[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions

Wed Sep 20 13:46:11 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,

I add my voice to Jorge's suggestion and look forward to an agreeable solution.

Best,

Thiago

-----Mensagem original-----
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10
Para: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions

Dear Greg,

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?

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.

kind regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZ
An: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions

All,

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.

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.

This is now covered in the section on General Licenses, so this is not needed here.

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.

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.

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).

Samples of that are related to Godaddy and Online Nic, which made pressure against registrants having Iranian citizenship.

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.

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.

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.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Paul
Thank you very much for your comments
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.
I am jerky awaiting to receive your fair suggestion as soon possible Regards Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:

All

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:

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"

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).

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PM
To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions

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.

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).

Greg

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

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.

I look forward to our call.

Best regards,

Greg

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction