[Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Professor,

We are not at any university.

Pls kindly refrain giving English Lesson to others .

You might have a given style in writing other could have different style
when they write. Globalization versus internationalization discussion is a
semantic issue and further discussion on that seems counterproductive.

This arguments you have launched do not help at  all. Instead of
criticizing each other we need to be objective and constructive.

You may defend your position  for ever while attempting to prove that
others are wrong and you are the only one who is right, that is your very
right  to do so but you  should not oppose to the positions of others
forever. The question is not that someone is right and someone else is
wrong, the question is that we need to understand each other and build up
consensus

The more you insist on your position , the more people would doubt about
the validity of your arguments.

By the way the tone and style you have used in saying  *,” I can only smile
and ask you to untie the knots in your words (or thinking?) *

Seems unusual.

Best Regards

Kavouss



2016-12-29 5:54 GMT+01:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:

> Parminder,
>
> I am having trouble making sense of your message below. When you use
> verbal constructs like “I havent seen not only no attempt to explore ways
> to stop such influence by you,” I can only smile and ask you to untie the
> knots in your words (or thinking?) and rephrase the question more clearly.
>
>
>
> To quote you, Milton, "Supporters of the MS model and opponents of
> intergovernmentalism have legitimate reasons to investigate the impact of
> US jurisdiction, because the US is a global power with very specific
> foreign policy and military interests. US jurisdiction thus may have the
> potential to create opportunities for one government -  the US - to have an
> inappropriate level of influence over ICANN's transnational, nonstate actor
> based governance processes."
>
>  I havent seen not only no attempt to explore ways to stop such influence
> by you, and many others here, but, much more problematically, strong
> resistance to anyone trying to do so. Now that you state the matter in this
> way, it does arouse curiosity about what kind of directions of exploration
> you yourself possibly see in this regard.
>
> As for your next sentence
> "One can consider those issues without implying that ICANN's corporate HQ
> needs to move."
>
> Yes, this is entirely true. Have been saying this for a long time but
> somehow hasnt had traction.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161229/2cfd0509/attachment.html>