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

Mon Jul 31 22:28:09 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,

Thank you very much for your message.

There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or double
standards in that message as briefly discussed below

*Your introductory 7 opening part of the message.*

*1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup for
moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based on
the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”.  *

*Reply *

*This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not
appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and
they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a
categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into
a total divergence manner *

*2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam
Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion
planned for this week,*

*Reply*

*While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should in
no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If she
is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She
will do at the subsequent meeting.*

*Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect to
receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial
well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that
I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms
and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.*

*We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff as
we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC, as
I mentioned we need to clearly know   the application and implementation of
certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed
or rejected by you.*

*3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an
email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is
a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the
Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”*

*Reply.*

*I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well
coordinated view ha ha???*

*Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful
country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do
not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to
sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while
I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been
no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all*

*4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep the
call schedule as is”.*

*Reply*

*Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting from
Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you did not
ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you asking for
significant support knowing that several people are against my intervention
because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.*

*Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether
there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not know
out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant*  *

*5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and since
there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we need to
respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare NATIONAL
Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to say it is a
disproportionate comparison*

*Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk to
the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN Staff
REQUIREMENT you need  to raise the following question *

*Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for
Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda
but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August,
the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the
meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss
respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland
and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long
time ago*

*Question*

*“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to revert
back to Wednesday 02 August*

*Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling changes.*

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> All,
>
> I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup for
> moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based on
> the request from Kavouss Arasteh below.
>
> I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam Eisner
> can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion
> planned for this week, (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to
> Tuesday in an email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day
> on August 2 is a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban
> holiday (the Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica).
>
> In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep the
> call schedule as is.
>
> Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling changes.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:53 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sir, Pls indicate ,based on the participation list at the Sub Group, who
>> from those long list attend the sub group .
>> But from Switzerland ,at least three
>> Moreover, I do not understand Los Angles day, we are talking of National
>> Holidays NOT REGIONAL OR URBAN HOLIDAYSD
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sir,
>>> your comments is totally misleading.
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
>>> redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, we should not have meetings on the national holiday of any
>>>> nation.  Here is a helpful list for August:
>>>> http://www.officeholidays.com/2017/08.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 *Kavouss Arasteh
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, July 31, 2017 2:12 PM
>>>> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>>>> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; Bernard
>>>> Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <
>>>> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting
>>>> Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Bernard,
>>>>
>>>> It is a pity that SAM Unfortunately 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.
>>>>
>>>> However, tomorrow 01 August is the National Holiday in Switzerland and
>>>> must be respected by all means. See Below
>>>>
>>>> The *Swiss National Day* is the national holiday
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day> of Switzerland
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland>, set on 1 August. *It has
>>>> been an official national holiday since 1994 *, although the day had
>>>> been used for the celebration of the foundation of the Swiss Confederacy
>>>> for the first time in 1891, and then repeated annually since 1899.1]
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Day#cite_note-1>
>>>>
>>>> The date is inspired by the date of the Federal Charter of 1291
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Charter_of_1291>, *Pacte du
>>>> Grutli, *placed in "early August",[2]
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Day#cite_note-2> *when
>>>> "three Alpine cantons swore the oath of confederation" (Schwyz, Uri and
>>>> Unterwald), *an action *which later came to be regarded as the
>>>> foundation of Switzerland*."[3]
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Day#cite_note-swissworld-3> *needed
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>*]
>>>>
>>>> The Federal Charter of 1291 first assumed great importance in a report
>>>> by the Federal Department of Home Affairs
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_of_Home_Affairs> of
>>>> 21 November 1889, suggesting a celebration in Bern
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bern> in 1891 that would combine the
>>>> city's 700th anniversary with the Confederacy's 600th anniversary.[*citation
>>>> needed <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>*]
>>>>
>>>> I remember, we did not have any meeting on 4TH July as we respected the
>>>> National Holiday of American.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore have serious difficulties to accept the shift of the
>>>> meeting from 02 to 01 August disrespecting the national holiday of a
>>>> respectful nation
>>>>
>>>> Pls move the meeting back to 02 August
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
>>>> redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 *Jordan Carter
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 30, 2017 7:39 PM
>>>> *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff (acct-staff at icann.org) <acct-staff at icann.org>;
>>>> ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting
>>>> Scheduled for Wednesday 2 August 1300
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Kavouss, dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to lend my support to the process that Greg has set out.
>>>> It is important for the integrity of the CCWG's process that decisions
>>>> about what work to request from ICANN are made by sub-groups as a whole or
>>>> by the CCWG plenary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the Jurisdiction group decides that the sort of written material
>>>> being requested is required, then I am sure that ICANN will look favourably
>>>> at that request and provide it as soon as possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The written transcripts of the call will help make any verbal briefings
>>>> and information available and easier to understand as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to hearing how the call goes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All bests,
>>>>
>>>> Jordan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 July 2017 at 07:40, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Jordan Carter*
>>>>
>>>> *Chief Executive*
>>>>
>>>> *InternetNZ*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Office: +64 4 495 2118 <04-495%202118> | Mobile: +64 21 442 649
>>>> <021%20442%20649> | Skype: jordancarter
>>>>
>>>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <https://2017.nethui.nz/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170801/c0d129a5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170801/c0d129a5/image001-0001.jpg>