[Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions
farzaneh badii
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Mon Sep 25 14:43:09 UTC 2017
Kavouss,
Would it be possible to tell us why this paragraph in the OFAC
recommendation not satisfy you and why you think it is not enough and does
not address the case you are mentioning? It addresses exactly the point you
are making because we have made similar examples and discuss the
implications with the group multiple times. So would be grateful if you
could tell me why this does not satisfy you.
*Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars*
It appears that some registrars might be following the rules of OFAC
sanctions in their dealings with registrants and potential registrants,
even when they are not based in the U.S and it would appear they are not
required to do so. In particular, it seems that some non-US registrars may
be applying OFAC restrictions even when they are not obliged to do so,
merely based on an assumption that because they have a contract with ICANN,
they have to apply OFAC sanctions. If registrars that are not based in the
U.S. and do not have OFAC compliance obligations are nonetheless
prohibiting registrants in sanctioned countries from using their services
based on a mistaken belief that OFAC sanctions apply, that raises concerns
with the availability of Internet resources on a global and neutral
basis.
There may be other ways that non-U.S. registrars give the impression that
these registrars are following OFAC sanctions. For example, the Subgroup
was provided examples of two non-US registrars with registrant agreements
that stated that persons located in sanctioned countries could not use
their services due to OFAC sanctions.[1] <#_ftn1> Both registrars
apparently used a registrant agreement “cut and pasted” from other sources.
[2] <#_ftn2> One of the two registrars (Gesloten) has since revised its
registrant agreement significantly, and removed any mention of OFAC
restrictions.
OFAC restrictions could have been included in these registrant
agreements as a “cut and paste” error or because the registrar believed
(rightly or wrongly) that OFAC sanctions applied to it. In either case,
the conclusion is the same: registrars should understand which laws apply
to their businesses, and they should make sure that their registrant
agreements accurately reflect those laws.
ICANN cannot provide legal advice to registrars. Each registrar must make
their own legal determination of how and whether OFAC restrictions apply.
However, ICANN could provide a clarification to registrars that registrars
do not have to follow OFAC sanctions solely based on the existence of their
contract with ICANN.
ICANN is not a party to the registrant agreements, so there is nothing that
ICANN can do directly. Nonetheless, non-U.S. registrars could also be
encouraged to seek advice on applicable law and to accurately reflect the
applicable law in their registrant agreements.
*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.
------------------------------
[1] <#_ftnref1> One was Gesloten.cw (
http://www.gesloten.cw/support/legal.php?requestfor=registraragreement&from=agree_page),
a Curacao (Netherlands Antilles) registrar; the other was Olipso (
https://www.olipso.com/en/domain-registration-agreement), a Turkish
registrar (Atak Domain Hosting). For
[2] <#_ftnref2> For example, both agreements used “ Mumbai time” as a
standard even though neither is in India, located in that time zone, or has
any particular contacts with India.
Farzaneh
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> wrote:
> Dear Paul, I understand your point. But the RAAn question ,in reality is
> frightened that OFAC Régulations may apply to him
> You have mentioned that it does not apply to NON US/ Non US BASED entities.
> We know that RAA is governed by PDP. but if you read my compromised
> message you will note that SubGroup is invited to just acknowledge recipt
> of the case as requested by Greg on 13 and 20Sept ( kavouss is requested to
> provide evidence of what he informed 9 I did inform the Group and I request
> that the case be briefly referred to in the introductory part and in the
> Recommands it say, that a) it is unrealted to OFAC and
> b) There seems to be no provisions in RAA obligating the RAA to get into
> discussion or business with a reseller of the Domain Name residing .... but
> there is also no provisions in RAA by which the RAA could deny the request
> The issue thus requires to be examined by ICANN with a view to take
> necessary action, as appropriate.
> I hope you would not reject this balance and sift language because raised
> by me
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> In the end, the problem is that the question of RAA implementation is a
>> completely differerent issue from OFAC. The real reason this is
>> problematic is that an unreleated issue is being shoehorned into an
>> existing, otherwise complete, recommendation.
>>
>>
>>
>> We should move consideration of the RAA issue raised to a new issue
>> subhead in the Subgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>>
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>>
>> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830
>> 097CA066684
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc
>> es at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Olga Cavalli
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 4:42 PM
>>
>> *To:* Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation --
>> Further Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> could it be possible to address Mr Araste's concerns?
