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

Fri Aug 4 05:35:45 UTC 2017

Dear all,

Let me again support this request from Kavouss so eloquently explained by Benedicto.

And I call for mutual understanding on all sides, especially from Greg and the co-chairs: the feeling of not being listened to, of having to repeat requests or positions time and again, or the sentiment of not being taken into account is quite frustrating, especially when operating from positions portrayed by others as "minority" positions or as requiring "express support from many"-  whilst other positions are apparently taken instantly as "the majority" and are only subjected to a "non objection" standard...

this all is very delicate and perceptions are sometimes influenced by our different cultural, linguistic, and professional backgrounds... a most delicate task for our rapporteur and the CCWG co-chairs...

kind regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br>
Datum: 4. August 2017 um 02:24:09 MESZ
An: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>, acct-staff at icann.org <acct-staff at icann.org>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL

Dear all,

Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like.

Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.

Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.

Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…

Best regards,

Benedicto

________________________________
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48
Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL

Greg

I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT

Samantha, during her presentation, three times  emphasized that if  we had questions we could  raise them  with her. Read the Transcript.

Two of these three times she referred to me.

Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.

pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT  . This issue is important.

Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.

What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student

We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work

We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems

What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?

Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.

Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?

Cheers

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> 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