[Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300

Mon Jul 31 03:56:10 UTC 2017

Kavouss,

You seem to have misunderstood my email.  I did not say that there was no
support for addressing the OFAC issue (or issues).  I did not say that OFAC
would be "ignored."  I certainly did not "put you in a corner."  I have no
idea how you came up with that.  I will assume the best, that there was
some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding.

All I said was that there was no support in the Subgroup for your request
to have ICANN Legal prepare a comprehensive written history background
document to be distributed before the call.  As Jordan Carter stated,
"decisions about what work to request from ICANN are made by sub-groups as
a whole."  This request was not "rejected" by me.  It failed to get any
traction in the call or on the list.

As Jordan also notes, we have both real-time captioning and transcripts
that will enable you to read, during and after the call, what Sam has to
say.  This should give you the opportunity to review and make sure you
understand what Sam said, and to ask questions about anything that is
unclear (probably a better approach any time there is a failure to
understand what is being communicated).

Whether you are "alone on the issue" of requesting a written document, I
cannot say.  As rapporteur, I can only respond to those who participate on
the call and on the email list, where the issue of a written document has
been amply exposed by you, without other support.  I would note that your
request that such a document be available 24 hours prior to the call would
mean that Sam would have had to prepare the document by 6:00 am Los Angeles
time tomorrow (Monday).  I would expect that any worthwhile document on
this subject would take a substantial amount of time to prepare, including
research and discussions, writing, revision and review.  This would likely
have pushed the OFAC discussion off by several weeks.  I expect that other
members of the Subgroup took this into account in declining to support your
request.  In any event, I am fairly confident that we will have ample
opportunity for any follow-up that the Subgroup decides is necessary.

Finally, I must take exception to the insinuations in your emails.  Nothing
was done by "me and my colleagues."  I have no "colleagues" or "supporters"
in this Subgroup.  I am not pushing for any points.  I have taken pains to
be a neutral rapporteur, while at the same time trying to identify and
build on points of agreement to find consensus in the group on issues of
substance and procedure.  If there are any "motivations" with regard to
OFAC, they are not mine -- and I doubt that there are any "motivations" of
other members in the Subgroup (although stakeholders are fully expected to
have points of view).  None of us (other than ICANN the organization) are
involved in "applying" OFAC to ICANN.  I would kindly ask you to reconsider
your accusations, veiled and otherwise, which I believe are not consistent
with ICANN's Standards of Behavior.  I would prefer to spend time on
matters of substance, and I believe the rest of the Subgroup does as well.
I hope that we can now turn in that direction.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Greg
> Thank you for reply.
> I know many people do not wish to react or act on OFAC as they would like
> that such unreasonable continued to be applied to some limited number of
> countries . You may not have any point to do that .
> Sam Eisner explanation MUST BE IN WRITTEN FORM as I have serious
> difficulties to understand her  message while she may speak very  well but
> I have difficulty to get the message  so I want an advance copy of her
> explanation before the meeting  .
> Pls note that I am not alone on the issue. If there are not other people
> at call that does not mean that I am alone.
> It seems that OFAC ISSUE WILL NOT BE TREATED since according to you there
> is no support for that. That is not what we expected from your Group.
> I know that there must be other motivation than technical and
> administrative that this question is rejected by you and your colleagues.
> However, this is an important issue and MUST be addressed .
> You can not ignore it even if there are few countries affected.
> I will not leave as such to be put at corner by you. I will insist and ask
> for a written documents
> There is no relation with state assets and DNS .There were and still there
> are other motivation to apply it and other motivation NOT to address it. I
> do not know what are those motivations.
> At any meeting you as a participants push and sushi for your points and
> taking considerable amount of time of the meeting since you have several
> supporters.
> Pls kindly reconsider your position and be a little bit helpful and not
> categorically object to my legitimate requiert .
> Tks for your kind attention and advice
> Kavouss
>
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Kavouss,
>>
>> I am responding to your various emails regarding your request that ICANN
>> Legal be required to prepare a comprehensive "written history background
>> Document" on OFAC and ICANN before meeting with the Jurisdiction Subgroup.
>> As you know, Samantha Eisner from ICANN Legal is scheduled to meet with the
>> Jurisdiction Subgroup on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00.
>>
>> You suggested this course of action in the Jurisdiction Subgroup meeting
>> on July 26.  There was no other support for this course of action in the
>> Subgroup meeting.  At that time, I proposed that we would start by hearing
>> from ICANN legal in the meeting and engaging in Q&A with ICANN.  The
>> Subgroup would then be able to decide if we needed to ask ICANN further
>> questions, if we wanted written responses, etc.  There was no opposition to
>> this course of action, other than from yourself.  I believe this is all
>> reflected in the transcript.
>>
>> I will note that, subsequent to the meeting, no one from the Subgroup has
>> responded to your emails in support of your request.  In conjunction with
>> the results in the Subgroup meeting, I believe it fair to conclude that
>> there is not sufficient support for your request in the Subgroup.
>>
>> Therefore, we will proceed as agreed on the last call and documented in
>> the transcript.  We will hear from ICANN Legal and ask questions. The
>> Subgroup (and not any single participant) will then decide what, if any,
>> follow-up is needed.
>>
>> After this email, I will send out an email to the list requesting
>> questions for ICANN Legal, which we can provide them in advance of the
>> call.  I hope that you will contribute to this effort.
>>
>> Please note that there are times when professional and personal
>> obligations may prevent from responding to ICANN-related emails as quickly
>> as I might wish.  As with all of my ICANN activities, I am acting as
>> Rapporteur entirely on a volunteer basis, which is only possible if I meet
>> my obligations to my employer and our clients, devote some time to my
>> family, and attend to other responsibilities that may be pressing at any
>> given time.
>>
>> I look forward to your continued contributions to the work of the
>> Jurisdiction Subgroup.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg Shatan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Grec, I have no problem for moving that meeting by one day to
>>> Tuseday.
>>> But I insist that before the meeting we need a written history
>>> background Document as I have asked.
>>> I think this is absolutely necessary e to have a written doc. in
>>> addition to verbal explanation by SAM ,
>>> I do not understand why my e-mail has not been replied.
>>> Pls kindly explain.
>>> Herb is kindly requested to monitor the process as I will take the non
>>> reply formally to him and to the co-chairs that till now have not reacted
>>> even though I copied  my correspendenc to them as well
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The time change is OK with me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully we can devote all of the call to Q&A on OFAC and choice of
>>>> law and can dispense with the other stuff.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We might also provide a channel for advance submission of questions so
>>>> that the opportunity to ask questions is fairly distributed among different
>>>> subgroup participants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>>>>
>>>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>>>
>>>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>>> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Bernard Turcotte
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 6:26 PM
>>>> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>; ACCT-Staff (
>>>> acct-staff at icann.org) <acct-staff at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting
>>>> Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately Sam Eisner cannot join our Wednesday 2 August 1300
>>>> meeting but could participate on Tuesday 1 August 1300 to cover the topics
>>>> of OFAC and Choice of Law from the ICANN perspective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As such Greg is suggesting that we move our scheduled meeting to
>>>> Tuesday 1 August 1300 and cancel the Wednesday 2 August 1300 meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please advise acct-staff at icann.org by 23:59 UTC 27 July if you have
>>>> serious objections to this change of date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greg will consider the responses and confirm his decision regarding
>>>> this by the EOB tomorrow to allow everyone to plan accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For Greg Shatan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bernard Turcotte
>>>>
>>>> ICANN Support Staff to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20170730/40c2439c/attachment-0001.html>