[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Draft 11 11 Feb 2018

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Raphael
thanks
Please note that

The reasonable best efforts are less stringent than that imposed by the
‘best efforts’ clauses contained in some agreements. A business may give
reasonable consideration to its own interests, exercising discretion within
its good faith business, judgment, in devising a strategy for achieving its
ultimate goal. Reasonable reasonable efforts should be consistent with good
faith business judgments.


Some definition of reasonable Best Efforts

1.

agreeable to reason <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reason> or sound
judgment; logical:

a reasonable choice for chairman.

2.

not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reason>; not excessive:

reasonable terms.

3.

moderate, especially in price; not expensive:

The coat was reasonable but not cheap.

4.

endowed with reason <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reason>.

5.

capable of rational behavior, decision, etc

Tks

Kavouss



On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <
raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr> wrote:

> Dear Kavouss, all
>
> As mentioned during the call, best efforts alone is construed, as far as
> legal interpretation is concerned (and at least in the US, but possibly in
> other legal systems too), to mean all efforts including eventual bankruptcy.
>
> So reasonable best efforts has a specific meaning in contractual
> interpretation which is not the same as the common meaning we may attribute
> to that expression.
>
> I was myself somewhat skeptical at first, but following the explanations
> of Greg on the meaning of that expression in the context of interpretation
> of contracts, I believe it is both adjusted to our needs *and *will also
> not elicit a knee-jerk reaction from ICANN's in-house or external legal
> counsels who may eventually have a look at the recommendation at the
> implementation stage (or before.) It is still a high standard of behaviour
> and requires ICANN to do everything up to acts that would endanger its own
> existence.
>
> Best,
>
> 2018-02-16 8:19 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
>
>> From Kavouss Arasteh to
>>
>> Thanks for the search.
>>
>> It seems that every reasonable best effort made by you to reject any
>> other suggestion/ Alternative and just stick to your own proposal emanated
>> from one public comment proposal “Reasonable Best Effort.
>>
>> Attempts are made to have a unilateral judgment/insistence on the
>> appropriateness of Reasonable best effort.
>>
>> However, I am becoming familiar to the ICANN working method that a group
>> of individual views to block views and suggestions of other individual, if
>> it is 100%correct.
>>
>> I have no problem to use reasonable in the correct context but I have
>> serious difficulties to use that term in combination of best effort.
>>
>> Effort combined by best signifies a superlative expression, which should
>> be remain superlative and not combined with qualifying adjective like
>> reasonable. It is clear that the intention here is to weaken the action be
>> taken by ICANN .The reason is quite clear as the overwhelming majority of
>> the participants are silent and others against addressing the bottle neck
>> of OFAC
>>
>> One cannot shape a cold piece of iron to make a good hummer, as a cold
>> iron remains resilient to be shaped
>>
>> During your entire leading period of this group n, you have very often
>> recourse to some sort of implicit voting action which is not appropriate.
>>
>> Rather insisting on your own suggestion and  continuing to defend that
>> personal view you were expected to take initiative and find a compromise to
>> satisfy everybody. It is quite clear that the victims of OFAC are in
>> minority but it is unfair to marginalize them through recourse to implicit
>> voting.
>>
>> I just wanted to demonstrate my entire frustration and disappointment.
>>
>> This group has always acted like this .Homeless to expect a fair and
>> neutral treatment.
>>
>> Once again, reasonable is an inappropriate qualifier to be combined with
>> a superlative action like best effort as it is incoherent and inconsistent
>> with that superlative
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will see if there is any other support for this suggestion, or any
>>> other views.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, not being quite sure of the definition of feasible, I
>>> turned to two well-respected dictionaries.  The Oxford English Dictionary
>>> defines feasible (in US English) as "Possible to do easily or
>>> conveniently." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines feasible as "capable
>>>  of being done or carried out."  So, in one case the word covers only
>>> that which can be done easily or conveniently, which is an even lower
>>> standard than "reasonable" efforts.  In the other case, the word covers all
>>> that can possibly be done, which is a higher standard than "reasonable"
>>> efforts.  If there is a standard definition of "best feasible efforts" (in
>>> law or otherwise) it would be helpful to know.  Without it, I have concerns
>>> that this would be considerably less well understood than "reasonable best
>>> efforts."
>>>
>>> A Google search for "best feasible efforts" returns 113 results, and
>>> none on the first few pages define the term.  Most on the first page of
>>> results refer to the same two license agreements.  "Reasonable best
