[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions

Wed Sep 20 15:08:59 UTC 2017

Dear Milton
I have with appologies to disagree with you and throw the monkies to the
shoulder of thirs party
You are free to agree with Greg but I disagree with your argument
Vite fait mal fait .
We have to address the issue in one way or the other
Tks for your kind reconideration of your position to propose a workable
solution
Regards
Kavouss

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
wrote:

> Sorry, Kavouss, in the interests of finalizing the statement in a timely
> manner I have to agree with Greg, that the last paragraph is no longer
> needed.
>
>
>
> We do agree strongly with admonitions to registrars not to cut off their
> customers without warning but it is not so much an ICANN jurisdiction
> problem but a problem of the jurisdiction of the registrar (US) or a
> problem caused by the registrar’s own contract.
>
>
>
> We do ask ICANN to clarify that registrars do not need to follow OFAC
> sanctions simply due to their contracts with ICANN, and that is important.
> Let’s not hold up the progress we have made by throwing too many things
> into the pot.
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:48 AM
> *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
> Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further
> Suggested Revisions
>
>
>
> Deaar Thiago, Dear Jorge,
>
> Thanks to your positive r3sponse .I am waiting for Greg to resolve the
> issue.
>
> I strongly oppose to the  unilateral removal of the last paragraph as
> result of off line exchange of views between two or three individual.
>
> We should be transparent
>
> We should listen to each other.We should consider problems of others
>
> Tks
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <
> thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> I add my voice to Jorge's suggestion and look forward to an agreeable
> solution.
>
> Best,
>
> Thiago
>
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10
> Para: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested
> Revisions
>
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> would it be possible that Kavouss' concerns are addressed by you also
> bilaterally as he seems not to be satisfied with these explanations, This
> could help avoiding any misunderstanding?
>
> I feel we are very close to consensus and such an effort would most
> probably be helpful in order to allow all to be on board.
>
> kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZ
> An: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested
> Revisions
>
> All,
>
> I wanted to reflect in this email thread how the various topics in the
> paragraph submitted by Kavouss for potential inclusion in the "General
> License" recommendation have been dealt with in the document.  Here are the
> different sections of the text, followed by my notes in italics.
>
> Generally, ICANN must pursue the application for general license at
> earliest time and should advertise and communicate with registries and
> registrars to revise their registrant agreements and not to copy and paste
> the general agreements found in US-based registrars. The role of ICANN, to
> make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be
> undermined.
>
> This is now covered in the section on General Licenses, so this is not
> needed here.
>
> There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars
> have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because
> they might get affected by US sanctions.
>
> This is not related to General Licenses, so it should not be included in
> that recommendation.  Regarding non-US registrars: This issue is generally
> discussed in the section "Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US
> Registrars." If the Subgroup receives media reports of non-US registrars
> taking such actions and it appears there may be no legal basis for these
> actions, we could cite them in this section.  Since the Subgroup has not
> seen the reports mentioned here, we do not have any basis to include this
> sentence, and so it is not included.
>
> Regarding US registrars, who have OFAC compliance obligations, there does
> not appear to be an issue that falls within the purview of the Subgroup.
> It may well be that these registrars are complying with their legal
> obligations (or seeking to become compliant with their legal obligations).
>
> Samples of that are related to Godaddy and Online Nic, which made pressure
> against registrants having Iranian citizenship.
>
> These are both US-based registrars, who are required to comply with OFAC
> sanctions. As noted above, it may well be that these registrars are
> complying with their legal obligations (or seeking to become compliant with
> their legal obligations). This does not fit with the issue discussed in
> this report, which relates to mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by
> non-US registrars, so it is not included.
>
> To determine the nature of registrant, registrars usually refer to Admin
> contact details recorded in whois database. If admin address and phone
> number is related to sanctioned countries, it is assumed that domain owner
> is a hidden risk for the registrar, therefore registrars try to examine
> zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.
>
> This is not related to the General License either.  This seems to be
> directed toward registrars' business practices and business judgment.
> Without commenting on the validity of the issue, this would not appear to
> be an issue for this Subgroup or the CCWG.  Furthermore, if these are
> registrars with OFAC compliance obligations, then it may well be that these
> registrars are complying with their legal obligations.  If these are non-US
> registrars without OFAC compliance obligations, then this issue is covered
> generally under "Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars."  As
> such the paragraph is not included.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<
> mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear Paul
> Thank you very much for your comments
> I am open to soften the text as you suggested e.g. to replace " prove " by
> " determine" and the term"must" be a less stronger term such as" need"
> which is between must/ shall/ and may However, due to the fact that we are
> severely affected  by the process, may I humbly request you to kindly agree
> to retain the idea with slightly modified text to also be agreeable to you.
> I am jerky awaiting to receive your fair suggestion as soon possible
> Regards Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> wrote:
>
> All
>
> Given the lateness with which we received Kavouss's suggested paragraph
> and revisions and the fact that I, regretfully, could not make the call,
> let me note my disagreement with two aspects of it:
>
> First, on page 5, it is suggested that a survey be undertaken to "prove"
> that non-US registrars are imposing OFAC requirements.  Since the point of
> the survey is to determine what is true, it is premature to assume that it
> will "prove" the facts assumed by the proposer.  The word "prove" is
> therefore in error and should be replaced by "determent whether"
>
> Second, I oppose the proposed new paragraph at the end simply because, as
> written, I have absolutely no idea what is meant.  But use of terms like
> "must" as an imperative are always inappropriate in recommendations.
> Insofar as I can discern the intent (that there is some action being taken
> by registries against registrants) that issue is a new one that needs to be
> fully discussed and it is, of course, quite different from the OFAC general
> license idea for ICANN that we have been discussing (which would only
> relate to ICANN's on RAA agreements).
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-
> jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PM
> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested
> Revisions
>
> CORRECTED VERSION ATTACHED.  A paragraph suggested by Kavouss, which is in
> the Google Doc, did not show up in the Word document (nor in the PDF, which
> is based on the Word doc).  Corrected versions are attached. Thank you to
> Kavouss for catching this.  Please see the last paragraph in the document
> so that you can review this suggested text.
>
> Also, some crossed-out text at the very end that was supposed to be
> deleted (as noted on last week's call) has now been deleted from the
> attached (and the Google Doc).
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<
> mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have attached a further revised OFAC Recommendation, reflecting changes
> suggested by Kavouss Arasteh and Seun Ojedeji.  Word and PDF versions are
> attached, and the Google Doc reflects these suggested changes as well.
>
> I look forward to our call.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170920/2ee7561f/attachment-0001.html>