[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Greg Shatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sat Jun 10 22:48:08 UTC 2017
All,
I am occupied by family obligations today, so I'm unable to respond fully,
though I have been monitoring the list.
With regard to the discussion of consensus and the term "minority," I
believe this could be resolved if everyone simply looked at the relevant
section of then Charter. Sorry I'm not in a place where I can easily cut
and paste.
Greg
On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 6:24 PM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 at 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=0x9A830097CA066684
>>>
>>> -----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 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%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g 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.wordprocessingml.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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170610/c1e023cd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list