[Ws2-jurisdiction] Further actions on my latest MODIFIED /Softened SUGGESTIONS

Thu Sep 21 21:59:04 UTC 2017

Dear Kavouss,

I believe the point 4 and 5 you are making is thoroughly discussed by the
group and addressed by the below recommendation:

"ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should
clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does
not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should
also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the
applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those
laws in their customer relationships."

If we add the examples you are making, there will be a lot of
interpretations about how and why these registrars applied OFAC and it will
cause problems for the implementation of the recommendation. Especially
because Godaddy is a US-based entity and is following OFAC not because of
its contract with ICANN but because it has to as a US-based entity. I
appreciate that you found these examples but I don't think they should be
included.

Farzaneh

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Greg
> I have already replied
> You have partially included my first and second points
> But four other points are not incliuded either in the recommands parts or
> in the introductroy part or in preamble to recommands part
> You said that you have taken them into account but you have not included
> them
> What answr you expect from me
> I humbly and respectfully ask you to include them in relevant parts of the
> documents see points 3-6 of my message to you
> See below
>
> *3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical
> and should not be undermined. *
>
> *This part is talking about awareness that was extensively discussed and
> thus fits *
>
> *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*
>
> *This could be included in appropriate part .if it does not fit with the
> recommends part *
>
> *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*
>
> *6 Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine
> zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.*
> *This could be included either in the recommends part or preamble of the
> recommend part *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Regards*
> *Kavouss *
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>
>> *Kavouss et al.,*
>>
>> *First, if you would explain how the suggested text, past the first two
>> sentences, fits as part of a recommendation on the General License, 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.  How does this
>> fit in General License recommendation?  The suggested paragraph was put
>> there, but it does not fit in that context.*
>>
>> *To be clear, each recommendation 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
>> General License Recommendation.*
>>
>> *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.*
>>
>> *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.*
>>
>>
>> *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.*
>>
>> *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.*
>>
>> *To accept the remainder of the text into the document, the Subgroup
>> would need to support:*
>>
>>    - *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.*
>>    - *That new Issues should be introduced to this document at this
>>    point.*
>>    - *That issues should be put into the document without corresponding
>>    recommendations.*
>>    - *That "media reports" should be cited in the document without being
>>    seen by the Subgroup.*
>>    - *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.*
>>
>> *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.*
>>
>> *Best regards,*
>>
>> *Greg*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>>
>>> *Deaar Thiago, Dear Jorge,*
>>> *Thanks to your positive r3sponse .I am waiting for Greg to resolve the
>>> issue.*
>>> *I strongly oppose to the  unilateral removal of the last paragraph as
>>> result of off line exchange of views between two or three individual.*
>>> *We should be transparent*
>>> *We should listen to each other.We should consider problems of others *
>>> *Tks *
>>> *Regards*
>>> *Kavouss  *
>>>
>>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira **<*
>>> *thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.b**r* <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>*>*
>>> * wrote:*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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*
>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>* [mailto:**ws2-jurisdiction-bounc*
>>>> *es at icann.org* <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*] Em nome de *
>>>> *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch* <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>>>
>>>> *Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10Para: *
>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc: **ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <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
>>>> regardsJorge______________________________*
>>>>
>>>> *__Von: Greg Shatan <**gregshatanipc at gmail.com*
>>>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> *>Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZAn: Arasteh <*
>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>> *>Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>>>> Suggested RevisionsAll,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,GregOn Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <*
>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>*<mai**lto:*
>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>*>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *> wrote:Dear PaulThank you very much for your commentsI 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
>>>> KavoussSent from my iPhoneOn 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <*
>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchcons**ulting.com*
>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>*<mailto:**paul.rosenzw*
>>>> *eig at redbranchconsulting.com* <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>> wrote:AllGiven 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).PaulPaul Rosenzweig*
>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsu**lting.com*
>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>*<mailto:**paul.rosenzwe*
>>>> *ig at redbranchconsulting.com* <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>>> *>O: **+1 (202) 547-0660* <(202)%20547-0660>
>>>> *<tel:(202)%20547-0660>M: **+1 (202) 329-9650* <(202)%20329-9650>
>>>> *<tel:(202)%20329-9650>VOIP: **+1 (202) 738-1739* <(202)%20738-1739>*<tel:(202)%20738-1739>
