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

[Greg Shatan]

Kavouss,

Thank you for your suggestions.  However, these restrictions have not been
approved by the group and are quite exceptional.  Therefore, I cannot put
these in place.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Dear Greg,
>
> Dear All,
>
> if and only if SAM is given the floor to speak on OFAC *she*
>
> *shall not speak on background ,definition, provisions of OFAC , and  so
> on so fort *
>
> She may reply to the questions raised by me, Parminder, Seun, Farzaneh,
> Nigel  and others
>
> *NO background presentation even one sentence*.
>
> There are sufficient materials available and we have all read them
>
> Moreover, if she eventually given the opportunity to speak *she must
> provide written materials covering totally what she would Present verbally *
>
> *In addition, when she present various parts of the reply to question
> raised she needs to make a pose allowing the persons raised questions to
> make follow up action enquiry and NOT SPEAK FOR MINTS IN A PASSIVE WAY *
>
> *Regards*
>
> *Kavouss *
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg,
>> I am sorry to hear that .
>> You did not receive my four mails BECAUSE YIOU RUSHED to take decision
>> within few and only few mints after your enquiry to the mail
>> I am not comfortable with the unfair way that to treat this caser.
>> NO MEETING TODAY
>> today is a National Holiday in this country
>> .Please respect other people important days
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20170801/3d515794/attachment-0001.html>