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

Tue Aug 1 12:28:00 UTC 2017

I waited for over 2 hours, Kavouss - from 20:01 until 22:25 UTC.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 2:56 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/e5a29c91/attachment-0001.html>