[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12

Tue Dec 6 16:17:25 UTC 2016

Kavouss

The membership of this sub group is open to anyone who wants to participate.  If you think more non-US persons should be represented, then go and solicit their input.   Absent any evidence that the subgroup’s membership is deliberately skewed, or limited, your continued efforts to delegitimize the group by challenging its membership are beneath your dignity.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at 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 at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 3:11 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12

Grec,

Thanks for the message,

Whether you strongly object or simply object to my statement that does not change the situation.

According to your calculation ,out of 22 there  were 8 US in the last it was 50/50 .It is a clear IMBALANCE .i.e. one third US and 2/ 3  all other countries in one and 50% US and 50% other countries .WAS is not a clear Imbalance.

Please be kindly totally neutral and not defend something which was not valid

Regards

Kavouss 

2016-12-05 23:39 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >:

Kavouss,

On the call today (which you attended), we decided that the questions the Subgroup approves would be presented to the CCWG for a first and second reading before being sent out.  This is consistent with the approach taken with the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup questionnaire.  I assume that resolves your current concern.  Also, as I'm sure you are aware, any deliverable approved by the Subgroup will then go to the CCWG for a first and second reading as well.  The Jurisdiction Subgroup is no different than any other subgroup in regard to these working methods.

However, I strongly object to any attempt to delegitimize the work of the Jurisdiction Subgroup based on the completely incorrect statement that there are very few participants in the group other than "US nationals or US affiliated" persons.

I am confident that we can "count on" the work of this Subgroup as fully and completely as any other Subgroup.  Any implication otherwise is incorrect at best.  Assuming arguendo that this is an appropriate way to analyze the validity of a working group or subgroup, the facts actually destroy your conclusion rather than supporting it.

I'm sure the Co-Chairs are aware of the actual facts, which is that our group is large and geographically diverse.  To remind them (and you), the list of participants is below.  At least 40 of the 63 participants are non-US.  

Actual participation is similar.  On the call last week, 14 out of 22 participants attending the call were non-US: Amrita Vasudevan, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Parminder Jeet Singh, Paul McGrady, Pedro da Silva, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Vinay Kesari, Wale Bakare.  

On this week's call, the balance was "only" 50/50, if you include Javier Rua-Jovet (Puerto Rico) who was an observer/guest (and new NARALO rep to ALAC).  Without Javier, non-US participants were again in the majority.

As you can see, the concern you raise is not only baseless, it is completely counterfactual. I thank you for the opportunity to examine the facts and point this out.

Best regards,

Greg

1.     Greg Shatan - Co-Rapporteur

2.     Vinay Kesari - Co-Rapporteur

3.     Adebunmi Akinbo

4.     Agustina Callegari

5.     Alain Bidron

6.     Amrita Vasudevan

7.     Andreea Brambilla

8.     Andrew Harris

9.     Avri Doria

10.  Ayden Férdeline

11.  Barbara Wanner

12.  Cheryl Langdon-Orr

13.  Christopher Wilkinson

14.  Claudio Lucena

15.  Corinne Cath

16.  David McAuley

17.  Doaa Shendy

18.  Edward Morris

19.  Erich Schweighofer

20.  Farzaneh Badii

21.  Finn Petersen

22.  Ghislain de Salins

23.  Griffin Barnett

24.  Guru Acharya

25.  Haoran Huang

26.  Herb Waye

27.  Jean-Jacques Subrena

t

28.  Jeff Neuman

29.  Jimson Olufuye

30.  John Curran

31.  Jordan Carter

32.  Jorge Cancio

33.  Jyoti Panday

34.  Kavouss Arasteh

35.  Konstantinos Komaitis

36.  Mary Uduma

37.  Matthew Shears

38.  Mike Rodenbaugh

39.  Milton Mueller

40.  Nigel Roberts

41.  Pär Brumark

42.  Parminder Jeet Singh

43.  Paul McGrady

44.  Paul Rosenzweig

45.  Pedro da Silva

46.  Phil Buckingham

47.  Philip Corwin

48.  Phillip Marano

49.  Pranesh Prakash

50.  Rafael Perez Galindo

51.  Renu Sirothiya

52.  Robin Gross

53.  Samantha Eisner

54.  Simon Jansson

55.  Snehashish Ghosh

56.  Sonigitu Ekpe

57.  Steve DelBianco

58.  Steve Metalitz

59.  Tijani Ben Jemaa

60.  Tatiana Tropina

61.  Tom Dale

62.  Vidushi Marda

63.  Wale Bakare

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear Grec,

The limited no. of participant except US nationals or US affiliated in your group is very few thus you can not and shall not count on that .The CCWG is the most legal, valid, and countable .

Pls note that there is a total imbalance of participation of non US.

I have already made known this fact to CCWG Co-Chairs.

No questions should be sent out before being discussed and agreed

Regards

Kavouss 

2016-12-05 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >:

Kavouss,

Based on our work plan, we will get to remedies after we identify and agree upon issues.  If there are issues for which immunity should be considered as a possible remedy, we will discuss this concept at that time.  The same is true of the concept of "additional jurisdiction."  I have not seen the third issue raised in this group, nor is it mentioned in Annex 12, so I can't say that this issue is in scope for this subgroup.

"Question 3" is on the agenda as item #3.  Please be more cautious in raising complaints of "suppression," as there was no suppression.  The additional question is on the mailing list, just in a different email thread, as it has been all along.  

Now that you've brought up the issue of support for this question, I need to say that your count is incorrect.  There has been a good deal more opposition than support for sending out this third question.  Nonetheless, we've given this question the best chance to gain further support by continuing to discuss how it could be revised, which is only fair.  But it's also fair to understand that support for this question has been limited so far, compare to those who have voiced objections to it.

Greg

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> > wrote:

Grec,

When you address the following ISSUES:

1.Immunity taking into account who / what is immune vis a vis whom / what?

2. Provision of additional jurisdiction such as what, Swiss jurisdiction or what?

3. Sovereignty of States via a vis Californian Law or law of any State? 

Please kindly put back the question 3 which was on the mailing list till yesterday evening Central European time but it was suppressed as results of only two objections while many others were in favour of it with some language aligbnment

Regards 

2016-12-05 6:09 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >:

All,

Here is the agenda for Meeting #12 at 19:00 UTC on December 5.  Please continue to discuss the "experience solicitation" questions and the proposed additional question between now and then.  Attention to the Google doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing is also important to keep our work moving forward.

Greg

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161206/79e5f851/attachment-0001.html>