[Ws2-jurisdiction] Further actions on my latest MODIFIED /Softened SUGGESTIONS

[Greg Shatan]

Kavouss,

I await your response to the substance of my explanations.

Best regards,

Greg

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:30 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Greg
> Pls indicate what do you mean by
> I have taken the remaining elements of your text into account and given
> them due consideration
> To this part I am ok but you continued
>  but they are not included in the document,
>
> What is the meaning of you have tajen into account but not included in the
> document
> This is senseles confusing frustrating
> Either you have taken them into acount thus they should have been included
> Or if they were not included in the doc, the term " They have been taken
> into account " ids totally senseless
> I do not know with what language I should talk to you
> Do you speak French
> Pls I am tired to be confused
> I am spending hours and hours to concvinve you that these points should be
> addressed like two other examples that were included ( Netherland Antiles
> .... and .... )
> I do not know why I am pushed to be confused.
> You should not decide to reject them You are expected to be fair.$I kniow
> many of you do not intend to address point raised by some of us because you
> want to tailored the report in a way that satifsfy you.
> Pls once again include them in one way or other
> I am not convinced
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Kavouss,
>>
>> I have taken the remaining elements of your text into account and given
>> them due consideration, but they are not included in the document, for the
>> reasons I have twice set forth with great care and detail.  Please read my
>> detailed explanations and respond to the substance contained in them if you
>> have any remaining concerns.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Greg
>>> Sorry to disturb you at your religeous feast .Pls kindly refer me to the
>>> area of the text when other elements sent to you few hours ago has bedn
>>> taken into account .Just few mints for you to highlight those, if considred
>>> as you know where they have been included and with what language which may
>>> not be exactly identical as proposed
>>> Sorry to bother you again
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>
>>>> As previously noted, I have responded in detail (twice) regarding the
>>>> remaining elements of your suggested text.  Please read these responses.  I
>>>> assure you it will take far less time to read them than it took me to write
>>>> them.  Please reply to the points raised in these responses if you have any
>>>> remaining concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>> In addition to the elements of my last proposal that you have
>>>>> included in the last version you have posted quite recently , I have had
>>>>> other proposal  which I did ask you to look at them and include them either
>>>>> in the itroduction ,as relevant, or preamble to the Recommendation . See
>>>>> below
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>> *1.The last sentence reads” unless the results of the study
>>>>> demonstrate that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to pursue these
>>>>> licenses.”To this effect the first sentensce below “ what
>>>>> Criteria……inappropriate Because you qualify the study by being
>>>>> inappropriate and I did suggest what criteria will be use to make the
>>>>> judgement *
>>>>> *Thus the first sentence would fir .You may include my comment by
>>>>> modifying the sentence as follows *
>>>>> *UNLESS ,USING APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, THE RESULTS OF STUDY DEMONSTRATE
>>>>> THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO PURSUE THESE STUDIES*.
>>>>> This has been covered in part
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Generally, ICANN  should pursue the application for general license
>>>>> at arliest time and should  remind the registries not to copy and paste the
>>>>> general agreements found in US-based registrars. *
>>>>>
>>>>> *This also fits*
>>>>>
>>>>>  This has been covered in part
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is
>>>>> critical and should not be undermined.
>>>>> *This part is talking about awareness that was extensively discussed
>>>>> and thus fits *
>>>>> This has been covered in part
>>>>>
>>>>> *4. There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US
>>>>> registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately
>>>>> because they might get affected by US sanctions*
>>>>> *This could be included in appropriate part .if it does not fit with
>>>>> the recommends part *
>>>>> This has NOT been covered in part
>>>>> *5.Examples of that are related to Godaddy and Online Nic, which made
>>>>> pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction coountries.
>>>>> This could be included in the introductory part of the OFAC sanctions and
>>>>> registrar*
>>>>> This has NOT been covered in part
>>>>> *6 Registrars  should be reminded that they should not normally
>>>>> examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.*
>>>>> *This could be included either in the recommends part or preamble of
>>>>> the recommend part *
>>>>> This seems not covered.
>>>>> Pls kindly advise about those which are not covered in any part of the
>>>>> report or if covered , I have nor seen it
>>>>> I am grateful to you for that guidance
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170921/5c182384/attachment-0001.html>