[Ws2-jurisdiction] Reply to farzaneh's Question

[Mathieu Weill]

Dear Kavouss, All,



Farzaneh raised a question to the jurisdiction subgroup, Greg indicated he 
would coordinate with the co-chairs to provide an answer. He did, then in 
his capacity as rapporteur of this group, he provided the requested answer, 
which I can confirm the co-chairs agree with. Even reviewing this now, I 
believe this has followed the appropriate process.



I would also like to formally push back on the notion of “subordinate” that 
is used in this thread. Within the ICANN community we are all equal, and 
only endorse specific roles and responsibilities related to certain tasks, 
such as a rapporteur role or a co-chair role.



Best regards,

Mathieu



De : Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com]
Envoyé : dimanche 22 janvier 2017 21:35
À : Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; León Felipe 
Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert
Objet : Re: Reply to farzaneh's Question



Greg,

Pls kindly read your message below

quote

"I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:



"Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that 
does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN 
jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna 
discuss it within the mandate of the group…"



It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a 
well-considered response.  It is also a question that raises several other 
questions, which also deserve responses.



The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated 
response will be more useful to the group.  We will get back to the group as 
soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's 
CCWG-Plenary call.



Best regards,"





2017-01-20 23:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

All,



I don't recall saying that answering the question was outside the mandate of 
the Subgroup, nor do I recall referring the question to the Co-Chairs.  What 
I wrote was "The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a 
coordinated response will be more useful to the group.  We will get back to 
the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in 
time for today's CCWG-Plenary call."



What I sent back to the group today was the "coordinated response" (i.e., 
coordinated between me and the Co-Chairs).  I was not speaking on behalf of 
the Co-Chairs, but rather providing the response that the Co-Chairs and I 
had coordinated.



I hope that clarifies matters.



Best regards,



Greg



On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> 
wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

I was surprised and frustrated in the manner that you have treated that 
important question raised by Farzaneh Badii( pls read WS2- Jurisdiction Note

A question was raised , Greg confirmed that it is outside the mandate of sub 
group dealing with Jurisdiction8 Which I disagree) Greg referred the 
question to co-chairs and he came back and said something on your behalf.

It is inappropriate that you pronounce yourselves through a sub ordinate 
group.

I formally  and officially request you to reply to that question which I 
will communicate your reply to GAC and you kindly need to explain your 
rational for reply.

This is an important issue and needs to be properly handled





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170123/a04480e0/attachment.html>