[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire response analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation

Wed Jun 7 21:46:55 UTC 2017

That is because it doesn't exist.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of icannlists
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:11 PM
To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire response
analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian
Federation

Hi Parminder:

What is "international jurisdiction"?  I've never heard of it.

Best,

Paul

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 5:38 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire response
analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian
Federation

Dear Tatiana

Thanks for your analysis, which is very useful.

Allow me to comment on the last para about your opinion on the proposed
solutions in Russian Federation's response.  I quote your email

"As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group
to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly
raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are
some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However,
I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed
solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement
(governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am
not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given
only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn't fit the
transition requirements. "

First about jurisdictional immunity.

It is not true that US law allows immunity only to such organisations which
are registered under international law. The relevant law, US International
Organisations Immunities Act , has provided jurisdictional immunity to
organisations registered as non profits under US law. International
Fertilizer and Development Centre is one such US registered non profit that
has been provided jurisdictional immunity, a fact which has been pointed out
in an ICANN commissioned study on the jurisdiction issue (
https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html ). Pl allow me to note
that this fact has been brought to the notice of this group several times. 

Therefore, there is no problem in ICANN getting jurisdictional immunity
under the mentioned Act even as it continues to be a US non profit. In light
of this fact, I would like to know your views about the desirability of
seeking such jurisdictional immunity for ICANN. 

Now, for your observation "do not meet the transition requirement
(governance by international treaties)".

I see no mention of jurisdiction issue in transition requirements. You can
point me to it if I have missed it. 

You perhaps refer to this part of the original NTIA notice on IANA
transition; "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role
with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution."

Oversight of IANA, which was with NTIA, is quite different from jurisdiction
over IANA and ICANN which was and remains of the US state.

No one is suggesting replacing the now lapsed NTIA oversight role with that
of a gov or inter-gov organisation.

What is being proposed is replacement of US jurisdiction (which remains, and
US state is certainly a government) with international jurisdiction. One
governmental thing with another...

regards

parminder 

On Monday 29 May 2017 05:05 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:

Dear all,

I would like to submit analysis of two responses to the WS2 Jurisdiction
subgroup's Questionnaire. I am submitting them in two different emails to
avoid any confusion, however, I would like to say that these responses have
raised the similar concerns related to jurisdiction and I recommend the
group to consider these concerns based on the information provided in both
of the responses.

I would also like to reiterate that I am analysing the responses in my
individual capacity. I am not representing my employer - Max Planck
Institute. The fact that I am a Russian national has nothing to deal with
the fact that I am analysing this response, I am not representing the views
of Russian Federation in any capacity or form. So please consider this to be
an independent summary with views expressed on my own. 

The first response I would like to analyse is the one submitted by the the
Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. I am
attaching the response to the email, but it can also be found at  the
jurisdiction questionnaire responses page:
https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire

Summary of the responses 

A note: I am sorry that some of the responses I am referring to rather in
lengthy way, because I think as the Ministry of Telecom and Mass
Communications of the Russian Federation responded with what we actually
wanted - real case that they consider relevant - it is with for the group to
consider it in a more detailed way. 

Question 1

The respondent states that their business, privacy or ability to use or
purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction.
The response refers to the fact that ICANN, in particular, is a subject of
the US regulations on the economic and trade sanctions program administered
by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the
Treasury. The respondent refers to the provisions of the gTLD Applicant
Guidebook and the document governing new registrar accreditation ("Registrar
Accreditation: Application", section 4. "Application Process") and states
that this can affect not only new top-level domain applicants (potential
registries after application evaluation), but also companies seeking
accreditation as ICANN registrar. 
To illustrate how this provisions on OFAC sanctions can affect business, the
Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation brings
up the case of sanctions implemented in accordance with the Executive Order
13685 of U.S. Administration (December 19th, 2014) prohibiting U.S.
companies from supplying services and goods in the Republic of Crimea, doing
business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea.
This led to:
- Notification that Google Apps users located in Crimea access to Google
services for accounts located in Crimea will get their services suspended
within a week. 
- Notifications from other U.S. technology companies like Amazon, Apple,
Paypal; issuance of the Google chrome browser updates that web-sites and
hosting registered by individual residents of this region will be removed.
- Announcements from several U.S. registrar companies (e.g., GoDaddy) that
domain names of registrants from the Republic of Crimea will be removed from
registries .com, .net, .org, .info, and others. The announcements referred
to trade restrictions which do not allow registrars to do business with
individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea.

The respondent expressed a strong belief that the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup
shall analyse not only incidents that happened and gather information about
actual cases, but also analyse the potential risks related to jurisdiction. 

Question 2, Question 3. - No information provided 

Question 4a

The respondent doesn't provide any material. However, Russian Ministry of
Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation expresses an
opinion that since ICANN's policies and their implementation shall be in
compliance with the California law, but top-level domain registries enter
into agreements with registrars individually, and registrars enter into
agreements with the registrants in compliance with law of other countries,
there will be conflicts between ICANN's policies and national law systems.
As one of the examples, the respondent refers to the General Data Protection
Regulation - GDPR 2016/679. Lastly, the response suggested to answer the
questions why the issues related to domain name system and infrastructure
shall be under the jurisdiction of a single state. 

Question 4b
With regard to any alternative jurisdiction solutions, the respondent
suggests that the following solutions:
- Governance of the DNS by the international law/ treaties 
- Separate main ICANN's responsibilities over different jurisdictions
- Jurisdictional immunity under the US law 

Analysis:
I recommend that every participant of the group reads if not the response,
but at least the summary of it, and makes his or her own conclusion.
However, I recommend the issue of trade sanctions and OFAC to be discussed
in details and assessed by the group, as this issue comes up in more than
one response and requires a serious consideration. No matter how we treat
the political and geo-political issues that lead to the implementation of
sanctions, the cases of the sanctions affecting businesses because OFAC and
ICANN's jurisdiction requires the group to answer at least whether this
should be taken into consideration and how. The issue of OFAC is also raised
in the response of the IGP, which I am also analysing. 

As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group
to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly
raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are
some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However,
I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed
solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement
(governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am
not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given
only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn't fit the
transition requirements.  This, however, shall be discussed anyway if the
issue of alternative jurisdiction will be raised in the group. 

Warm regards,
Tanya 

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

  _____  

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
under applicable tax laws and regulations. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170607/149994ab/attachment-0001.html>