>>> efforts" returns 152,000 results, a number of which on the first few pages
>>> are discussions of definition or application of the term while others are
>>> uses of the term.
>>>
>>> I will also note that the "reasonableness" standard is apparently a
>>> feature of German law (see https://www.trans-lex.org
>>> /124800/_/joachim-willi-e-the-reasonable-man-in-united-state
>>> s-and-german-commercial-law-15-complybint-l-bus-1992-at-341-et-seq/)
>>> and English law (http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/
>>> default/files/upload_documents/The%20Many%20Faces%20of%20the
>>> %20Reasonable%20Person.pdf), with essentially the same meaning.  This
>>> does not, o course, make it a universal legal principle, but it does dispel
>>> the notion that it is a uniquely U.S. legal standard.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>> Further to the last night discussion on " REASONABLE BEST EFFORTS " or
>>>> other wise footnoted text,
>>>> I suggest to use the term" Best feasible efforts" There is difference
>>>> between "Reasonable " and "feasible" thus the latter coiuld better suit
>>>> with the best efforts
>>>> Regards
>>>> Kavouss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thomas was speaking on behalf of the co-chairs, whatever his personal
>>>>> views might be.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already stated that the group could modify its conclusions
>>>>> based on public comments.  This is one of the core reasons for public
>>>>> comments, but the decision to revise consensus is always that of the
>>>>> Subgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is at least one significant proposal to do so in the current
>>>>> draft — to move from a neutral statement about options for picking the
>>>>> “choice of law” from a menu (contracted party choice and negotiation with
>>>>> ICANN), to a statement favoring the contracted party choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another possible modification relates to the OFAC General License
>>>>> recommendation, where the Subgroup is still considering a “stiffer”
>>>>> approach for ICANN vs. the one set out in our draft report.  That is based
>>>>> on the NCSG Comment you mentioned earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adopting modifications like these (or smaller modifications that serve
>>>>> to improve the text) is the way in which public comments are manifested in
>>>>> Working Group report.  While the Subgroup has duly taken into account all
>>>>> of the comments submitted, it is only through causing the Subgroup to
>>>>> decide to change the text that a comment will be manifested.  And even
>>>>> then, the comment is not directly mentioned in the Report.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I don’t understand your statement regarding some (majority?)
>>>>> part of the group not wishing to address OFAC.  We probably spent more time
>>>>> on OFAC than any other aspect of our work, and half our report covers
>>>>> OFAC/sanctions related issues.  So I see no evidence of our Subgroup, or
>>>>> any part of it, not wishing to address OFAC issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:26 AM Kavouss Arasteh <
>>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>>> Thank you very much for the file and explanation.
>>>>>> However, views of Thomas Rickert is views of Thomas Rickert. He does
>>>>>> not have any privilege  nor and supremacy  with respect to other views to
>>>>>> others comments
>>>>>> If we do not take into account, according to Thomas Rickert then what
>>>>>> is the usefulness of public comment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there were other occasions in which the group modified its
>>>>>> conclusions based on public comments, Example of that is IOT, Human Rights
>>>>>> where the conclusions were modified.
>>>>>> It is quite clear that the majority pro ....do not wish to address
>>>>>> the OFAC but it is the core issue of jurisdiction.
>>>>>> I look forward to see how you could take into account the views
>>>>>> submitted by Public comments
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:23 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for the file and explanation.
>>>>>>> However, views of Thomas Rickert is views of Thomas Rickert. He does
>>>>>>> not have any privilege  nor and supremacy  with respect to other views to
>>>>>>> others comments
>>>>>>> If we do not take into account, according to Thomas Rickert then
>>>>>>> what is the usefulness of public comment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there were other occasions in which the group modified its
>>>>>>> conclusions based on public comments,Example of that is IOT, Human Rights
>>>>>>> where the conclusions were modified.
>>>>>>> It is quite clear that the majority pro ....do not wish to address
>>>>>>> the OFAC but it is the core issue of jurisdiction.
>>>>>>> I look forward to see how you could take into account the views
>>>>>>> submitted by Public comments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Greg Shatan <
>>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Paragraph 4 you refer to is a quote from the current "ICANN
>>>>>>>> Terms and Conditions for the Registrar Accreditation Application" found at
>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en.
>>>>>>>> The last sentence is bolded for emphasis only.  Since it is in the Report
>>>>>>>> to show the current facts, we cannot amend it.  The Report text that
>>>>>>>> follows this quote states:  "*The last sentence should be amended
>>>>>>>> to require ICANN to apply for and use reasonable best efforts to secure an
