[Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sat Sep 23 17:54:36 UTC 2017 

Kavouss,

I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later.
One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That
will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.

Thank you.

Greg

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> De ar Greg,
> Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all
> I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated.
> The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the
> suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or
> your judgement .
> In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term
> blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward
> Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is
> not currently being carried forward "
> Now back to the issue Under discussion
> Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention
> what you said in your last reply as follows
>
>
> *"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed /
> used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders,
> independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise.  This may be a bad policy,
> .The group did not conclude that  it has any  direct ( or indirect )
> connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group
> inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC,
> for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned
> country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN  investigate the matter
> carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be
> counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7
> stipulated in the RAA".*
>
> As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities
> of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the
> GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
>
> Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you
> and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly,
> some cross refernce in the body of recommands part .
> Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply
> Kavouss
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20170923/756ce565/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list