[CWG-Stewardship] Joining Consensus

[avri doria]

Thanks.

avri


On 09-Aug-16 20:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>
> Dear Co Chairs,
>
> Dear CWG members and participants
>
> This the time that everybody come to the aid of the PART and
> demonstrate the utmost level of tolerance, flexibility and highest
> degree of collaboration  .
>
> The reactions shown by one person to my comments were unfair,
> inappropriate and outside the code of conduct .Perhaps its author was
> tired and exhausted
>
> Dear CWG members and participants
>
> There are structural and legal terms used in the draft which are
> incoherent and incompatible with each other. This has been subject to
> exchange of tens of mails among members.
>
> Having totally rejected the counter comments made by one participant,
> on the one hand, and having understood that except one person,
> everybody else agreed that the comments that I made are relevant and
> valid.
>
> Now, in reply to the comprehensive message and appeals made by various
> distinguish colleagues on mailing list and off list and having
> carefully considered the reasons given by our Chair Jonathan, and
> being always supportive of reaching compromise, in the interest of
> transition process, I joint the consensus emerged and have no
> objection to proceed with the approval of the draft
>
> I hope this will put on record that we need to understand each other
> problem and be collaborative to the maximum possible extent
>
>
> 2016-08-10 2:58 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Dear Co Chairs,
>
>     Dear CWG members and participants
>
>     This the time that everybody come to the aid of the PART and
>     demonstrate the utmost level of tolerance, flexibility and highest
>     degree of collaboration  .
>
>     The reactions shown by one person to my comments were unfair,
>     inappropriate and outside the code of conduct .Perhaps its author
>     was tired and exhausted
>
>     Dear CWG members and participants
>
>     There are structural and legal terms used in the draft which are
>     incoherent and incompatible with each other. This has been subject
>     to exchange of tens of mails among members.
>
>     Having totally rejected the counter comments made by one
>     participant, on the one hand, and having understood that except
>     one person, everybody else agreed that the comments that I made
>     are relevant and valid.
>
>     Now, in reply to the comprehensive message and appeals made by
>     various distinguish colleagues on mailing list and off list and
>     having carefully considered the reasons given by our Chair
>     Jonathan, and being always supportive of reaching compromise, in
>     the interest of transition process, I joint the consensus emerged
>     and have no objection to proceed with the approval of the draft
>
>     I hope this will put on record that we need to understand each
>     other problem and be collaborative to the maximum possible extent
>
>
>     2016-08-10 2:57 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh
>     <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:
>
>         Dear Co Chairs,
>
>         Dear CWG members and participants
>
>         This the time that everybody come to the aid of the PART and
>         demonstrate the utmost level of tolerance, flexibility and
>         highest degree of collaboration  .
>
>         The reactions shown by one person to my comments were unfair,
>         inappropriate and outside the code of conduct .Perhaps its
>         author was tired and exhausted
>
>         Dear CWG members and participants
>
>         There are structural and legal terms used in the draft which
>         are incoherent and incompatible with each other. This has been
>         subject to exchange of tens of mails among members.
>
>         Having totally rejected the counter comments made by one
>         participant, on the one hand, and having understood that
>         except one person, everybody else agreed that the comments
>         that I made are relevant and valid.
>
>         Now, in reply to the comprehensive message and appeals made by
>         various distinguish colleagues on mailing list and off list
>         and having carefully considered the reasons given by our Chair
>         Jonathan, and being always supportive of reaching compromise,
>         in the interest of transition process, I joint the consensus
>         emerged and have no objection to proceed with the approval of
>         the draft
>
>         I hope this will put on record that we need to understand each
>         other problem and be collaborative to the maximum possible extent
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus