<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Kavouss,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you for your email, clarifying your earlier points. This is very helpful. I have incorporated certain of your points into the General License recommendation, so that it now reads (new language in red):</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)">ICANN should take steps to pursue one or more OFAC “general licenses” with the U.S. Department of Treasury in connection with DNS-related transactions. Initially, ICANN should make it a priority to study the costs, benefits, timeline and details of seeking and securing one or more general licenses for DNS-related transactions. I</span><font color="#0000ff">CANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses</font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font color="#0000ff"> </font><b><font color="#ff0000">at the earliest possible time</font><font color="#0000ff"></font></b></div><font color="#0000ff">, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process.</font><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(0,0,255);display:inline"></div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"> If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” </span><b style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:medium"><font color="#ff0000">It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties.</font></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thank you again for your input. I hope you will agree that this is an appropriate way to take your concerns into account within the structure and focus of the Subgroup document For a more detailed discussion, please see my inline responses below.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Greg </font></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">I read your comments </font></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">To clarify the matter and to some extent comply with your questions .I have prepared the following reply.</font></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Pls kindly consider then favourable as they are now fitting the text either in the recommands part or in the preamble to the recommand </font></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Regards</font></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Kavouss </font> </span></div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">1.The last sentence reads” </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(0,32,96)">unless the results of the
study demonstrate that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to pursue these
licenses.”</span></font></font></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">You seem to be looking at an old version of the document. The current version was circulated at 5:18 AM UTC (20 September). A copy is attached for your convenience. </font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)">The sentence you refer to was removed from the Recommendation as a result of Monday's call, which was reflected in the versions circulated 19 September and 20 September. As it now reads, ICANN no longer has discretion to decide that it is "inappropriate" to seek a general license, and thus there is no reference to "criteria" for ICANN to apply. The recommendation now reads:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">ICANN should take steps to pursue one or more OFAC “general licenses” with the U.S. Department of Treasury in connection with DNS-related transactions. Initially, ICANN should make it a priority to study the costs, benefits, timeline and details of seeking and securing one or more general licenses for DNS-related transactions. </font><font color="#0000ff">CANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses</font><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font color="#0000ff"></font></div><font color="#0000ff">, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process.</font><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(0,0,255);display:inline"></div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"> If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.”</span></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(0,32,96)">To this effect the first sentensce below “ what Criteria……inappropriate
Because you qualify the study by being inappropriate and I did suggest what
criteria will be use to make the judgement </span></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(37,9,87)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Thus the first sentence would fir .You may include my
comment by modifying the sentence as follows </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(37,9,87)"><font face="Calibri" size="3">UNLESS, USING APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, THE RESULTS OF
STUDY DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO PURSUE THESE
STUDIES.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">Please review the Recommendation. I believe you will see that sentence above no longer applies.</font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(37,9,87)"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></p><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font face="Calibri" size="3"></font></div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:medium;color:black">2.</span><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Generally, ICANN <span> </span>should pursue the application for general
license at earliest time and should <span> </span>remind the registries not to copy and paste
the general agreements found in US-based registrars. </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This also fits</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font color="#0000ff">In order to fit the first part in, I would suggest revising the third sentence of the General License Recommendation so that it reads (added language in </font><font color="#ff0000"><b>red</b></font><font color="#0000ff">)</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font color="#0000ff">"</font></div><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses</font><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font color="#0000ff"> </font><b><font color="#ff0000">at the earliest possible time</font><font color="#0000ff"></font></b></div><font color="#0000ff">, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process.</font><div class="gmail_default" style="color:rgb(0,0,255);font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">"</div></span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> </span></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><font color="#0000ff">On the second part, I can't see the connection between (1) existing non-US registrars "copying and pasting" registrant agreements and (2) general licenses allowing ICANN to enter into Registrar Accreditation Agreements with registrars from sanctioned countries.</font><font color="#9900ff"> </font></div><font color="#9900ff"> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#9900ff"> </font></span></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="#9900ff">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US"><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#9900ff"> </font></span></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3" color="#9900ff">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such
situation is critical and should not be undermined. </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This part is talking about awareness that was
extensively discussed and thus fits</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">In order to fit this in, I would suggest revising this slightly and adding the following new sentence to the end of the General License Recommendat</font>ion: </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:medium"><font color="#ff0000">It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties.</font></b><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">4. 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</font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This could be included in appropriate part .if it does
not fit with the recommends part</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><font color="#0000ff"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">This issue (relating to current registrars) does not appear to relate to the General License, so it would not fit in the General License recommendation. Also, we do not have an issue that relates to US registrars, because they do in fact have OFAC compliance obligations, so there is no appropriate part in connection with US registrars.</div></font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></div><div><font color="#0000ff"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">As for non-US registrars, if the Subgroup reviewed these media reports and confirmed the transfers demands were related to (possibly mistaken) OFAC concerns, then this could be added to the section on "Application of OFAC sanctions by Non-US Registrars."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"> But right now, we do not have enough to go on.</div></font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">5.Examples of that are related to Godaddy and Online
Nic, which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction coountries.
