[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Jan 1 13:29:45 UTC 2017 

I disagree totally with you that asking Y to provide the experience of X on
issue Z .
It means that X went to the mountain and you ask Y to provide experience of
X on mountain trip.
What does it means
You defend a wrong issue
Let me ask you the following question.
You went to country A and came back .
People asking a  another person to provide your experience on that
travelling.
Pls explain the process  since that another person may have not travelled
to that country at all.
Regards




2017-01-01 13:29 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 1 Jan 2017 13:00, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Q3
>
> It is senseless to ask X to provide views on Y’s experience on issue Z
>
> The only entity who could provide her or his experience on issue Z is X
> AND not Y
>
> SO: Just on your anology above, I think the better entity to provide a
> fact based experience of Z would be Y and NOT X. Certainly asking X to
> provide a view may not be senseless (depending on the goal) but may not be
> based on fact.
>
> Overall I think this subgroup Members needs to calm down and both sides
> needs to stop being on the defensive. All we are talking about here are
> just questionnaire, and we can still administer more after analyzing the
> responses from the first set. I pray wisdom for the group leads and
> encouraging us all to listen to one another.
>
> Wishing everyone a happy new year!
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> 2017-01-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the wishes.
>>
>> Thanks for your efforts to analyze the situation.
>>
>> I hope you act as you have described.
>>
>> Pls tell me what efforts you have made to reach consensus when in your
>> last message to go back to the score cart and implicitly reject Q4.
>>
>> If you really believed that everyone should work to build up consensus,
>> you should not go back to counting infavour and against Q4 in comparing to
>> Q 1-3.
>>
>> You are a good communicator but the thoughts and ideas that you described
>> should be implemented by you.
>>
>> You have consistently opposed to Q4 from the outset why?
>>
>> Once again you do not recognize the problems of others. You are saved
>> thus you do not consider the problem of those who feel unsaved.
>>
>> I do not believe the process would be helpful at all. But I joined other
>> to agree raising questions know that those who analyze the results will do
>> in the way that they wish.
>>
>> There are many unanswered QUESTIONS.
>>
>> Some of you from the very beginning rigorously and aggressively opposed
>> to Q4 why?
>>
>> I am aware what is behind the scene. One top official from a country in a
>> formal meeting said”
>>
>> “Take the jurisdiction off the table”
>>
>> There are other questions as follows e.g
>>
>> Can you tell me how a jurisdiction of a particular  State could take
>> action in regard with the sovereignty of another State?
>>
>> Can you tell me why the parties to a contract cannot decide aposteriori
>> on the jurisdiction to be in country A or Country B?
>>
>> Can you tell me why ICANN could not have immunity from the Federal or
>> State Laws of a given country and be subject to internationally agreed
>> jurisdiction?
>>
>> Can you tell me the essence of Q3 ,in asking Y to provide the experience
>> of Y on a subject Z?
>>
>> If there are dividing people is NOT me. It tis those who do not tolerate
>> to also include Q4 together with other Qs .
>>
>> Why you push for a different text of a lengthy preamble when everybody
>> else agree with a shorten text? You seems not willing to join consensus and
>> then accuse others dividing?
>>
>> When almost everybody infavour of alternative 1 of Q4 with some
>> modification and refinement, you come and oppose to that question?
>>
>> Who is dividing?
>>
>> Please also reconsider your position join others and agree to Q 4 and not
>> again and again bring the results of the score cart?
>>
>> It is quite clear that the number of participants from a single country
>> dominate the number of participants of the rest of the countries attending
>> the meeting .Then pls kindly do not count the results of the poll as it is
>> not representative.
>>
>> At this very day of the New Year, I do not wish to take more of your time
>> and wish you and your respectful family and surrounding a very happy and
>> prosperous New Year
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2017-01-01 9:17 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Kavouss,
>>>
>>> First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction
>>> subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year.  I will also extend these wishes to
>>> the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your
>>> email to that group.
>>>
>>> This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two
>>> emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4.
>>> Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after
>>> my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday
>>> period.  As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most
>>> participants have not yet been received.  As such, I was quite surprised to
>>> see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
>>>
>>> The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series
>>> of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to
>>> the group and to many individual participants.  I think that the subgroup
>>> would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and
>>> seeking to work together and work through the issues.  On December 25th, I
>>> wrote in an email to the subgroup:
>>>
>>> We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need
>>>> to emphasize engagement on ideas and substance.
>>>> Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years,
>>>> I've observed the following:  In order to develop broad support for
>>>> positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this
>>>> one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things:
>>>> -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the
>>>> group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance
>>>> -- *Persuade*:  Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why
>>>> your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your
>>>> view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done)
>>>> -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to
>>>> reconcile opposing viewpoints.  Participants will often need to move away
>>>> from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate
>>>> result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants
>>>> want.
>>>> Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work.  Without trying to
>>>> persuade, others will not move to embrace your views.  Without compromise,
>>>> we will not arrive at positions that have broad support.
>>>> The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together.
>>>> Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success.  Playing
>>>> up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground.
>>>> In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on
>>>> substance in order to be productive.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your
>>> email.  Perhaps you missed my email.  However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected
>>> Standards of Behavior
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>,
>>> with which you are certainly familiar:
>>>
>>>
>>>>    - *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy
>>>>    issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who
>>>>    take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of
>>>>    all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to
>>>>    find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's
>>>>    responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus
>>>>    driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the
>>>>    ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of
>>>>    the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
>>>>
>>>> The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will
>>> succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus).  As the
>>> Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to
>>> try to build consensus.  It is antithetical to the consensus-building
>>> process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to
>>> state that a large group of participants are opponents of the
>>> multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations,
>>> theories and characterizations below).
