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

Fri Aug 4 14:45:44 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,

Dear Distinguished colleagues in Jurisdiction Sub-Group

During the last call, unfortunately and unintendedly I was, to some extent,
emotional and went beyond what usually I do.

In this family of CCWG, there have been circumstances in which hard
discussion and heated  disputes occurred but  we should be bear in mind
that we must  always maintain  necessary degree of tolerance and patience
at these circumstances and respect each other irrespective of the majority
or minority spectrum.

We are all human being and may unintendedly and momentarily loose our cold
blood.

I have formally admired the hard work of Greg in the last f2f meeting in
Johannesburg and I continue to admire him and appreciate his valuable
efforts.

The issue in his hand is delicate, sensitive and complex. If there is not
sufficient progress it is merely because of that and if there are other
reasons for speed of progress the whole group in a collegial and collective
manner should share the responsibilities and burden and not Greg

I have sent a short message to my dear Friend Greg and expressed my sincere
regret if my emotional intervention has grieved him and I am sure he has
not taken it seriously.

I informed him,  that, as usual, I do my best to further collaborate  with
him and with the group  with a view to find out whether there are ways and
means to  for the resolution  the problems that we are facing.

I wish all of you, in particular. My dear friend Greg, a very nice week-end

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> I am certainly happy to discuss a request for written answers to focused
> legal questions.  Questions of the form “is OFAC a problem?” are to
> indefinite for legal answer.  As expressed, many of the questions proposed
> were of this indefinite variety.  Others were so broad in scope (e.g.
> “provide a summary of OFAC”) as to be huge time investments for no apparent
> gain.  Better questions would be of the form: “Identify cases in which
> OFAC’s application has had a legal impact on ICANN’s operations?”
>
>
>
> I have not gone through the proposed questions item by item – but I would
> be happy to work on finding from that list the sorts of questions that
> lawyers can actually answer and seeking written responses.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM
> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>;
> acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; Samantha
> Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <
> turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>;
> León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> *Subject:* [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@
> 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>
> 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> 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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170804/b32b7dfc/attachment-0001.html>