[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sat Jun 10 22:24:18 UTC 2017
Dear All,
Consensus is consensus without any adjective.
I disagree to add an adjective ,like soft or rough or relative or .... to
it.
This is an invention by a specific group of people and does not have any
valid and legitimate basis.
I hope people in their reply respect others withourt recourse to any
irony.Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-11 0:19 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> Paul,
> I know you since many many years and in particular during your particular
> position in WS1
> Regards.
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2017-06-10 23:32 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>:
>
>> Nope you are perfectly reasonable. But in this instance I think your
>> perception is incorrect. I could write the next post from the other side
>> myself if I had to. We aren't talking past each other -- we just disagree.
>>
>> To put it simply, you proposed an elegant compromise. Most of the
>> majority are willing to accept it. So let's just do it.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
>> 097CA066684
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc
>> es at icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
>> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 4:06 PM
>> To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well that is the impression I have. When I see responses to the various
>> positions I think I am seeing people talk past each other.
>>
>> But I accept that you may not see me as a reasonable person.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 10-Jun-17 15:54, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>> > I don't think that after a year anyone can reasonably say that the
>> minority position here has not been heard, understood and considered. It
>> just hasn't carried the day.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>> > Paul Rosenzweig
>> > paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> > M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> > www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> > My PGP Key:
>> > https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06668
>> > 4
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> > [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
>> > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 2:06 PM
>> > To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group
>> consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when
>> you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle.
>> >
>> > Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no
>> minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully
>> considered.
>> >
>> > Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also
>> appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and
>> considered feel we are not there yet.
>> >
>> > Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout
>> the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet
>> reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >> There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the
>> >> call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas
>> >> (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It
>> >> is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed.
>> >>
>> >> I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day
>> >> would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward
>> >> at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with
>> >> minority objection from the representatives of several governments)
>> >> then we should just close the group out altogether.
>> >>
>> >> Paul
>> >>
>> >> PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this
>> >> contentious group, which has been quite patient.
>> >>
>> >> Paul Rosenzweig
>> >> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> >> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> >> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> >> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> >> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> >> My PGP Key:
>> >> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA0666
>> >> 8
>> >> 4
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> >> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz
>> >> Jardim Oliveira
>> >> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM
>> >> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> >> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>> >>
>> >> Dear Greg,
>> >>
>> >> It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the
>> >> group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening.
>> >> People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their
>> >> mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that
>> >> the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected
>> >> some degree of consensus within the group.
>> >>
>> >> May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion
>> >> to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His
>> >> proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss
>> >> the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante
>> position in abstract.
>> >>
>> >> As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not
>> >> supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised
>> >> work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will
>> >> identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each
>> >> issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group
>> >> should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that
>> >> requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in
>> >> the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change
>> >> to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are
>> the issues to be discussed by the group.
>> >>
>> >> My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions
>> >> that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet
>> >> point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction
>> >> is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated
>> >> in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are
>> >> possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and
>> >> international law immunities, even though it remains a private
>> organisation governed by Swiss law.
>> >>
>> >> My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point.
>> >> There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the
>> >> mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the
>> >> Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we
>> >> should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any
>> >> question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way,
>> >> only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions
>> >> on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent
>> possible remedies..
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Thiago
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Mensagem original-----
>> >> De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com] Enviada em:
>> >> sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47
>> >> Para: Kavouss Arasteh
>> >> Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction
>> >> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>> >>
>> >> Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to
>> >> assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a
>> >> number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so
>> >> we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted,
>> >> some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup
>> before.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question,
>> >> I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question
>> >> is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since
>> >> there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be
>> >> the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to
>> >> share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an
>> >> alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
>> >> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear Greg,
>> >> Dear All, It was not,
>> >> The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement
>> >> I do not agree with this question.
>> >> Regards
>> >> Kavouss
>> >>
>> >> 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh
>> >> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear All, It was not,
>> >> The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement
>> >> I do not agree with this question.
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> Kavouss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
>> >> <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>
>> >:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Greg,
>> >>
>> >> Help me with this. Was this question you wanted
>> to discuss at
>> >> today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before
>> >> today's call?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Thiago
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Mensagem original-----
>> >> De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>> >> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> ] Em nome de
>> >> ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org>
>> >> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29
>> >> Para: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
>> >>
>> >> Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to
>> >> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >>
>> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide
>> Web, visit
>> >>
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or
>> body 'help' to
>> >> ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org>
>> >>
>> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> >> ws2-jurisdiction-owner at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner at icann.org>
>> >>
>> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so
>> it is more
>> >> specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Today's Topics:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> -
>> >>
>> >> Message: 1
>> >> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400
>> >> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> >> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> >> Cc: "acct-staff at icann.org" <acct-staff at icann.org>
>> >> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
>> >> Message-ID:
>> >>
>> >> <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g at mail.gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71
>> g at mail.gmail.com
>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >>
>> >> Please see attached.
>> >> -------------- next part --------------
>> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> >> URL:
>> >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> >> d
>> >> 160a9d
>> >> 9/attachment.html
>> >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> >> d
>> >> 160a9d
>> >> 9/attachment.html> >
>> >> -------------- next part --------------
>> >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> >> Name: QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG.pdf
>> >> Type: application/pdf
>> >> Size: 350997 bytes
>> >> Desc: not available
>> >> URL:
>> >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> >> d
>> >> 160a9d
>> >> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.pdf
>> >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> >> d
>> >> 160a9d
>> >> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.pdf> >
>> >> -------------- next part --------------
>> >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> >> Name: QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG.docx
>> >> Type:
>> >> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessing
>> ml.document
>> >> Size: 15327 bytes
>> >> Desc: not available
>> >> URL:
>> >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> >> d
>> >> 160a9d
>> >> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.docx
>> >> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> >> d
>> >> 160a9d
>> >> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.docx> >
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >>
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> End of Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
>> >> ************************************************
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >>
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> >> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> > Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170611/9adae1cf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list