<div dir="ltr"><div>From Kavouss Arasteh to <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0in 0in 6.75pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Thanks for the search.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Attempts
are made to have a unilateral judgment/insistence on the appropriateness of
Reasonable best effort.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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 </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">One
cannot shape a cold piece of iron to make a good hummer, as a cold iron remains
resilient to be shaped </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">During
your entire leading period of this group n, you have very often recourse to
some sort of implicit </span><span style="color:red;line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">voting </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">action which is not appropriate.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Rather
insisting on your own suggestion and <span> </span>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.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">I
just wanted to demonstrate my entire frustration and disappointment.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">This
group has always acted like this .Homeless to expect a fair and neutral
treatment.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt">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 </span></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><span> </span></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);line-height:107%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <span></span></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:01 AM, 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I will see if there is any other support for this suggestion, or any other views. </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">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 "<span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(42,42,42);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal">Possible to do easily or conveniently." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines feasible as "capable<span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(59,62,65);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:0.64px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;font-variant-caps:normal"><span> </span>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."</span></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(42,42,42);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(59,62,65);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:0.64px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;font-variant-caps:normal"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(59,62,65);letter-spacing:0.64px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures">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.</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(59,62,65);letter-spacing:0.64px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="color:rgb(59,62,65);letter-spacing:0.64px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures">
<span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(59,62,65);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:0.64px;font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;font-variant-caps:normal">I will also note that the "reasonableness" standard is apparently a feature of German law (see <a href="https://www.trans-lex.org/124800/_/joachim-willi-e-the-reasonable-man-in-united-states-and-german-commercial-law-15-complybint-l-bus-1992-at-341-et-seq/" target="_blank">https://www.trans-lex.<wbr>org/124800/_/joachim-willi-e-<wbr>the-reasonable-man-in-united-<wbr>states-and-german-commercial-<wbr>law-15-complybint-l-bus-1992-<wbr>at-341-et-seq/</a>) and English law (<a href="http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/The%20Many%20Faces%20of%20the%20Reasonable%20Person.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/<wbr>default/files/upload_<wbr>documents/The%20Many%20Faces%<wbr>20of%20the%20Reasonable%<wbr>20Person.pdf</a>), 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.</span><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(42,42,42);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(59,62,65);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:0.64px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;font-variant-caps:normal"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(42,42,42);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal"><span style="text-align:left;color:rgb(59,62,65);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:0.64px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;font-variant-caps:normal"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></span></span></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:11 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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div dir="ltr"><div>Greg,</div><div>Further to the last night discussion on " REASONABLE BEST EFFORTS " or other wise footnoted text,</div><div>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</div><div>Regards</div><span class="m_7411408721784244398HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss </div><div><br><br></div></font></span></div><div class="m_7411408721784244398HOEnZb"><div class="m_7411408721784244398h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:03 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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div dir="auto">Kavouss,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thank you for your feedback.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thomas was speaking on behalf of the co-chairs, whatever his personal views might be.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best regards,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Greg</div><div><div class="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721h5"><div dir="auto"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:26 AM Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div>Dear Greg,</div><div>Thank you very much for the file and explanation.</div><div>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</div><div>If we do not take into account, according to Thomas Rickert then what is the usefulness of public comment?</div><div><br></div></div><div><div>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.</div></div><div><div>It is quite clear that the majority pro ....do not wish to address the OFAC but it is the core issue of jurisdiction.</div><div>I look forward to see how you could take into account the views submitted by Public comments</div></div><div><div>Regards</div></div><div><div>Kavouss <span></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:23 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <span><<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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div>Dear Greg,</div><div>Thank you very much for the file and explanation.</div><div>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</div><div>If we do not take into account, according to Thomas Rickert then what is the usefulness of public comment?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>It is quite clear that the majority pro ....do not wish to address the OFAC but it is the core issue of jurisdiction.</div><div>I look forward to see how you could take into account the views submitted by Public comments <br></div></div><div class="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437HOEnZb"><div class="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Greg Shatan <span><<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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><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">The Paragraph 4 you refer to is a quote from the current "ICANN Terms and Conditions for the Registrar Accreditation Application" found at <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/resou<wbr>rces/pages/application-2012-02<wbr>-25-en</a>. 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: "<b id="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948m_3018408136897201792gmail-docs-internal-guid-7f57775e-92f2-a5fa-dcd6-e73a90923a5e" style="font-weight:normal"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">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.</span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-weight:normal"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent"><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-weight:normal"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">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.</span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-weight:normal"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent"><br></span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b style="font-weight:normal"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">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. </span></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;padding:0px;border:currentColor"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b id="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948m_3018408136897201792gmail-docs-internal-guid-7f57775e-92fb-03a2-adb1-d38542649b5a" style="font-weight:normal"><p style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:10pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">The Subgroup’s proposed recommendations were submitted to the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. </span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">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.</span></p></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b id="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948m_3018408136897201792gmail-docs-internal-guid-7f57775e-92fb-03a2-adb1-d38542649b5a" style="font-weight:normal"><p style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">The draft Report was approved by consensus as defined in the CCWG-Accountability charter, and not by full consensus.</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> 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.</span></p></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b id="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948m_3018408136897201792gmail-docs-internal-guid-7f57775e-92fb-03a2-adb1-d38542649b5a" style="font-weight:normal"><p style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:10pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">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 </span><a style="text-decoration:none" href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-jurisdiction-recs-14nov17/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail<wbr>/comments-jurisdiction-recs-14<wbr>nov17/</span></a><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:400;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent">. 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.</span></p></b></div></blockquote><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><div style="font-size:16px"><font color="#000000" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:16px;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">I look forward to comments from you and the rest of the subgroup on this and the other proposed changes in the revised Report.</div></span></font><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Best regards,</div></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><b>EXCERPT FROM 7 FEBRUARY MEETING CAPTIONING:</b></div></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></font></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></font></span></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;white-space:pre-wrap">>> THOMAS RICKERT:</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;white-space:pre-wrap">Sorry I was double muted.</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt;white-space:pre-wrap">I had unmuted my phone and I had to unmute</span><font color="#000000"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">myself in addition to the Adobe room.<span>
</span>This is Thomas Rickert speaking.<span>
</span>Thank you Greg for handing it over to me.<span> </span>Good afternoon, morning, evening to all of
you.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">I'm very grateful to Greg for allowing
me to speak for a little bit.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>And then this new aspect might warrant that
the report is amended or it might not warrant that the report is amended.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">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<span> </span>recommendations in
the past another opportunity to chime in and increase the weight of their
statement or position.<span> </span>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.<span>
</span>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.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">So let me just check with everyone
whether that's a long the lines of your thinking as well.<span> </span>And let me pause here.<span> </span>Greg is chiming in don't be excessive.<span> </span>That's a good point.<span> </span>And for those that have haven't been part 1
there's some historical fun that we seem to have and still have.<span> </span>So thanks for bringing that up Steve.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR:<span> </span>I'm certainly -- [voices overlapping] yeah
I'm saying I'm very comfortable with that.<span>
</span>I think we need to make the difference however between an individual and
entities.<span> </span>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.<span>
</span>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.<span> </span>And from a
participants during the process.<span> </span>Thanks.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> THOMAS RICKERT:<span> </span>Thanks very much Cheryl.<span> </span>And that's a excellent point that you
make.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>But we
did have cases where the views of a group have been injected into the sub-teams
work already.<span> </span>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<span> </span>period.<span> </span>So thanks for pointing that out.<span> </span>I don't see any other hand, accept for
David's.<span> </span>David, the floor is yours
please.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> DAVID McAULEY:<span> </span>Thomas thank you it's David McAuley for the
record.<span> </span>I'm going to weigh in even
though I missed a little bit of what you said as my phone sort of broke
away.<span> </span>I had a little bit of connection
difficulty.<span> </span>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<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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<span>
</span>GNSO should consider this.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>It should note be a matter of issue to
choosing the government law.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">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.<span> </span>It would be clarification, natural
clarification that comes from the consequence of someone's comments.<span> </span>I think we can get through it but I think
it's going to be difficult.<span> </span>Anyway
that's the nature of my comment.<span> </span>Thanks
Thomas.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> THOMAS RICKERT:<span> </span>Thanks so much David that's a excellent
point. </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">I want to make sure we are all aligned </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">in term of expectations.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">And I guess</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">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.<span> </span>That's it in a nutshell.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>Thanks for your time.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> GREG SHATAN:<span> </span>Thank you Thomas.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>Then the report will be changed.<span> </span>Based on that new consensus.<span> </span>But the existence of comments or if you will,
the raw material of any particular comment won't be reflected in the
report.<span> </span>I think the comment list rather
the mail list to which the comment was sent will continue to exist.<span> </span>And I think we can put a link to that mail
list into the report.<span> </span>Acknowledging the
comments are there.<span> </span>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.<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Is that your understanding as well
Thomas?<span> </span>As how it's being handled over
all.<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> THOMAS RICKERT:<span> </span>Yes that's my understanding.<span> </span>That's a good point related to the one I was
mentioning.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span> </span>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.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">>> GREG SHATAN:<span> </span>Okay thank you for that clarification Thomas.<span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:12pt">Or for clarifying that my clarification was correct.<span> </span>And, also, for the
additional suggestion of how we should refer to other important materials from
our deliberations.<span></span></span></p>
</div><br></font></span></font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><p style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:10pt;margin-bottom:0pt;display:inline!important"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal"> </span></p></span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<br></div></div></div><div class="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948HOEnZb"><div class="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <span><<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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><strong>
</strong></font><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">Dear Greg, </font></span></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">Thank You very much for the draft</font></span></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">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.</font></span></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">The inclusion of that bolded paragraph, has a negative connotation as it negate and neutralize the action(s) described / required in that paragraph.</font></span></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">I therefore suggest the following amendment which convey the same message but in positive sense</font></span></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">See Below</span></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000"><strong> ” 4. Application Process.</strong></font></span></div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><a name="m_7411408721784244398_m_1487135025561754721_m_-528433675147369662_m_-8387475172608868437_m_-8353173265639039948_m_3018408136897201792_m_1951445596613202969__3znysh7"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">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.
<font color="#ff0000">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, </font>nevertheless </font></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#000000">ICANN,<span> </span>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).<span> </span>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.</font></span><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"> </font></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><div>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,<div>Why you have not taken into account comments from Russia, Italy, France into account </div><div>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 </div><div>Regards<span><span> .</span></span></div></div></font></div><span class="m_7411408721784244398m_1487135025561754721m_-528433675147369662m_-8387475172608868437m_-8353173265639039948m_3018408136897201792HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><div><div><span><span>Kavouss </span></span></div></div></font></div><div style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><div><br></div></font></div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><font color="#000000" size="3"><span><span> <span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span></font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"><a name="m_7411408721784244398_m_1487135025561754721_m_-528433675147369662_m_-8387475172608868437_m_-8353173265639039948_m_3018408136897201792_m_1951445596613202969__3znysh7"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></a></font></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>