[CCWG-ACCT] Disagreement on wrong interpretation of a qualifier

[Greg Shatan]

I can state with absolute truthfulness and certainty that there was no
pre-alignment or pre-arrangement. I resent the allegation and I'm
disappointed in the thinking underlying such a  statement.

People agreed with me because they shared my opinion, which is not in any
way intended to be US-centric.  If this were a UK-law document, I would say
the same thing -- that we should use terms commonly used and with settled
meanings under UK law.  I think it's a common sense position.

Can we get back to business and avoid hatching conspiracy theories?  Such
thinking is below the standard set by my esteemed colleague from Iran.

Greg 😈

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:54 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:

> Dear Kavouss,
>
> I cannot jump into concluding that there is any kind of pre-arrangement
> against your views.
>
> The fact that as you state “others had no comments” was what led me to
> believe there was no traction to the issue and hence I suggested taking it
> to the list.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 12/04/2016, a las 8:51 a.m., Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Dear Leon
> Tks
> Having no traction was due to lineup ?pre arrangement of those talked
> against me
> Others had no comments
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-04-12 15:40 GMT+02:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>:
>
>> Dear Kavouss,
>>
>> I am sorry you feel that way. As you know, our duty as Co-Chairs is to
>> try to facilitate the discussion amongst all members and participants in
>> our group.
>>
>> I am aware that you have expressed your disagreement with Mr. Shatan’s
>> views in several occasions but I am also aware that, to the best of my
>> knowledge, your disagreement has found no traction in the discussion in the
>> meeting you are referring to, hence I thought the best way to foster and
>> encourage discussion on the issue was to take it to the list.
>>
>> I apologize if my suggestion offended you or if it was perceived as being
>> disrespectful. Of course I didn’t mean it that way at all.
>>
>> I trust you will understand why I suggested to take the discussion to the
>> list and thank you for your kind observation.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> León
>>
>> > El 12/04/2016, a las 6:54 a.m., Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> escribió:
>> >
>> > Dear Leon
>> > I am disappointed and frustrated by the reaction of some Co-Chairs in
>> conducting the meeting .
>> > I had a disagreement with Mr. Satan of IPC on the above subject
>> > Due to the closed link between that person and   other  persons
>> belonging  to the same camp, you did not agreed with the argument that I
>> submitted .
>> > Mr.Satan and his camp , wrong views were taken BUT what disturbed me
>> more was your statement in saying" kavouss,if you want to continue thus
>> discussion,continue on nailing list"
>> > Why should I do that?
>> > What was the usefulness of the meeting if an important issue should be
>> discussed outside the call?
>> > Why I was treated ?
>> > .
>> > Kavousd
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160412/29a4a025/attachment.html>