[Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL

Wed Aug 2 15:08:15 UTC 2017

I’ve had it.

I’m openly declaring on the record my view that Kavouss Arasteh is comporting himself as a “bad actor.” 

He may disagree on principle with any number of points but his tone, manner, and insinuations are detrimental and indeed hostile to the process.

I understand diplomacy but in the words of H.L. Mencken "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Best regards, 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Principal Consultant

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 6:07 AM
To: <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>; Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL

Dear Co- Chairs

Dear all 

I know some of you on holidays and some others as usual provide unqualified support to Greg.

Yes it is good that the CO-CHAIRS of  parent Group support the rapporteur of the sub-groups BUT such support is legitimate if the rapporteurs actions or inactions are justified and appropriate.

Should the approach taken by the sub groups’ Rapporteurs are not justified or contented by participants then the co-chairs of the parent group shall refrain from taking positions notr they shall act as teaching the Group members providing guidelines for them as we are all individual acting according to our thoughts and policies we follow and do not need instruction nor do we need advice from co-chairs. Having said that, I  wish to come back to the real issue. Jurisdiction is, one the most difficult and most complex WS2 subjects 

It was given to someone that may find himself in fight and struggle internally with himself.

On the one hand he must be absolutely impartial and neutral, on the other hand, as a human being he has to follow his own way of thinking and his guideline. These are two contradictory situations.

Sometimes experienced people find a way forward to maintain a balance between these two contradictory circumstances. Some other, may not be able to do so in spite of their intention.

Moreover, there are members of ws2 SUBGROUPS that categorically object to the views of some other member irrespective of the substance of the issue as these people have considered and are considering other motivations than those associated with subject. Some of these objections stemmed from personal relations with other members and some others stems from some types of”  Pbobia”    ( dislike, hostility ,jealousness and …..) I do not care about these sort of reactions as come in all cases from specific persons one supporting each other’s and I have multiple evidence of such unfounded opposition against others.

Now coming back to the case in question ; Written reply to the questions raised at 01 August meeting of Jurisdiction Group:.

After some 35 meetings of the sub-group costing considerable amount of money to ICANN and more importantly to the limited 14-20-25 participants they invested time, efforts and … to participate and contribute to the subject we came back to square one which was ; lovcation of ICANN and Applicable LAW .

One of the Co- chairs, unexpectedly and without any discussion at the level of

CCW, all of the sudden came with his brilliant unexpected idea of 

“Consensus building idea “ 

“Thomas, 

Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the liberty to highlight relevant parts.

We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN.  With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction.  Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations.  But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. And work on solutions that are founded on this” .

Among the issue for which we desperately looking for solution is applicability of OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD  .

After some discussions it was suggested by rapporteur that Samantha Eisner from ICANN legal Department be invited to shed some light on the issue.

To that effect, the Jurisdiction sub-Rappoteur asked participants to raise their questions and a handful of the members so did. These questions were assembled in a note from the rapporteur and was put on the agenda of the 01 August meeting of sub group.

The legal staff of ICANN after some introductory part  which were almost cut and paste from document which were already made available o by the Rapporteurs as well as by others including extensive amount of material available on OFAC website or on Google ,she took the questions Note and arbitrarily selected some of them and replied to them in which at several occasions she stated that “ We not know or I do not know “.Some of the questions were not answered at all as having 15 questions there were no chances to discuss them.

As the issue is sensitive and delicate and  since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document, I have asked at several occasions to request the speaker to kindly provide a written version of her reply to the questions discussed as well as written answers to the questions which were not raised due to lack of sufficient time . 

This request was immediartely rejected by the Rapporteur saying that to take such decision we need a consensus decision by the group.

This was a strange course action.

The reasons that I asked the written answer were given above (As the issue is sensitive and delicate and since English is NOT the mother tongue of many participants and since accent of some speakers may be as such that what they say may not understood by all and since this meeting was not recorded and since the captions are not legally valid document)

Later on I had some support regarding the need to have written answers.

In view of the above, and considering that the issue is complex and broad, I need written versions of the answers given to the questions taking into account those raised during the call as well as answers to questions which were not provided due to lack of time.

This is a valid and legitimate request which due to arguments launched above are required for those who either wish to have a more formal answer or those whose Mother Tongue is not English .

Regards

Kavouss 

On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:48 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> > wrote:

+1

Jorge

Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> ] Im Auftrag von Seun Ojedeji
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2017 08:11
An: avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org> >
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> >
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL

Hello,

I was not on the call and have not had to bandwidth to look at the recordings. If this is about Sam's response to the questions Greg was asking us to provide.

Then I think the ideal thing is to document the responses side by side with the questions. 

A verbal response whether captioned or not should not be applicable after all the responses must have been documented somewhere before it was being read out by Sam, so why not just share the document and let's end this seemingly trivial matter.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 2, 2017 4:45 AM, "avri doria" <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org> > wrote:

Hi,

With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers?

avri

On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Kavouss,
>
> Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam.  This is a
> matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual
> participant.  The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether
> to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which
> questions).  Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>  <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >> wrote:
>
>     Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I
>     nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting
>     and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
>     Regards
>     Kavouss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

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

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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/20170802/2e8f9ce5/attachment-0001.html>