>>>> **www.redbranchconsulting.com* <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>*<*
>>>> *ht**tp://www.redbranchconsulting.c**om/*
>>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>>>> *>My PGP Key: **https://keys.mailvelope.com/pk*
>>>> *s/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830**097CA066684*
>>>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
>>>>
>>>> *From: **ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann**.org*
>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*<mailto:**ws2-jurisdiction-b*
>>>> *ounces at icann.org* <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*> [mailto:*
>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounc**es at icann.org*
>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>> *] On Behalf Of Greg ShatanSent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PMTo:
>>>> ws2-jurisdiction <**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>*<ma**ilto:**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.or**g*
>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *>>Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>>>> Suggested RevisionsCORRECTED 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).GregOn Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <*
>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*<mailt**o:*
>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <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* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>*<mai**lto:*
>>>> *Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>> *>**https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l**istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>
>>>> *______________________________*
>>>>
>>>> *_________________Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list*
>>>> *Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l**istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>> *______________________________*
>>>>
>>>> *_________________Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list*
>>>> *Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l**istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> * Reply*
> * Reply to all*
> * Forward*
> *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> *
> *10:12 PM (19 hours ago)*
> *to Greg, ws2-jurisdicti., Thomas, León, Jordan, jorge.cancio, Thiago,
> Olga, parminder *
> *Dear Greg*
> *I replied to your message.*
> *I modified that paragraph to fit in the text . I suggested to transfer
> part of the paragraph to the relevant part of the doc. I am waiting for
> that *
> *Pls kindly be positive, contructive and objective and do not put obstacle
> in every suggestions made. This is not a private group and you MUST prperly
> act*
> *Regards*
> *Kavouss *
>
>
> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>
>> *Greg *
>> *I read your comments *
>> *To clarify the matter and to some extent comply with your questions .I
>> have prepared the following reply.*
>> *Pls kindly consider then favourable as they are now fitting the text
>> either in the recommands part or in the preamble to the recommand *
>> *Regards*
>> *Kavouss  *
>>
>> *1.The last sentence reads” unless the results of the study demonstrate
>> that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to pursue these licenses.”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 *
>>
>> *Thus the first sentence would fir .You may include my comment by
>> modifying the sentence as follows *
>>
>> *UNLESS, USING APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, THE RESULTS OF STUDY DEMONSTRATE
>> THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO PURSUE THESE STUDIES.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *2.*
>>
>> *Generally, ICANN  should pursue the application for general license at
>> earliest time and should  remind the registries not to copy and paste the
>> general agreements found in US-based registrars. *
>>
>> *This also fits *
>>
>>
>>
>> *3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical
>> and should not be undermined. *
>>
>> *This part is talking about awareness that was extensively discussed and
>> thus fits *
>>
>> *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*
>>
>> *This could be included in appropriate part .if it does not fit with the
>> recommends part *
>>
>> *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*
>>
>> *6 Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine
>> zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.*
>> *This could be included either in the recommends part or preamble of the
>> recommend part *
>> *Regards*
>> *Kavouss *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>>
>>> *Kavouss et al.,*
>>>
>>> *First, if you would explain how the suggested text, past the first two
>>> sentences, fits as part of a recommendation on the General License, 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.  How does this
>>> fit in General License recommendation?  The suggested paragraph was put
>>> there, but it does not fit in that context.*
>>>
>>> *To be clear, each recommendation 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
>>> General License Recommendation.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *To accept the remainder of the text into the document, the Subgroup
>>> would need to support:*
>>>
>>>    - *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.*
>>>    - *That new Issues should be introduced to this document at this
>>>    point.*
>>>    - *That issues should be put into the document without corresponding
>>>    recommendations.*
>>>    - *That "media reports" should be cited in the document without
>>>    being seen by the Subgroup.*
>>>    - *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.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *Best regards,*
>>>
>>> *Greg*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>>>
>>>> *Deaar Thiago, Dear Jorge,*
>>>> *Thanks to your positive r3sponse .I am waiting for Greg to resolve the
>>>> issue.*
>>>> *I strongly oppose to the  unilateral removal of the last paragraph as
>>>> result of off line exchange of views between two or three individual.*
>>>> *We should be transparent*
>>>> *We should listen to each other.We should consider problems of others *
>>>> *Tks *
>>>> *Regards*
>>>> *Kavouss  *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
>>>> <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote:*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>* [mailto:*
>>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*] Em nome de *
