[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Aug 5 03:50:10 UTC 2017
On Friday 04 August 2017 07:06 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> 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.
>
DId anyone frame that question or alike? Is will be good to respect
colleague's sense of question making. I remember the long discussion
earlier on how many of us were blamed for not knowing what evidence
collection is or how questionnaires are made. I see us going down that
path again.
> 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 known lawyers to be way more worthy persons than just do the work
of a legal assistant in unearthing old cases of a certain kind -- which
btw it seems AI does better than legal assistants now-a-days. If, for
instance, I were to explore a new kind of a business in a new country I
know it to be a very lawyer-ly thing to do -- of course for good fees --
to provide me advice on the kind of legal risks that may prospectively
be faced by any such venture. Have you heard of such things?
>
>
> 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.
>
When will the South stop having to learn from the North - -I mean, we
from developing countries from the developed ones!?
Now if we indeed did send ICANN legal some foolish questions, why not
let them tell us that they are not able to respond to them, rather
building gate-keeping devices here which our long experience now tells
us are basically interests-motivated, and intended to keep this group on
the narrow and straight path of deciding nothing substantial -- and
providing entirely novel interpretations to what the question of ICANN
jurisdiction really is, and always has been. I was just now reading
somewhere, fake news is one thing, but fake history is entirely another
level.
parminder
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170805/1e1f91b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list