>>>>>>>> OFAC license if the other party is otherwise acceptable as qualified to be
>>>>>>>> a registrar (and is not on the SDN List)." I believe this takes care of
>>>>>>>> your concern.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I express no view regarding whether the Subgroup should change its
>>>>>>>> consensus based on the NCSG comment. This was the last comment reviewed on
>>>>>>>> the prior call, during our second reading of the comments. There was
>>>>>>>> general interest in considering whether to change the Recommendation
>>>>>>>> referred to. No conclusions were reached, and the discussion was not
>>>>>>>> finished. I suggested that the consideration of the comment would be easier
>>>>>>>> if an NCSG representative provided a proposed revision to the
>>>>>>>> Recommendation implementing the Comment.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *We have taken all comments into account in our work. If a comment
>>>>>>>> and the ensuing discussion cause the group to develop a consensus that text
>>>>>>>> should be changed, then the relevant text in the Report is changed.
>>>>>>>> Specific comments are not referred to here or in any other part of the CCWG
>>>>>>>> Report. This was the subject of discussion at the beginning of the last
>>>>>>>> call, with Thomas Rickert joining us specifically to discuss this point. In
>>>>>>>> case you have not reviewed the transcript/captions, I'll paste the relevant
>>>>>>>> text at the end of the email. *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on the prior call, text was added to the "Overview of the
>>>>>>>> Work of the Subgroup" referring to the public comment process generally and
>>>>>>>> including a link to where the comments may be found.  This new text reads:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The Subgroup’s proposed recommendations were submitted to the
>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability Plenary.  The CCWG-Accountability WS2 plenary meeting
>>>>>>>> on 27 October 2017 included a discussion focused on jurisdiction issues.  A
>>>>>>>> transcript of these discussions included as Annex [F] to this Report.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The draft Report was approved by consensus as defined in the
>>>>>>>> CCWG-Accountability charter, and not by full consensus. The Government of
>>>>>>>> Brazil, which did not support approving the report, has prepared a
>>>>>>>> dissenting opinion which is supported by several other participants and can
>>>>>>>> be found in Annex [E] of the Report.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *The draft Report was published for Public Comment on November 14,
>>>>>>>> 2017.  The Public Comment period closed on January 14, 2018.  Fifteen
>>>>>>>> comments were received.  These comments may be found at
>>>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-jurisdiction-recs-14nov17/
>>>>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-jurisdiction-recs-14nov17/>.
>>>>>>>> These comments were summarized by ICANN staff in a “comment tool”
>>>>>>>> spreadsheet, which may be found at [insert link].  These comments were duly
>>>>>>>> considered and discussed by the Subgroup. Where this led to a change to the
>>>>>>>> Subgroup’s consensus, the draft Report was then changed to reflect the new
>>>>>>>> consensus.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ​I look forward to comments from you and the rest of the subgroup
>>>>>>>> on this and the other proposed changes in the revised Report.​
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ​Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greg​
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ​*EXCERPT FROM 7 FEBRUARY MEETING CAPTIONING:*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ​
>>>>>>>> >> THOMAS RICKERT:  Sorry I was double muted.  I had unmuted my
>>>>>>>> phone and I had to unmute
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> myself in addition to the Adobe room.  This is Thomas Rickert
>>>>>>>> speaking.  Thank you Greg for handing it over to me.  Good
>>>>>>>> afternoon, morning, evening to all of you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm very grateful to Greg for allowing me to speak for a little bit.
>>>>>>>> Because I made an observation when looking at the public comments
>>>>>>>> that I think you know, gave me the opportunity to speak to this group for a
>>>>>>>> moment.  And I would suggest that if you have a different opinion
>>>>>>>> to what I'm proposing right now, we should try to sort this out up front.
>>>>>>>> But I guess if we are aligned on the principles that I'm going the
>>>>>>>> share with you, then I think we should apply those principles when we are
>>>>>>>> looking at the public comment.  This is something that doesn't
>>>>>>>> only go for the jurisdiction sub-team but it would go for all public
>>>>>>>> comment analysis in the CCWGN and it's sub-teams.  And sub-teams
>>>>>>>> reports, all of them have been prepared by the perspective sub-teams and
>>>>>>>> adopted by the respective sub-teams and presented to the plenary and the
>>>>>>>> plenary has adopted the report and then the public comment is there to
>>>>>>>> serve as a vetting process, if you wish.  With the wider community
>>>>>>>> to see when there's anything in our recommendations that we forgot had
>>>>>>>> that, and we would look at this comment to see yeah, this is something that
>>>>>>>> was already discussed or this is a new aspect.  And then this new
>>>>>>>> aspect might warrant that the report is amended or it might not warrant
