[Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s

Fri Sep 22 17:24:04 UTC 2017

Kavouss,

I am not "blocking" anything, either.

It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking
something that they "do not like."  You have absolutely no idea what I
"like" and "do not like."

The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory
part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or
indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or
elsewhere.

You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC,
even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no
reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN.  There is no basis for that
inference.  Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include
the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions
generally.

Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction,
"Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not
entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders.
Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do
not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.

But why would it be in our Report?  It shows that a registrar developed a
business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders,
independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise.  This may be a bad policy,
but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or
ICANN's jurisdiction.  Putting this in the Report would not support any
Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified.  If anything, it
would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that
there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with
nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country.  Why would we want that in this
Report?

I look forward to your response to these concerns.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika at erikamann.com> wrote:

> Dear Kavouss -
> I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point
> you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the
> Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US
> restriction.
>
> Kind regards,
> Erika
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Greg
>> Dear Erika$
>>  What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of
>> the Report.
>> You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the
>> factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have
>> provided that to you.
>> You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on
>> this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC.
>> Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no
>> veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that .
>> Pls kindly do not further block this
>> You blocking whatever, you do not like
>> Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Kavouss,
>>>
>>> As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our
>>> report.  Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC,
>>> US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar
>>> Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the
>>> policy you have mentioned.  If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it
>>> is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions,
>>> then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
>>>
>>> I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this
>>> policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it.  If there is one that
>>> requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue.  If there is one
>>> that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that
>>> Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars
>>> abide by applicable law.  But again, that's a Compliance issue.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Greg
>>>> I do not know what question you raised.
>>>> If you believe that
>>>> *Mark Assenberg from Resello  which is a subsidiary company for *
>>>> *Yourholding** holding:*
>>>>
>>>> *with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024
>>>> AA Zwolle
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,
>>>> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
>>>> *based in Netherlands.being  a  non  US-Based company  on the basis of
>>>> which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a
>>>> registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country
>>>> (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
>>>> May you address this issue as a factual happening .
>>>> Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report
>>>> Regards
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
>>>>>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do
>>>>>> business
>>>>>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or
>>>>>> otherwise)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA,
>>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.google.com/?q%3DCeintuurbaan%2B28%2B8024%2BAA%2BZwolle%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg%3E&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such
>>>>> treatment is required by law (e.g.  required by legally binding sanctions).
>>>>>
>>>>> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business
>>>>> decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of
>>>>> race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien
>>>>> over here and incomprehensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20170922/3dfce164/attachment.html>