[Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL

Wed Aug 2 11:06:47 UTC 2017

 Dear Co- Chairs
Dear all

I know some of you on holidays and some others as usual provide unqualified
support to Greg.

Yes it is good that the CO-CHAIRS of  parent Group support the rapporteur
of the sub-groups BUT such support is legitimate if the rapporteurs actions
or inactions are justified and appropriate.

Should the approach taken by the sub groups’ Rapporteurs are not justified
or contented by participants then the co-chairs of the parent group shall
refrain from taking positions notr they shall act as teaching the Group
members providing guidelines for them as we are all individual acting
according to our thoughts and policies we follow and do not need
instruction nor do we need advice from co-chairs. Having said that, I  wish
to come back to the real issue. Jurisdiction is, one the most difficult and
most complex WS2 subjects

It was given to someone that may find himself in fight and struggle
internally with himself.

On the one hand he must be absolutely impartial and neutral, on the other
hand, as a human being he has to follow his own way of thinking and his
guideline. These are two contradictory situations.

Sometimes experienced people find a way forward to maintain a balance
between these two contradictory circumstances. Some other, may not be able
to do so in spite of their intention.

Moreover, there are members of ws2 SUBGROUPS that categorically object to
the views of some other member irrespective of the substance of the issue
as these people have considered and are considering other motivations than
those associated with subject. Some of these objections stemmed from
personal relations with other members and some others stems from some types
of”  Pbobia”    ( dislike, hostility ,jealousness and …..) I do not care
about these sort of reactions as come in all cases from specific persons
one supporting each other’s and I have multiple evidence of such unfounded
opposition against others.

Now coming back to the case in question ; Written reply to the questions
raised at 01 August meeting of Jurisdiction Group:.

After some 35 meetings of the sub-group costing considerable amount of
money to ICANN and more importantly to the limited 14-20-25 participants
they invested time, efforts and … to participate and contribute to the
subject *we came back to square one which was ; lovcation of ICANN and
Applicable LAW .*

One of the Co- chairs, unexpectedly and without any discussion at the level
of

CCW, all of the sudden came with his brilliant unexpected idea of

“Consensus building idea “

*“Thomas, *

*Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the liberty to
highlight relevant parts.*

*We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California
jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the
sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of
incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN.  With
this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there
would be consensus for immunity based concept or a change of place of
incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that
we focus on the solution that gets most traction.  Recognizing that this
does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we
can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations.  But that
we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of
incorporation. And work on solutions that are founded on this” .*

Among the issue for which we desperately looking for solution is
applicability of OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD  .

After some discussions it was suggested by rapporteur that Samantha Eisner
from ICANN legal Department be invited to shed some light on the issue.

To that effect, the Jurisdiction sub-Rappoteur asked participants to raise
their questions and a handful of the members so did. These questions were
assembled in a note from the rapporteur and was put on the agenda of the 01
August meeting of sub group.

The legal staff of ICANN after some introductory part  which were almost
cut and paste from document which were already made available o by the
Rapporteurs as well as by others including extensive amount of material
available on OFAC website or on Google ,she took the questions Note and
arbitrarily selected some of them and replied to them in which at several
occasions she stated that *“ We not know or I do not know* “.Some of the
questions were not answered at all as having 15 questions there were no
chances to discuss them.

As the issue is sensitive and delicate and  since English is NOT the mother
tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as
such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting
was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document, I
have asked at several occasions to request the speaker to kindly provide *a
written version of her reply to the questions discussed as well as written
answers to the questions which were not raised due to lack of sufficient
time . *

*This request was immediartely rejected by the Rapporteur saying that to
take such decision we need a consensus decision by the group.*

This was a strange course action.

The reasons that I asked the written answer were given above (As the issue
is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of
many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that
what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not
recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document)

Later on I had some support regarding the need to have written answers.

In view of the above, and considering that the issue is complex and broad,
I need written versions of the answers given to the questions taking into
account those raised during the call as well as answers to questions which
were not provided due to lack of time.

This is a valid and legitimate request which due to arguments launched
above are required for those who either wish to have a more formal answer
or those whose Mother Tongue is not English .

Regards

Kavouss

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> +1
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Seun Ojedeji
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. August 2017 08:11
> *An:* avri doria <avri at apc.org>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED
> DURING THE CALL
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the
> recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was
> asking us to provide.
>
>
>
> Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side
> with the questions.
>
>
>
> A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after
> all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being
> read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this
> seemingly trivial matter.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
> > Kavouss,
> >
> > Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam.  This is a
> > matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual
> > participant.  The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether
> > to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which
> > questions).  Thank you.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
> > <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I
> >     nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting
> >     and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
> >     Regards
> >     Kavouss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> > Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170802/2b699ef8/attachment-0001.html>