This could be included in the introductory part of the OFAC sanctions and
registrar</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">These are both US registrars. As noted above, w</font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)">e do not have an issue that relates to US registrars, because they do in fact have OFAC compliance obligations.</span></div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">6 Registrars should be reminded that they should not
normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.</font></span></p></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">This could be included either in the recommends part
or preamble of the recommend part</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">The Report is now limited to clarifying that non US registrars do not have to comply with OFAC sanctions merely because they have a contract with ICANN. Some broader statements were removed on the last call based on general agreement. This is a new issue, which relates to legal/business judgment by individual registrars. The Subgroup has repeatedly said that it will not give legal advice and that it is up to each registrar to determine whether they have OFAC compliance obligations and, if so, what compliance requires. Therefore it does not seem to fit in the Report.</font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></div><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Regards</font></span></div><span class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;border:currentcolor;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Kavouss </font></span></div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3"> </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri" size="3"> <span></span></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></font></span></div><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Kavouss et al.,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">First, if you would explain how the suggested text, past the first two sentences, fits as part of a <u>recommendation</u> on the <u>General License</u>, that would be helpful. The remaining suggested text is a series of claims that actions have been taken by US and non-US registrars to exclude registrants from sanctioned countries, without any recommendation text. <b>How does this fit in General License recommendation?</b> The suggested paragraph was put there, but it does not fit in that context.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">To be clear, each <u>recommendation</u> section discusses actual actions to be taken by ICANN organization to resolve an issue if it accepts the CCWG recommendation, or that we would suggest other ICANN structures or stakeholders take to resolve an issue. The remaining proposed text does not perform this function and thus seems to have no place as part of the <u>General License Recommendation</u>.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">To the extent these claims relate to concerns about the activities of non-US registrars, they are addressed in the section discussing application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars who are not required to do so. It was agreed on the call that this section would be focused on actual or apparent mistaken application of OFAC sanctions, with corresponding recommendations to resolve that issue.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We have never discussed an issue with regard to the activities of US registrars, who are required to comply with OFAC regulations. As such, mentioning activities of US registrars (or broadly claimed to be activities of all registrars) does not seem to be appropriate.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Second, if you would respond to and try to resolve the substance of the specific concerns I raised, that would be helpful. Otherwise, there does not seem to be any substantive basis for accepting any of these suggestions.<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't think it is helpful or accurate to describe this as a removal of text, as it was never accepted into the text in the first place. It was a very late suggested addition to a document that has been worked on for a number of weeks, which was provided scant hours before the call. Vite fait, mal fait, as you say.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">To accept the remainder of the text into the document, the Subgroup would need to support:</div><div><ul><li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The idea that activities of US-based registrars raise a concern for this group to address, and that this group has accepted this concern as an Issue.</font></li><li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">That new Issues should be introduced to this document at this point.</font></li><li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">That issues should be put into the document without corresponding recommendations.</font></li><li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">That "media reports" should be cited in the document without being seen by the Subgroup.</font></li><li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">That the business and legal judgement of registrars, beyond the issue of mistaken application of OFAC sanctions, is an appropriate topic for this group and an issue that this group has agreed should be addressed in the document.</font></li></ul><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">If there is broad support for these concepts in the Subgroup and if the concerns about the suggested text can be resolved, it would be good to hear it now, so the document can be revised appropriately.</font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Best regards,</font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Deaar Thiago, Dear Jorge,</div><div>Thanks to your positive r3sponse .I am waiting for Greg to resolve the issue.</div><div>I strongly oppose to the unilateral removal of the last paragraph as result of off line exchange of views between two or three individual.</div><div>We should be transparent</div><div>We should listen to each other.We should consider problems of others </div><div>Tks </div><div>Regards</div><span class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975m_7505901213401055704HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div></font></span></div><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975m_7505901213401055704HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975m_7505901213401055704h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br" target="_blank">thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.b<wbr>r</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear Greg,<br>
<br>
I add my voice to Jorge's suggestion and look forward to an agreeable solution.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Thiago<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Mensagem original-----<br>
De: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>] Em nome de <a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a><br>
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10<br>
Para: <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions<br>
<div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975m_7505901213401055704m_-3499835125176042479HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_430988824031948023gmail-m_-620792990574031975m_7505901213401055704m_-3499835125176042479h5"><br>
Dear Greg,<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
kind regards<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>__<br>
<br>
Von: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZ<br>
An: Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>><br>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
This is now covered in the section on General Licenses, so this is not needed here.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Samples of that are related to Godaddy and Online Nic, which made pressure against registrants having Iranian citizenship.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
Dear Paul<br>
Thank you very much for your comments<br>
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.<br>
I am jerky awaiting to receive your fair suggestion as soon possible Regards Kavouss<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchcons<wbr>ulting.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzw<wbr>eig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
All<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br>
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"<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsu<wbr>lting.com</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzwe<wbr>ig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
O: <a href="tel:(202)%20547-0660" value="+12025470660" target="_blank">+1 (202) 547-0660</a><tel:(202)%20547-0660><br>
M: <a href="tel:(202)%20329-9650" value="+12023299650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a><tel:(202)%20329-9650><br>
VOIP: <a href="tel:(202)%20738-1739" value="+12027381739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738-1739</a><tel:(202)%20738-1739> <a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><<a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">ht<wbr>tp://www.redbranchconsulting.c<wbr>om/</a>><br>
My PGP Key: <a href="https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk<wbr>s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830<wbr>097CA066684</a><br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann<wbr>.org</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-b<wbr>ounces@icann.org</a>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction-bounc<wbr>es@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan<br>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PM<br>
To: ws2-jurisdiction <<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><ma<wbr>ilto:<a href="mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">ws2-jurisdiction@icann.or<wbr>g</a>>><br>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><mailt<wbr>o:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
All,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I look forward to our call.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><mai<wbr>lto:<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><wbr>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" target="_blank">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>