>>>
>>> If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build
>>> consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to
>>> help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest
>>> support.  If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you
>>> will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of
>>> success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say
>>> the least.  As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite
>>> effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else
>>> entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an
>>> attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building).
>>>
>>> Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants
>>> through the prism of nationality or national interest.  This is a very
>>> counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively
>>> recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods).  These
>>> incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such
>>> as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to
>>> delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and
>>> different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and
>>> should not be mushed together solely due to nationality.  Such reductive
>>> and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of
>>> participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together
>>> in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a
>>> particular group," solely based on their nationality.  I am not aware of
>>> any such orchestration or collusion.  It is even more remarkable to assert
>>> that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged
>>> to assist the CCWG in its work.
>>>
>>> I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of
>>> thinking.  Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised
>>> concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4.
>>>
>>> I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak
>>> for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only
>>> "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup.  I hope that there are few, if
>>> any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am
>>> concerned that
>>> ​the effect (if not the intent) of ​
>>> this email
>>> ​​
>>> could
>>> ​be to ​
>>> sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than
>>> support the work of the subgroup,
>>> ​​
>>> to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat
>>> them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>
>>> ​​,
>>> "
>>> ​ and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the
>>> multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and
>>> succeed on all these fronts.
>>>  ​
>>>
>>> Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the
>>> subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the
>>> subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring
>>> the success of the [multistakeholder] model
>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>."
>>>  This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes
>>> messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise.  It's a model
>>> I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my
>>> point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community).
>>> Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when
>>> things aren't going one's way.
>>>
>>> I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with
>>> the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to
>>> stand in its way and stop its work.  I look forward to your further
>>> positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we
>>> continue our work.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>> ​
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish,
>>>> narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one
>>>> country and  opponent of multistakeholder.
>>>>
>>>> They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which
>>>> certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their
>>>> affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
>>>>
>>>> I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
>>>>
>>>> Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming
>>>> majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us
>>>> the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well
>>>> paid and well done for that country.
>>>>
>>>> They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a
>>>> well-orchestrated arrangement.
>>>>
>>>> They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
>>>>
>>>> Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
>>>>
>>>> We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
>>>>
>>>> What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more
>>>> cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
>>>>
>>>> Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made
>>>> every thing xclear to the people.
>>>>
>>>> Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they
>>>> come from ? whom they protect .
>>>>
>>>> The answer is crystal clear.
>>>>
>>>> I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
>>>>
>>>> This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands
>>>> opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
>>>>
>>>> They have no expertise. They have have resources.
>>>>
>>>> Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
>>>>
>>>> We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves
>>>> nothing but protect these people from one single country.
>>>>
>>>> Co- Chairs.
>>>>
>>>> You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your
>>>>>> strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents.
>>>>>> Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was
>>>>>> supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5
>>>>>> (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire
>>>>>> containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not
>>>>>> answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on
>>>>>> the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the
>>>>>> survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time
>>>>>> on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on
>>>>>> Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of
>>>>>> this issue and comment then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making
>>>>>> our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but
>>>>>> across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be
>>>>>> understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that
>>>>>> seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was
>>>>>> out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (
>>>>>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-Septemb
>>>>>> er/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now
>>>>>> seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised
>>>>>> – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David McAuley
>>>>>>
>>>>>> International Policy Manager
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verisign Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
>>>>>> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM
>>>>>> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working
>>>>>> Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was:
>>>>>> Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the
>>>>>> questionnaire (see attachment).  I've slightly revised the email for
>>>>>> clarity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to
>>>>>> deal with the alternatives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 2 -- No change
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 3 -- No change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions:
>>>>>> RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
>>>>>> To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was
>>>>>> initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the
>>>>>> CCWG list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Please respond here, rather than there.  Thank you.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and
>>>>>> Poll Results
>>>>>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>>>>>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two quick but important points:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to
>>>>>> decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *​​*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the
>>>>>> alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to
>>>>>> this email. *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move
>>>>>> forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within
>>>>>> the CCWG.  If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the
>>>>>> question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to
>>>>>> whether and when this question will be sent out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.  Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify,
>>>>>> discuss and arrive at a list of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list
>>>>>> of potential remedies for each
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  on our list.  We are still working on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .  For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing
>>>>>> remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​ problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .  We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​ problem​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is intended to solve.  If there is a potential "remedy" but it
>>>>>> does not solve any of our
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> , we won't discuss it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether
>>>>>> we identify any
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of
>>>>>> incorporation or headquarters location.  "Immunity" is another potential
>>>>>> remedy that we need to deal with the same way.  Skipping forward to
>>>>>> discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .  I strongly suggest we refocus on
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies.  Once we've
>>>>>> agreed on a list of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems​
>>>>>>
>>>>>> , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our working method of dealing with
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to
>>>>>> deal with question 4.  Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues.  Perhaps a
>>>>>> version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​problems​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit
>>>>>> this description.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​Greg​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *​**The following responses were received on the Accountability list*
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Parminder*:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg/ All
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for
>>>>>> broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's
>>>>>> jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s
>>>>>> policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with
>>>>>> appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other
>>>>>> studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current
>>>>>> or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN
>>>>>> being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation
>>>>>> and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any
>>>>>> other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that
>>>>>> country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with
>>>>>> ICANN.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ENDS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a
>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ​*Kavouss Arasteh: *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Grec,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tks again,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many
>>>>>> alternative,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could agree with formulation of Parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kavouss​
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Sam Lanfranco:*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap
>>>>>> for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall
>>>>>> “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is
>>>>>> being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this
>>>>>> takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of
>>>>>> analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing
>>>>>> jurisdiction base operational issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam Lanfranco
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170101/2c514c24/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list