>>>>> *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch* <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10Para: *
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Cc: **ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <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
>>>>> regardsJorge________________________________Von: Greg Shatan <*
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZAn: Arasteh <*
>>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>>> *>Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>>>>> Suggested RevisionsAll,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,GregOn Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <*
>>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>> wrote:Dear PaulThank you very much for your commentsI 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
>>>>> KavoussSent from my iPhoneOn 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>> wrote:AllGiven 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).PaulPaul Rosenzweig*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>>>> *>O: **+1 (202) 547-0660* <(202)%20547-0660>
>>>>> *<tel:(202)%20547-0660>M: **+1 (202) 329-9650* <(202)%20329-9650>
>>>>> *<tel:(202)%20329-9650>VOIP: **+1 (202) 738-1739* <(202)%20738-1739>*<tel:(202)%20738-1739>
>>>>> **www.redbranchconsulting.com* <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>>>>> *<**http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/*
>>>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>>>>> *>My PGP Key: *
>>>>> *https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684*
>>>>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: **ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*> [mailto:*
>>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> *] On Behalf Of Greg ShatanSent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PMTo:
>>>>> ws2-jurisdiction <**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>*<mailto:**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>>Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>>>>> Suggested RevisionsCORRECTED 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).GregOn Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <*
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <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* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *<mailto:**Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *>**https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *_______________________________________________Ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>> mailing list**Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *_______________________________________________Ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>> mailing list**Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> * Reply*
> * Reply to all*
> * Forward*
> *Seun Ojedeji*
>
> *Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos SO: Can we get ICANN
> lega...*
> *10:17 PM (19 hours ago)*
> *Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos SO: Can we get ICANN
> lega...*
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>
> *Thank you Samantha, You said « ICANN agrees that OFAC does not apply to
> any o...*
> *12:20 AM (17 hours ago)*
> *Thank you Samantha, You said « ICANN agrees that OFAC does not apply to
> any o...*
> *Greg Shatan *
> *7:00 AM (10 hours ago)*
> *to me, ws2-jurisdicti., Thomas, León, Jordan, jorge.cancio, Thiago, Olga,
> parminder *
> *Kavouss,*
>
> *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):*
>
> *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.  ICANN should then pursue
> one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless
> significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process.  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.”  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.*
>
> *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.*
>
> *Best regards,*
>
> *Greg*
>
>
> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>
>> *Greg *
>> *I read your comments *
>> *To clarify the matter and to some extent comply with your questions .I
>> have prepared the following reply.*
>> *Pls kindly consider then favourable as they are now fitting the text
>> either in the recommands part or in the preamble to the recommand *
>> *Regards*
>> *Kavouss  *
>>
>> *1.The last sentence reads” unless the results of the study demonstrate
>> that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to pursue these licenses.”*
>>
> *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.   *
>
> *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:*
>
> *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.  CANN should then pursue one
> or more OFAC general licenses, unless significant obstacles were
> discovered in the “study” process.  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.”*
>
>
>
>
>> *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 *
>>
>> *Thus the first sentence would fir .You may include my comment by
>> modifying the sentence as follows *
>>
>> *UNLESS, USING APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, THE RESULTS OF STUDY DEMONSTRATE
>> THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO PURSUE THESE STUDIES.*
>>
> *Please review the Recommendation.  I believe you will see that sentence
> above no longer applies.*
>
>>
>> **
>> *2.*
>>
>> *Generally, ICANN  should pursue the application for general license at
>> earliest time and should  remind the registries not to copy and paste the
>> general agreements found in US-based registrars. *
>>
>> *This also fits*
>>
> *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 red)*
> *"ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the
> earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in
> the “study” process." *
>
> *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.  *
>
>>
>>
>> *3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical
>> and should not be undermined. *
>>
>> *This part is talking about awareness that was extensively discussed and
>> thus fits*
>>
> *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
> Recommendation: *
>
> *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.*
>
>> *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*
>>
>> *This could be included in appropriate part .if it does not fit with the
>> recommends part*
>>
> *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.*
>
> *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."  But right now, we do not have
> enough to go on.*
>
>> *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*
