[Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda

[Greg Shatan]

Kavouss,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or how that is responsive to my
email.  Could you clarify that please?  Thank you.

Best regards,

Greg

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Greg,
> I know that for you it would be difficult to understand the problem of
> those countries faced with OFAC or with FSIA. Those   who have never had
> any headache barely understnd what a headache  means .
>
> 2017-06-07 20:58 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>> Kavouss,
>>
>> I don't recall undertaking to produce such a document.  Here is what I
>> said regarding OFAC:
>>
>> It would be my suggestion to prepare for a call on the OFAC situation in
>> two weeks' time so that we have both ample time to prepare and also that we
>> will have some people back who won't be attending next week's call.  I
>> think there is definitely background information.  I, for one, would like
>> to perhaps hear from GoDaddy, their view on what happened with Crimea.  So
>> that we can get more general information on that.  So I think we could have
>> a more fruitful and well-rounded discussion in two weeks' time.
>>
>>
>> ​If I am overlooking something, please let me know.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg ​
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Greg,
>>> In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC.
>>> This fundamental and crucial .
>>> Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been
>>> always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur,
>>> I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members
>>> provided few months ago.
>>> ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural
>>> and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used
>>> neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any
>>> discrimination and any political motivation.
>>> If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our
>>> responsibility .
>>> Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted  under any
>>> circumstances.
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>> 2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:
>>>
>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>
>>>> I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday).
>>>>
>>>> In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because
>>>> I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU).
>>>>
>>>> As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to
>>>> stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations.
>>>>
>>>> The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on
>>>> that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the
>>>> case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary...
>>>>
>>>> The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding
>>>> v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I
>>>> don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the
>>>> Subgroup in general terms.
>>>>
>>>> kind regards
>>>>
>>>> Jorge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ
>>>> An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup
>>>> will be on Tuesday's Agenda
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion
>>>> of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of
>>>> settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know
>>>> what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
>>>>
>>>> 1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and
>>>> Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1
>>>> Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our
>>>> understanding of that mandate and Scope.
>>>>
>>>> 2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and
>>>> the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These
>>>> documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in
>>>> the last few weeks.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be
>>>> distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues,
>>>> by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
>>>>
>>>> 4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential
>>>> issue is "in scope".
>>>>
>>>> 5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be
>>>> most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
>>>>
>>>> 6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or
>>>> avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever
>>>> the outcome might be.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have
>>>> given up on this subject of discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> 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/20170607/ca568af4/attachment-0001.html>