[CCWG-ACCT] Disagreement on wrong interpretation of a qualifier

[León Felipe Sánchez Ambía]

Dear Kavouss,

I am sorry you feel that way. As you know, our duty as Co-Chairs is to try to facilitate the discussion amongst all members and participants in our group.

I am aware that you have expressed your disagreement with Mr. Shatan’s views in several occasions but I am also aware that, to the best of my knowledge, your disagreement has found no traction in the discussion in the meeting you are referring to, hence I thought the best way to foster and encourage discussion on the issue was to take it to the list.

I apologize if my suggestion offended you or if it was perceived as being disrespectful. Of course I didn’t mean it that way at all.

I trust you will understand why I suggested to take the discussion to the list and thank you for your kind observation.


Best regards,


León

> El 12/04/2016, a las 6:54 a.m., Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Dear Leon
> I am disappointed and frustrated by the reaction of some Co-Chairs in conducting the meeting .
> I had a disagreement with Mr. Satan of IPC on the above subject
> Due to the closed link between that person and   other  persons belonging  to the same camp, you did not agreed with the argument that I submitted .
> Mr.Satan and his camp , wrong views were taken BUT what disturbed me more was your statement in saying" kavouss,if you want to continue thus discussion,continue on nailing list"
> Why should I do that?
> What was the usefulness of the meeting if an important issue should be discussed outside the call?
> Why I was treated ?
> .
> Kavousd
> Sent from my iPhone

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160412/bb57c062/signature.asc>