>>
> *These are both US registrars.  As noted above, we do not have an issue
> that relates to US registrars, because they do in fact have OFAC compliance
> obligations.*
>
>
>
>> *6 Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine
>> zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.*
>>
>
> *This could be included either in the recommends part or preamble of the
>> recommend part*
>>
> *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.*
>
> *Regards*
>> *Kavouss *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>>
>>> *Kavouss et al.,*
>>>
>>> *First, if you would explain how the suggested text, past the first two
>>> sentences, fits as part of a recommendation on the General License, 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.  How does this
>>> fit in General License recommendation?  The suggested paragraph was put
>>> there, but it does not fit in that context.*
>>>
>>> *To be clear, each recommendation 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
>>> General License Recommendation.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *To accept the remainder of the text into the document, the Subgroup
>>> would need to support:*
>>>
>>>    - *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.*
>>>    - *That new Issues should be introduced to this document at this
>>>    point.*
>>>    - *That issues should be put into the document without corresponding
>>>    recommendations.*
>>>    - *That "media reports" should be cited in the document without
>>>    being seen by the Subgroup.*
>>>    - *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.*
>>>
>>> *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.*
>>>
>>> *Best regards,*
>>>
>>> *Greg*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
>>> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:*
>>>>
>>>> *Deaar Thiago, Dear Jorge,*
>>>> *Thanks to your positive r3sponse .I am waiting for Greg to resolve the
>>>> issue.*
>>>> *I strongly oppose to the  unilateral removal of the last paragraph as
>>>> result of off line exchange of views between two or three individual.*
>>>> *We should be transparent*
>>>> *We should listen to each other.We should consider problems of others *
>>>> *Tks *
>>>> *Regards*
>>>> *Kavouss  *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
>>>> <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote:*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>* [mailto:*
>>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*] Em nome de *
>>>>> *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch* <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10Para: *
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Cc: **ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <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
>>>>> regardsJorge________________________________Von: Greg Shatan <*
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZAn: Arasteh <*
>>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>>> *>Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>>>>> Suggested RevisionsAll,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,GregOn Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <*
>>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com* <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>> wrote:Dear PaulThank you very much for your commentsI 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
>>>>> KavoussSent from my iPhoneOn 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>> wrote:AllGiven 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).PaulPaul Rosenzweig*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com*
>>>>> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>>>>> *>O: **+1 (202) 547-0660* <(202)%20547-0660>
>>>>> *<tel:(202)%20547-0660>M: **+1 (202) 329-9650* <(202)%20329-9650>
>>>>> *<tel:(202)%20329-9650>VOIP: **+1 (202) 738-1739* <(202)%20738-1739>*<tel:(202)%20738-1739>
>>>>> **www.redbranchconsulting.com* <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>>>>> *<**http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/*
>>>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>>>>> *>My PGP Key: *
>>>>> *https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684*
>>>>> <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: **ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>*> [mailto:*
>>>>> *ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> *] On Behalf Of Greg ShatanSent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PMTo:
>>>>> ws2-jurisdiction <**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>*<mailto:**ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org*
>>>>> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *>>Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>>>>> Suggested RevisionsCORRECTED 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).GregOn Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <*
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*<mailto:*
>>>>> *gregshatanipc at gmail.com* <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* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *<mailto:**Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *>**https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *_______________________________________________Ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>> mailing list**Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *_______________________________________________Ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>> mailing list**Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org* <Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction*
>>>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> * Reply*
> * Reply to all*
> * Forward*
> *Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward*
> *6.88 GB (45%) of 15 GB used*
> *Manage* <https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/storage?hl=en>
> *Terms* <https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/>* - **Privacy*
> <https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/>
> *Last account activity: 3 minutes ago*
> *Details*
> *14 more*
> *[image: Greg Shatan's profile photo]*
> *Greg Shatan*
> *Columbia Law School*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Show details*
> 6.88 GB (45%) of 15 GB used
> Manage <https://www.google.com/settings/u/0/storage?hl=en>
> Terms <https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/> - Privacy
> <https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/>
> Last account activity: 3 minutes ago
> Details
> Loading...
