[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #12

Tue Dec 6 08:11:29 UTC 2016

Grec,
Thanks for the message,
Whether you strongly object or simply object to my statement that does not
change the situation.
According to your calculation ,out of 22 there  were 8 US in the last it
was 50/50 .It is a clear IMBALANCE .i.e. one third US and 2/ 3  all other
countries in one and 50% US and 50% other countries .WAS is not a clear
Imbalance.
Please be kindly totally neutral and not defend something which was not
valid
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-05 23:39 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> Kavouss,
>
> On the call today (which you attended), we decided that the questions the
> Subgroup approves would be presented to the CCWG for a first and second
> reading before being sent out.  This is consistent with the approach taken
> with the SO/AC Accountability Subgroup questionnaire.  I assume that
> resolves your current concern.  Also, as I'm sure you are aware, any
> deliverable approved by the Subgroup will then go to the CCWG for a first
> and second reading as well.  The Jurisdiction Subgroup is no different than
> any other subgroup in regard to these working methods.
>
> However, I strongly object to any attempt to delegitimize the work of the
> Jurisdiction Subgroup based on the completely incorrect statement that
> there are very few participants in the group other than "US nationals or US
> affiliated" persons.
>
> I am confident that we can "count on" the work of this Subgroup as fully
> and completely as any other Subgroup.  Any implication otherwise is
> incorrect at best.  Assuming *arguendo* that this is an appropriate way
> to analyze the validity of a working group or subgroup, the facts actually
> destroy your conclusion rather than supporting it.
>
> I'm sure the Co-Chairs are aware of the actual facts, which is that our
> group is large and geographically diverse.  To remind them (and you), the
> list of participants is below.  At least 40 of the 63 participants are
> non-US.
>
> Actual participation is similar.  On the call last week, 14 out of 22
> participants attending the call were non-US: Amrita Vasudevan, Andrew
> Harris, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich
> Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jean-Jacques
> Subrenat, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma,
> Parminder Jeet Singh, Paul McGrady, Pedro da Silva, Philip Corwin, Rafael
> Perez Galindo, Vinay Kesari, Wale Bakare.
>
> On this week's call, the balance was "only" 50/50, if you include Javier
> Rua-Jovet (Puerto Rico) who was an observer/guest (and new NARALO rep to
> ALAC).  Without Javier, non-US participants were again in the majority.
>
> As you can see, the concern you raise is not only baseless, it is
> completely counterfactual. I thank you for the opportunity to examine the
> facts and point this out.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
>    1. *Greg Shatan - Co-Rapporteur*
>    2. *Vinay Kesari - Co-Rapporteur*
>    3. Adebunmi Akinbo
>    4. Agustina Callegari
>    5. Alain Bidron
>    6. Amrita Vasudevan
>    7. Andreea Brambilla
>    8. Andrew Harris
>    9. Avri Doria
>    10. Ayden Férdeline
>    11. Barbara Wanner
>    12. Cheryl Langdon-Orr
>    13. Christopher Wilkinson
>    14. Claudio Lucena
>    15. Corinne Cath
>    16. David McAuley
>    17. Doaa Shendy
>    18. Edward Morris
>    19. Erich Schweighofer
>    20. Farzaneh Badii
>    21. Finn Petersen
>    22. Ghislain de Salins
>    23. Griffin Barnett
>    24. Guru Acharya
>    25. Haoran Huang
>    26. Herb Waye
>    27. Jean-Jacques Subrena
>    t
>    28. Jeff Neuman
>    29. Jimson Olufuye
>    30. John Curran
>    31. Jordan Carter
>    32. Jorge Cancio
>    33. Jyoti Panday
>    34. Kavouss Arasteh
>    35. Konstantinos Komaitis
>    36. Mary Uduma
>    37. Matthew Shears
>    38. Mike Rodenbaugh
>    39. Milton Mueller
>    40. Nigel Roberts
>    41. Pär Brumark
>    42. Parminder Jeet Singh
>    43. Paul McGrady
>    44. Paul Rosenzweig
>    45. Pedro da Silva
>    46. Phil Buckingham
>    47. Philip Corwin
>    48. Phillip Marano
>    49. Pranesh Prakash
>    50. Rafael Perez Galindo
>    51. Renu Sirothiya
>    52. Robin Gross
>    53. Samantha Eisner
>    54. Simon Jansson
>    55. Snehashish Ghosh
>    56. Sonigitu Ekpe
>    57. Steve DelBianco
>    58. Steve Metalitz
>    59. Tijani Ben Jemaa
>    60. Tatiana Tropina
>    61. Tom Dale
>    62. Vidushi Marda
>    63. Wale Bakare
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Dear Grec,
>> The limited no. of participant except US nationals or US affiliated in
>> your group is very few thus you can not and shall not count on that .The
>> CCWG is the most legal, valid, and countable .
>> Pls note that there is a total imbalance of participation of non US.
>> I have already made known this fact to CCWG Co-Chairs.
>> No questions should be sent out before being discussed and agreed
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2016-12-05 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Kavouss,
>>>
>>> Based on our work plan, we will get to remedies after we identify and
>>> agree upon issues.  If there are issues for which immunity should be
>>> considered as a possible remedy, we will discuss this concept at that
>>> time.  The same is true of the concept of "additional jurisdiction."  I
>>> have not seen the third issue raised in this group, nor is it mentioned in
>>> Annex 12, so I can't say that this issue is in scope for this subgroup.
>>>
>>> "Question 3" is on the agenda as item #3.  Please be more cautious in
>>> raising complaints of "suppression," as there was no suppression.  The
>>> additional question is on the mailing list, just in a different email
>>> thread, as it has been all along.
>>>
>>> Now that you've brought up the issue of support for this question, I
>>> need to say that your count is incorrect.  There has been a good deal more
>>> opposition than support for sending out this third question.  Nonetheless,
>>> we've given this question the best chance to gain further support by
>>> continuing to discuss how it could be revised, which is only fair.  But
>>> it's also fair to understand that support for this question has been
>>> limited so far, compare to those who have voiced objections to it.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Grec,
>>>>
>>>> When you address the following ISSUES:
>>>>
>>>> 1.Immunity taking into account who / what is immune vis a vis whom /
>>>> what?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Provision of additional jurisdiction such as what, Swiss
>>>> jurisdiction or what?
>>>>
>>>> 3. Sovereignty of States via a vis Californian Law or law of any State?
>>>>
>>>> Please kindly put back the question 3 which was on the mailing list
>>>> till yesterday evening Central European time but it was suppressed as
>>>> results of only two objections while many others were in favour of it with
>>>> some language aligbnment
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> 2016-12-05 6:09 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the agenda for Meeting #12 at 19:00 UTC on December 5.  Please
>>>>> continue to discuss the "experience solicitation" questions and the
>>>>> proposed additional question between now and then.  Attention to the Google
>>>>> doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYo
>>>>> FVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing is also important to keep our
>>>>> work moving forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20161206/5c5047ac/attachment-0001.html>