*
*Best regards,"*
2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate of the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs. What I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call."
What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs). I was not speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I had coordinated.
I hope that clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note
A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of sub group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf.
It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate group.
I formally and officially request you to reply to that question which I will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your rational for reply.
This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled
participants (3)
-
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Mathieu Weill