[Ws2-jurisdiction] Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL]
Nigel Roberts
nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Aug 8 11:04:18 UTC 2017
From practical experience of dealing with the IANA I am in profound
disagreement disagree with Phil's position as stated.
(I am interpreting his use of word "contract" to include all forms of
registry relationships with ICANN, including contracted parties and the
majority of ccTLDs (of which I think only two have actual contracts).
We (the ccTLD community) seem to have early indications that perhaps
ICANN/IANA/PTI might have been re-interpreting existing policy in a
non-transparent manner because of perceived difficulties with OFAC
requirements.
This isn't exactly clear right now, so Sam's explanation has been
helpful in increasing our understanding.
But the default position should NOT be that "ICANN seek an OFAC license
for any entity that seeks to contract wit it."
I submit the position ought to be that ICANN seek an OFAC license for
any person (entity) that seeks to contract with it where that
person/entity is from a listed country AND the proposed transactions are
reasonably likely to be "prohibited transactions" within the meaning of
the legislation.
> __ __
>
> I am in agreement that the default position should be that ICANN
> seek an OFAC license for any entity that seeks to contract with it.
>
> H
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jeff, for putting some focus back into the subgroup. ____
>>
>> I agree with your suggestion, we learned enough from the
>> interaction with Sam/ICANN legal to know: ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> a) ICANN could be required to seek a license____
>>
>> b) The community could formally push to gain a general
>> license for registrar and registry services____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *From:*Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>> <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>]
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 2:11 PM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho
>> <benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br
>> <mailto:benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>;
>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction
>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>;
>> acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Thomas Rickert
>> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner
>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>> Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
>> <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter
>> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>; León
>> Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>> *Subject:* Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES:
>> WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL]____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> All,____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered
>> during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was
>> great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points
>> raised during the call. ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language
>> found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site
>> states: ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>>
>> /”//4. Application Process.____/
>>
>> /…..____/
>>
>> /Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws,
>> rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the
>> economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of
>> Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the
>> Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries,
>> as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of
>> Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN
>> List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services
>> to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental
>> entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government
>> authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a
>> license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on
>> the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to
>> provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but
>> are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been
>> granted licenses as required. //However, Applicant acknowledges
>> that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in
>> any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested
>> license//.” [Emphasis Added]____/
>>
>> …………………____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek
>> licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally
>> do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that
>> they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC
>> could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure
>> that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries
>> able to at least apply to become accredited.____
>>
>> 2. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks
>> licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by
>> entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It
>> would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those
>> licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there
>> certain changes that cannot be made without additional
>> licenses, etc.____
>>
>> Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look
>> forward to discussing the substance.____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en>
>> ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*____
>>
>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*____
>>
>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600____
>>
>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States____
>>
>> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>or
>> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>____
>>
>> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:+1%20703-635-7514>____
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:+1%20202-549-5079>____
>>
>> @Jintlaw____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
>> *Mueller, Milton L
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM
>> *To:* Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br
>> <mailto:benedicto.fonseca at itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>;
>> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction
>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>;
>> acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Thomas Rickert
>> <thomas at rickert.net <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner
>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>> Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
>> <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter
>> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>; León
>> Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE
>> QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting
>> a rather elaborate documentation process, is this:____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of
>> its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call,
>> the transcript of which is readily available? ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we
>> did not finish our work? ____
>>
>> __ __
>>
>> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>;
>> ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>; acct-staff at icann.org
>> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net
>> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner
>> <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>>;
>> Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com
>> <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter
>> <jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>; León
>> Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] em nome de Kavouss
>> Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list