[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC

Mon Jul 31 23:12:15 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,

You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift
back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled.

I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change the
date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your question
 to ask

Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially
planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August

Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the
question decide that :

*"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as there
was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."*

*You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing whether
or not the charge to initial date was opposed.*

*You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like you
*

*How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.*

I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and
strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the
new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day.

Pls do not impose your views

Regards

Kavouss

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Greg,
> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views .
> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in the
> last part of this message.
> 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 / 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 Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as
>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2.
>>
>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF):
>>
>> 1.  Agenda
>> 2.  Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC
>> and sanctions matters.  (These are largely unedited, so there are some
>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.)
>> 3.  Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's
>> meeting.
>>
>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove
>> useful.
>>
>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and
>> future calls:
>> a.  *The call will start on time.*
>> b.  Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will not
>> be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or
>> comments should be raised on the list.
>> c.  We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible,
>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list).
>> I hope that this will make calls more productive.
>>
>> I look forward to our call.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170801/462534e4/attachment-0001.html>