>
>    - Français
>    - Français
>    - français
>    - US International
>    - English
>    - English Dvorak
>    - English
>    - English
>    - Enable personal dictionary
>    - Disable personal dictionary
>    - Show Keyboard
>    - Hide Keyboard
>    - Input Tools Settings
>
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Kavouss,
>>
>> I await your response to the substance of my explanations.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:30 AM Kavouss Arasteh <
>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Greg
>>> Pls indicate what do you mean by
>>> I have taken the remaining elements of your text into account and given
>>> them due consideration
>>> To this part I am ok but you continued
>>>  but they are not included in the document,
>>>
>>> What is the meaning of you have tajen into account but not included in
>>> the document
>>> This is senseles confusing frustrating
>>> Either you have taken them into acount thus they should have been
>>> included
>>> Or if they were not included in the doc, the term " They have been taken
>>> into account " ids totally senseless
>>> I do not know with what language I should talk to you
>>> Do you speak French
>>> Pls I am tired to be confused
>>> I am spending hours and hours to concvinve you that these points should
>>> be addressed like two other examples that were included ( Netherland
>>> Antiles .... and .... )
>>> I do not know why I am pushed to be confused.
>>> You should not decide to reject them You are expected to be fair.$I
>>> kniow many of you do not intend to address point raised by some of us
>>> because you want to tailored the report in a way that satifsfy you.
>>> Pls once again include them in one way or other
>>> I am not convinced
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>
>>>> I have taken the remaining elements of your text into account and given
>>>> them due consideration, but they are not included in the document, for the
>>>> reasons I have twice set forth with great care and detail.  Please read my
>>>> detailed explanations and respond to the substance contained in them if you
>>>> have any remaining concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Greg
>>>>> Sorry to disturb you at your religeous feast .Pls kindly refer me to
>>>>> the area of the text when other elements sent to you few hours ago has bedn
>>>>> taken into account .Just few mints for you to highlight those, if considred
>>>>> as you know where they have been included and with what language which may
>>>>> not be exactly identical as proposed
>>>>> Sorry to bother you again
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kavouss,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As previously noted, I have responded in detail (twice) regarding the
>>>>>> remaining elements of your suggested text.  Please read these responses.  I
>>>>>> assure you it will take far less time to read them than it took me to write
>>>>>> them.  Please reply to the points raised in these responses if you have any
>>>>>> remaining concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <
>>>>>> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>> In addition to the elements of my last proposal that you have
>>>>>>> included in the last version you have posted quite recently , I have had
>>>>>>> other proposal  which I did ask you to look at them and include them either
>>>>>>> in the itroduction ,as relevant, or preamble to the Recommendation . See
>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>>> *1.The last sentence reads” unless the results of the study
>>>>>>> demonstrate that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to pursue these
>>>>>>> licenses.”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 *
>>>>>>> *Thus the first sentence would fir .You may include my comment by
>>>>>>> modifying the sentence as follows *
>>>>>>> *UNLESS ,USING APPROPRIATE CRITERIA, THE RESULTS OF STUDY
>>>>>>> DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ICANN TO PURSUE THESE
>>>>>>> STUDIES*.
>>>>>>> This has been covered in part
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Generally, ICANN  should pursue the application for general license
>>>>>>> at arliest time and should  remind the registries not to copy and paste the
>>>>>>> general agreements found in US-based registrars. *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This also fits*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  This has been covered in part
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is
>>>>>>> critical and should not be undermined.
>>>>>>> *This part is talking about awareness that was extensively discussed
>>>>>>> and thus fits *
>>>>>>> This has been covered in part
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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*
>>>>>>> *This could be included in appropriate part .if it does not fit with
>>>>>>> the recommends part *
>>>>>>> This has NOT been covered in part
>>>>>>> *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*
>>>>>>> This has NOT been covered in part
>>>>>>> *6 Registrars  should be reminded that they should not normally
>>>>>>> examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.*
>>>>>>> *This could be included either in the recommends part or preamble of
>>>>>>> the recommend part *
>>>>>>> This seems not covered.
>>>>>>> Pls kindly advise about those which are not covered in any part of
>>>>>>> the report or if covered , I have nor seen it
>>>>>>> I am grateful to you for that guidance
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Kavouss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170921/91382ad9/attachment-0001.html>