>>>>>>>> that the report is amended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because what the public comment period is not really designed for
>>>>>>>> is to give members and for pants of the -- of the sub-teams or CCWG that
>>>>>>>> have already in part of the consensus forming during the preparation of the
>>>>>>>> recommendations in the past another opportunity to chime in and
>>>>>>>> increase the weight of their statement or position.  So don't get
>>>>>>>> me wrong, certainly it's most welcome for everyone to identify positive
>>>>>>>> comment and positive or negative comments do help everyone understand
>>>>>>>> better where we are with the recommendations much but for those that have
>>>>>>>> chimed in already during the deliberations, you know, their views have
>>>>>>>> already been amalgamated into the findings of the sub-team.  Therefore
>>>>>>>> these would not get additional weight or second would it of the apple as we
>>>>>>>> tend to say in this environment as when I goes to recognizing the views and
>>>>>>>> adopting them in the report.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So let me just check with everyone whether that's a long the lines
>>>>>>>> of your thinking as well.  And let me pause here.  Greg is chiming
>>>>>>>> in don't be excessive.  That's a good point.  And for those that
>>>>>>>> have haven't been part 1 there's some historical fun that we seem to have
>>>>>>>> and still have.  So thanks for bringing that up Steve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:  I'm certainly -- [voices overlapping] yeah
>>>>>>>> I'm saying I'm very comfortable with that.  I think we need to
>>>>>>>> make the difference however between an individual and entities.  I
>>>>>>>> for example would think that the ILAC and at large, if they represent is by
>>>>>>>> 5 members for example on various things, members and participants often
>>>>>>>> operate without the full con silence use of the ALAC and the total at large
>>>>>>>> obviously.  So I think we need to have that ruling, but recognize
>>>>>>>> there may be a difference between a consensus voted upon statement from a
>>>>>>>> support organization or advisory committee.  And from a
>>>>>>>> participants during the process.  Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> THOMAS RICKERT:  Thanks very much Cheryl.  And that's a
>>>>>>>> excellent point that you make.  And I think it's a perfect and
>>>>>>>> true that there may be an incomers between the person that is participating
>>>>>>>> in the sub-team and actually the views that are presented by the group that
>>>>>>>> that person might happen to work with.  But we did have cases
>>>>>>>> where the views of a group have been injected into the sub-teams work
>>>>>>>> already.  So I'm talking about the cases where you have coumarinsy
>>>>>>>> during the input that was given during the deliberations of the
>>>>>>>> recommendations and comments during the public comment  period.  So
>>>>>>>> thanks for pointing that out.  I don't see any other hand, accept
>>>>>>>> for David's.  David, the floor is yours please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> DAVID McAULEY:  Thomas thank you it's David McAuley for the
>>>>>>>> record.  I'm going to weigh in even though I missed a little bit
>>>>>>>> of what you said as my phone sort of broke away.  I had a little
>>>>>>>> bit of connection difficulty.  But in any event and listening to
>>>>>>>> the later part of what you said and what Cheryl said, I think one of the
>>>>>>>> things we will struggle with in this working group and   perhaps
>>>>>>>> others where the comments coming in or the discussion of the comments
>>>>>>>> really centers not so much on the initial input but rather on the matter of
>>>>>>>> clarification and let me illustrate here in jurisdiction.  In
>>>>>>>> jurisdiction we recommend that on governing law issues there would be a
>>>>>>>> menu approach but we also couch that in terms of saying we are not
>>>>>>>> recommending -- what we are doing is saying the ICANN and contracted
>>>>>>>> parties, the  GNSO should consider this.  And then the government
>>>>>>>> of Denmark came in with a comment saying in a menu approach it should be a
>>>>>>>> matter of choice by the registrar or registry issue.  It should
>>>>>>>> note be a matter of issue to choosing the government law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The clarification would be if you have a menu approach and done
>>>>>>>> regionally could someone in North America choose governing law from Asia
>>>>>>>> and were not things decided.  It would be clarification, natural
>>>>>>>> clarification that comes from the consequence of someone's comments.
>>>>>>>> I think we can get through it but I think it's going to be
>>>>>>>> difficult.  Anyway that's the nature of my comment.  Thanks Thomas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> THOMAS RICKERT:  Thanks so much David that's a excellent point. I
>>>>>>>> want to make sure we are all aligned in term of expectations.  And
>>>>>>>> I guess
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that if there are comments by somebody who has represented a view
>>>>>>>> in the course of the work of the sub-team already, and if that point is
>>>>>>>> repeated during the public comment period, that will not give that voice
>>>>>>>> additional weight.  That's it in a nutshell.  Greg you have your
>>>>>>>> hand raised and I think it's quite convenient because I was about to hand
>>>>>>>> it back over to you anyway.  Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> GREG SHATAN:  Thank you Thomas.  I think one corollary and
