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

Wed Aug 2 21:50:10 UTC 2017

Dear Sir,
If you categorize me as “bad actor.”

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:08 PM, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> I’ve had it.
>
>
>
> I’m openly declaring on the record my view that Kavouss Arasteh is
> comporting himself as a “bad actor.”
>
>
>
> He may disagree on principle with any number of points but his tone,
> manner, and insinuations are detrimental and indeed hostile to the process.
>
>
>
> I understand diplomacy but in the words of H.L. Mencken "Every normal man
> must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag,
> and begin slitting throats."
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> Principal Consultant
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:07 AM
> *To:* <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; Thomas
> Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; Greg
> Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED
> DURING THE CALL
>
>
>
> 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/20170802/9ad9879d/attachment-0001.html>