[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC

Tue Aug 1 00:08:44 UTC 2017

Kavouss,

I'm sorry that my efforts to determine the sense of the group with regard
to rescheduling did not meet with your approval.  I can only try my best.
For your information, I did not receive any of your four emails objecting
to the formulation of the question until after I sent out my agenda email.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Greg,
>
> You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift
> back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled.
>
> I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change
> the date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your
> question  to ask
>
> Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially
> planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August
>
> Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the
> question decide that :
>
> *"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as there
> was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."*
>
> *You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing whether
> or not the charge to initial date was opposed.*
>
> *You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like
> you *
>
> *How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.*
>
> I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and
> strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the
> new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day.
>
> Pls do not impose your views
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg,
>> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views .
>> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in the
>> last part of this message.
>> Thank you very much for your message.
>>
>> There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or double
>> standards in that message as briefly discussed below
>>
>>
>>
>> *Your introductory / opening part of the message.*
>>
>> *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup
>> for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based
>> on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”.  *
>>
>> *Reply *
>>
>> *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not
>> appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and
>> they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a
>> categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into
>> a total divergence manner *
>>
>> *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam
>> Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion
>> planned for this week,*
>>
>> *Reply*
>>
>> *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should
>> in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If
>> she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She
>> will do at the subsequent meeting.*
>>
>> *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect
>> to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial
>> well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that
>> I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms
>> and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.*
>>
>> *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff
>> as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC,
>> as I mentioned we need to clearly know   the application and implementation
>> of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not
>> agreed or rejected by you.*
>>
>> *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an
>> email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is
>> a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the
>> Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”*
>>
>> *Reply.*
>>
>> *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well
>> coordinated view ha ha???*
>>
>> *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful
>> country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do
>> not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to
>> sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while
>> I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been
>> no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all*
>>
>> *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep
>> the call schedule as is”.*
>>
>> *Reply*
>>
>> *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting
>> from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you
>> did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you
>> asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my
>> intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.*
>>
>> *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether
>> there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not
>> know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant*  *
>>
>> *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and
>> since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we
>> need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare
>> NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to
>> say it is a disproportionate comparison*
>>
>> *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk to
>> the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN Staff
>> REQUIREMENT you need  to raise the following question *
>>
>> *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for
>> Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda
>> but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August,
>> the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the
>> meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss
>> respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland
>> and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long
>> time ago*
>>
>> *Question*
>>
>> *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to
>> revert back to Wednesday 02 August*
>>
>> *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling
>> changes.*
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as
>>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2.
>>>
>>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF):
>>>
>>> 1.  Agenda
>>> 2.  Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC
>>> and sanctions matters.  (These are largely unedited, so there are some
>>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.)
>>> 3.  Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and
>>> future calls:
>>> a.  *The call will start on time.*
>>> b.  Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will not
>>> be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or
>>> comments should be raised on the list.
>>> c.  We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible,
>>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list).
>>> I hope that this will make calls more productive.
>>>
>>> I look forward to our call.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> 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/20170731/764becf1/attachment-0001.html>