[Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s

[Erika Mann]

Dear Kavouss -
I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point
you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the
Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US
restriction.

Kind regards,
Erika

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Greg
> Dear Erika$
>  What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of
> the Report.
> You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the
> factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have
> provided that to you.
> You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on
> this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC.
> Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no
> veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that .
> Pls kindly do not further block this
> You blocking whatever, you do not like
> Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Kavouss,
>>
>> As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our
>> report.  Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC,
>> US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
>>
>> I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar
>> Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the
>> policy you have mentioned.  If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it
>> is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions,
>> then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
>>
>> I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this
>> policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it.  If there is one that
>> requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue.  If there is one
>> that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that
>> Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars
>> abide by applicable law.  But again, that's a Compliance issue.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Greg
>>> I do not know what question you raised.
>>> If you believe that
>>> *Mark Assenberg from Resello  which is a subsidiary company for *
>>> *Yourholding** holding:*
>>>
>>> *with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024
>>> AA Zwolle
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,
>>> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
>>> *based in Netherlands.being  a  non  US-Based company  on the basis of
>>> which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a
>>> registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country
>>> (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
>>> May you address this issue as a factual happening .
>>> Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
>>>>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business
>>>>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or
>>>>> otherwise)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA,
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.google.com/?q%3DCeintuurbaan%2B28%2B8024%2BAA%2BZwolle%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg%3E&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such
>>>> treatment is required by law (e.g.  required by legally binding sanctions).
>>>>
>>>> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision"
>>>> doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or
>>>> any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and
>>>> incomprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170920/2fee5b96/attachment.html>