[Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sat Sep 23 20:19:00 UTC 2017 

León,

You are correct.

Furthermore, I am just trying to get the facts out so the Subgroup can
consider Kavouss's proposed language. I believe the facts I am trying to
get would give the best possibility for this contribution to be positively
considered. There does seem to be misunderstanding and misinterpretation of
my motives, which is unfortunate.  I am merely trying to facilitate
understanding and consideration, and ultimately consensus.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:58 PM León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:

> Dear Kavouss,
>
> It seems to me there is some miscommunication here between Greg and
> yourself.
>
> If I understand well, you are asking under what basis could Resellor
> refuse to enter into business with any person, company or country. Is that
> right Kavouss?
>
> On the other hand, I believe Greg has stated that being no contractual
> obligation for Resellor to be forced to enter into business with persons,
> companies or countries with which it does not want to do business with,
> then Resellor is free to chose, freely, who to do business with. Is that
> right Greg?
>
> I hope this helps us bridge this communication gap I feel we’re having.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 23/09/2017, a las 16:52, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> Dear Greg
> You turn my question around and around
> I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could
> deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS .
> It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name.
> I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are
> free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they
> could deal with selling chocolate
> Pls be realistic
> Pls do not confuse .
> I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no
> logic
> They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason
> What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a
> real and actual case formally reported to the group
> Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality
> Why you authorise yourself to be a judge
> We have not given you such authority
> You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do
> not disputes with us
> You have no right to disputed
> We are on equal fooling
> There is no superiority between we two
> Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the
> introduction as reported since you can not deny that
> You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with
> example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us
> Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal
> I will not give up
> I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they
> violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a
> provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a
> provision in a contract of any sort.
>
> I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my
> question around without attempting to answer it.
>
> In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion
> to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then
> their decision  would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their
> RAA.
>
> In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to
> this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of
> your proposal.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no specific section in mind
>> I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to  resello
>> to deny service?
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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/20170923/2fde9b09/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list