[Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC

Tue Aug 1 06:56:42 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,
I am sorry to hear that .
You did not receive my four mails BECAUSE YIOU RUSHED to take decision
within few and only few mints after your enquiry to the mail
I am not comfortable with the unfair way that to treat this caser.
NO MEETING TODAY
today is a National Holiday in this country
.Please respect other people important days
Regards
Kavouss

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kavouss,
>
> I'm sorry that my efforts to determine the sense of the group with regard
> to rescheduling did not meet with your approval.  I can only try my best.
> For your information, I did not receive any of your four emails objecting
> to the formulation of the question until after I sent out my agenda email.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>> You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift
>> back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled.
>>
>> I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change
>> the date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your
>> question  to ask
>>
>> Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially
>> planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August
>>
>> Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the
>> question decide that :
>>
>> *"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as
>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."*
>>
>> *You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing
>> whether or not the charge to initial date was opposed.*
>>
>> *You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like
>> you *
>>
>> *How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.*
>>
>> I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and
>> strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the
>> new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day.
>>
>> Pls do not impose your views
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Greg,
>>> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views .
>>> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in
>>> the last part of this message.
>>> Thank you very much for your message.
>>>
>>> There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or
>>> double standards in that message as briefly discussed below
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Your introductory / opening part of the message.*
>>>
>>> *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup
>>> for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based
>>> on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”.  *
>>>
>>> *Reply *
>>>
>>> *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not
>>> appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and
>>> they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a
>>> categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into
>>> a total divergence manner *
>>>
>>> *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam
>>> Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion
>>> planned for this week,*
>>>
>>> *Reply*
>>>
>>> *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should
>>> in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If
>>> she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She
>>> will do at the subsequent meeting.*
>>>
>>> *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect
>>> to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial
>>> well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that
>>> I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms
>>> and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.*
>>>
>>> *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff
>>> as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC,
>>> as I mentioned we need to clearly know   the application and implementation
>>> of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not
>>> agreed or rejected by you.*
>>>
>>> *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an
>>> email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is
>>> a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the
>>> Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”*
>>>
>>> *Reply.*
>>>
>>> *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well
>>> coordinated view ha ha???*
>>>
>>> *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful
>>> country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do
>>> not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to
>>> sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while
>>> I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been
>>> no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all*
>>>
>>> *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep
>>> the call schedule as is”.*
>>>
>>> *Reply*
>>>
>>> *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting
>>> from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you
>>> did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you
>>> asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my
>>> intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.*
>>>
>>> *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether
>>> there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not
>>> know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant*  *
>>>
>>> *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and
>>> since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we
>>> need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare
>>> NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to
>>> say it is a disproportionate comparison*
>>>
>>> *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk
>>> to the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN
>>> Staff REQUIREMENT you need  to raise the following question *
>>>
>>> *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for
>>> Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda
>>> but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August,
>>> the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the
>>> meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss
>>> respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland
>>> and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long
>>> time ago*
>>>
>>> *Question*
>>>
>>> *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to
>>> revert back to Wednesday 02 August*
>>>
>>> *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling
>>> changes.*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as
>>>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2.
>>>>
>>>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF):
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Agenda
>>>> 2.  Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding
>>>> OFAC and sanctions matters.  (These are largely unedited, so there are some
>>>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.)
>>>> 3.  Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's
>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove
>>>> useful.
>>>>
>>>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and
>>>> future calls:
>>>> a.  *The call will start on time.*
>>>> b.  Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will
>>>> not be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or
>>>> comments should be raised on the list.
>>>> c.  We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible,
>>>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list).
>>>> I hope that this will make calls more productive.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to our call.
>>>>
>>>> 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/20170801/0200e222/attachment-0001.html>