>>>>>>>> Thomas correct me if I'm wrong if I'm not getting this right, but a
>>>>>>>> corollary to what you were saying about comments and how they are treated
>>>>>>>> here and elsewhere in the subgroups and in the plenary for that matter is
>>>>>>>> that comments are reviewed by the group and if there's a consensus in the
>>>>>>>> group that the report needs to change, having taken on consideration of the
>>>>>>>> comments.  Then the report will be changed.  Based on that new
>>>>>>>> consensus.  But the existence of comments or if you will, the raw
>>>>>>>> material of any particular comment won't be reflected in the report.
>>>>>>>> I think the comment list rather the mail list to which the comment
>>>>>>>> was sent will continue to exist.  And I think we can put a link to
>>>>>>>> that mail list into the report.  Acknowledging the comments are
>>>>>>>> there.  But other than that, unless the group as a whole or has
>>>>>>>> brought agreement that we didn't get it right the first time and comments
>>>>>>>> have shown us the error of our ways, that the report doesn't get changed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that your understanding as well Thomas?  As how it's being
>>>>>>>> handled over all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> THOMAS RICKERT:  Yes that's my understanding.  That's a good
>>>>>>>> point related to the one I was mentioning.  So I guess that what
>>>>>>>> I'm mentioning is we have a what you typically do is you make a link to the
>>>>>>>> public comment and the public comment analysis -- public comment review to
>>>>>>>> us as it's called at least in the GNSO where everything is collected.
>>>>>>>> And this particular case our suggestion would be however to have a
>>>>>>>> slightly different language not only pointing to the public comment review
>>>>>>>> tool but making things a little bit more explicit and, also, with respect
>>>>>>>> to the meetings and to meeting minutes of the extensive jurisdiction debate
>>>>>>>> that we had in Abui Dubaiy as well a the minority statement that we got.
>>>>>>>> We are going the frame it slightly differently here but the
>>>>>>>> substance of the report will only be amended in the circumstances that you
>>>>>>>> also outlined Greg.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> GREG SHATAN:  Okay thank you for that clarification Thomas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or for clarifying that my clarification was correct.  And, also,
>>>>>>>> for the additional suggestion of how we should refer to other important
>>>>>>>> materials from our deliberations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>>>>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Greg,
>>>>>>>>> Thank You very much for the draft
>>>>>>>>> I was unable to attend the last meeting as I was on the Plane
>>>>>>>>> However, on page 16 .Section/ Paragraph 4,I have noted a paragraph in bold.
>>>>>>>>> The inclusion of that  bolded paragraph, has a negative
>>>>>>>>> connotation as it negate and neutralize the action(s) described / required
>>>>>>>>> in that paragraph.
>>>>>>>>> I therefore suggest the following amendment which convey the same
>>>>>>>>> message but in positive sense
>>>>>>>>> See Below
>>>>>>>>> * ” 4. Application Process.*
>>>>>>>>> Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws,
>>>>>>>>> rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and
>>>>>>>>> trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets
>>>>>>>>> Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions
>>>>>>>>> have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities
>>>>>>>>> that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked
>>>>>>>>> Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or
>>>>>>>>> services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental
>>>>>>>>> entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or
>>>>>>>>> exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or
>>>>>>>>> services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when
>>>>>>>>> ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities
>>>>>>>>> that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has
>>>>>>>>> sought and been granted licenses as required.   While ICANN ,in
>>>>>>>>> principle, is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given
>>>>>>>>> case,  and  OFAC may decide not to issue a requested license, nevertheless
>>>>>>>>> ICANN, is required to apply for and use reasonable best efforts
>>>>>>>>> to secure an OFAC license if the other party is otherwise acceptable as a
>>>>>>>>> registrar (and is not on the SDN List).  During the licensing
>>>>>>>>> process, ICANN should be helpful and transparent with regard to the
>>>>>>>>> licensing process and ICANN’s efforts, including ongoing communication with
>>>>>>>>> the potential registrar.
>>>>>>>>> Moreover, I saw that you referring to the comments from Non
>>>>>>>>> Commerciale Stakeholder  that you want  to consider for which I have no
>>>>>>>>> objection but,
>>>>>>>>> Why you have not taken into account comments from Russia, Italy,
>>>>>>>>> France into account
>>>>>>>>> It seems you have totally ignore  these  comments that formally
>>>>>>>>> requested you to briefly refer to the French, Italian, Russian comments in
>>>>>>>>> the introductory part
>>>>>>>>> Regards .
>>>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
> LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
> @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20180218/f336e2f3/attachment-0001.html>