[Ws2-jurisdiction] Reply to farzaneh's Question

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Mathieu,

Tks you for your message and thank for reply.

I wish to receive the reply from co-chairs directly and not paraphrased or
modified by Greg

The term “subordinates “is a correct term and I will continue to use it, as
appropriate.

e.g. ws2 subgroup on jurisdiction is sub ordinated by CCWG Plenary, isn’t
it true?

This is the alphabet of hierarchical organigram that I have learned since
decades .I do not see any difficulties to use it.

Now, I have formally requested the co-chair to reply to the questions
raised by Farzaneh and I still anxiously waiting for that. Unless you just
want to convey your message through the third party (office of the
co-chairs)

I understand the co- chairs wish to finish the task irrespective of the
quality or value or validity of the results. This is not something that  we
expect.

Best Regards

Kavouss


2017-01-23 8:45 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>:

> 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/20170123/29d1bf17/attachment.html>