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

Fri Aug 4 13:36:27 UTC 2017

I am certainly happy to discuss a request for written answers to focused
legal questions.  Questions of the form “is OFAC a problem?” are to
indefinite for legal answer.  As expressed, many of the questions proposed
were of this indefinite variety.  Others were so broad in scope (e.g.
“provide a summary of OFAC”) as to be huge time investments for no apparent
gain.  Better questions would be of the form: “Identify cases in which
OFAC’s application has had a legal impact on ICANN’s operations?”

I have not gone through the proposed questions item by item – but I would be
happy to work on finding from that list the sorts of questions that lawyers
can actually answer and seeking written responses.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca
Filho
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>;
acct-staff at icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner
<Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>;
Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
<leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED
DURING THE CALL

Dear all,

Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that
answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be
necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or
the like. 

Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon
the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so
it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably
in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the
sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be
necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the
questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript
does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.

Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may
have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of
them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered.
So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be
asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked
following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.

Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are
systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected
to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals

Best regards,

Benedicto 

  _____  

De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh
[kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48
Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff at icann.org
<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard
Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED
DURING THE CALL

Greg

I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT

Samantha, during her presentation, three times  emphasized that if  we had
questions we could  raise them  with her. Read the Transcript.

Two of these three times she referred to me.

Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.

pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT  .
This issue is important.

Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read
transcript after I was so invited.

What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student

We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though
you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work

We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems  

What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?

Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us
and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not
work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i
replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.

Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that
do not wish that I talk at all ?

Cheers 

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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> > 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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170804/2643ea4d/attachment-0001.html>