[Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Re: Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup
avri doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Jan 2 20:47:00 UTC 2017
Accidentally sent encrypted.
now unencrypted
.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction
Subgroup
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:42:27 -0500
From: avri doria <avri at acm.org>
Reply-To: avri at acm.org
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Hi,
On Q3 i think it is reasonable to gather both primary (direct
experience) and secondary (studied the instance) comments for all of the
proposed facts. While no one can know the internet mental state of
another, it is possible by study to gather a lot of information on the
surrounding circumstance and the after effects of a instance by
investigation and study. Often an outside viewer, one who is
experienced - as lawyers and scholars often are, can see the experience
more completely that the unschooled victim. As long as we know which
are primary and which are secondary, and we know the basis,
perspective, from which the fact is being described our knowledge will
be increased.
As group we can then parse and decide which information to use and which
to ignore (as long as we have a stated reason for doing so).
avri
On 31-Dec-16 01:47, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Avri,
> Thank you very much for clarifications which helps.
> I have just a question to raise about Q 3 .
> Is it correct to ask X to provide the experience of Y on a given
> subject.My background in legal matter does not convince me that such
> question is right due to the fact that even if X is fully aware of
> what has happened to Y on that given issue ,still it is the reflection
> and understanding of X of Y expérience which may not reflect the
> actual experience of Y on that subject .Any human being from
> psychological point of view has different understanding and
> comprehension of the occurrence of an event which may not be exactly
> similar as the experience of another human being?
> I raised the same question before to the co-chairs but they did not
> reply me.
> They reply every members of CCWG EXCEPT ME .
> P.S.
> One of the co chair was publicly very aggressive with me and offended
> me interpreting me as shouting when mistakenly I typed in CAP for
> which I apologized but he did not appoligzed for his inappropriate
> action .
> To MATHIEU
> Please kindly read again Q 3 CAREFULLY AND ALSO REPLY TO ME.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-12-30 23:42 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
> Dear Kavouss,
>
> My argument was in favor of including question 4.
>
> That is the question I felt was being suppressed because I believe
> people were afraid that the responses might point to a solution space
> they would prefer to avoid.
>
> Apologies for not being able to make that sufficiently clear.
>
> Cheers,
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 30-Dec-16 16:17, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> > Dear ALL
> > No one wants to prevent particular solutions. We all looking for a
> > workable solution but not a unilateral solution
> > No one motivating a drive to keep you from asking
> > necessary questions, We also wants to raise proper questions and not
> > business type question but a general questions which covers the
> > problem of every body.
> > those accusing us did not have any problem at all as they are
> > covered by the existing Jurisdiction BUT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS
> > Pls allow others to raise their points .THERE IS NO ROOM FOR
> > REPRESSUION .
> > Pls kindly do not accuse people to delay . THE statement
> > "/One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the
> same time
> > fighting a possible solution it cannot abide/".
> > IS UNFOUNDED . IRELEVANT AND ALLEGATION .
> > This is a global multistakeholder process and every body has the
> right
> > to raise it point .But you do not allow them by openly accuse them
> > delaying the process .
> > Those who stop sending Q4 are delaying the process.
> > Pls kindly understand us
> > Regards
> > Have nice evening
> > Kavouss
> >
> > 2016-12-30 18:28 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> > <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>>:
> >
> >
> > All a matter of perspective
> >
> >
> > On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> > > +1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to
> a small
> > > minority is delaying us greatly.
> >
> > I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular
> > solutions
> > from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us
> from
> > asking
> > necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay.
> >
> > One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the
> same time
> > fighting a possible solution it cannot abide.
> >
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> > Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>>
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list