>>
>>
>>
>> perhaps producing a new document with references to comments by himself
>> and others?
>>
>>
>>
>> This could be very useful for us following the discussion as the thread
>> of emails sometimes becomes confusing.
>>
>>
>>
>> best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Olga
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-09-22 14:52 GMT-07:00 Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>:
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in responding - I'm traveling internationally and
>> have not been able to stay fully on top of the email traffic. Greg and
>> Paul, thank you for your responses on the issue and for also recognizing
>> that the question does reach into providing legal advice that ICANN is not
>> in a position to give. I agree with your analyses.
>>
>>
>>
>> As noted, I've previously stated that ICANN agrees that OFAC does not
>> apply to any of ICANN's contracted parties solely due to a contract with
>> ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Contracted parties each need to assess for themselves whether they must
>> comply with the OFAC regulations based on whatever business factors they
>> choose to take into account.
>>
>>
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Samantha Eisner
>>
>> Deputy General Counsel, ICANN
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, California 90094
>>
>> USA
>>
>> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 <(310)%20578-8631>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at ican
>> n.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 11:09 AM
>> *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA
>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation --
>> Further Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Tijani,
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul is being a bit lawyerly and careful and emphasizing that there is no
>> positive statement in the law or regulations that one can point to and say,
>> "this says OFAC doesn’t apply to any of ICANN's contracted parties solely
>> due to their contracts with ICANN." He has also explained that there would
>> not be, because that's not how laws work (or regulations, except if there
>> were a general license -- but a general license would only be needed if the
>> sanctions would otherwise apply).
>>
>>
>>
>> Sam is also being careful (and has to be, because ICANN cannot give legal
>> advice on OFAC compliance to contracted parties), when she confirms that
>> "ICANN cannot and does not obligate its contracted parties to follow OFAC
>> regulations." But consider that Sam also said that "*ICANN agrees that
>> OFAC does not apply to any of ICANN's contracted parties solely due to a
>> contract with ICANN*." Considering how careful ICANN has to be in not
>> giving legal advice on OFAC compliance, this should be highly persuasive.
>>
>>
>>
>> Consider also that all contracting parties would be in breach of their
>> ICANN contracts if US law required them all to comply with OFAC because
>> they have an ICANN contract and they did not do so. Do you think ICANN or
>> the US government would tolerate such widespread violation of law and
>> breach of contract?
>>
>>
>>
>> Like Becky I'll be a little less lawyerly, and say that I can find
>> absolutely no basis for concern that OFAC applies to any of ICANN's
>> contracted parties solely because they have entered into a contract with
>> ICANN.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <
>> tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> So, since no firm answer can be given, it is not sure that OFAC doesn’t apply
>> to any of ICANN's contracted parties solely due to their contracts with
>> ICANN, which is a concern in my opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>>
>> +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 22 sept. 2017 à 13:13, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchcons
>> ulting.com> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Tijani
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me try. You ask “According to the California or US jurisdictions”
>> I assume you mean EITHER the executive branches of those areas or their
>> courts.
>>
>>
>>
>> As to California – OFAC is a Federal law, so the California state
>> government would have no authority to construe the law or enforce it. As a
>> result, no action to enforce OFAC requirements has ever been brought by
>> California or adjudicated by California courts. Since the law is outside
>> of their scope of reference this is not surprising.
>>
>>
>>
>> As to the Federal government, its rules regarding the scope of OFAC are
>> set forth in regulations that are discussed in detail in the draft report
>> the group put together. Those regulations do not directly address ICANN
>> (or any other specific business entity) but describe widely the categories
>> and types of people and institutions to which it applies. The US
>> government through the Department of Treasury has never been asked about
>> ICANN’s contracted parties directly and if asked they probably would refuse
>> to answer a hypothetical. So we are left only with the regulations – and
>> as to those, I agree with Sam that the best reading of them is that they
>> apply to ICANN but not the contracted parties (unless the contracted
>> parties are themselves US companies independently subject to OFAC).
>>
>>
>>
>> Since no enforcement action has ever been brought against ICANN or a
>> contracted party in a US court, no US court has ever answered the question
>> you ask
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope that helps
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>>
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=dYTtbBIgukseIqTDSE_jTP6FcRo3hGEm3jck9IgSNlI&s=FsheHq6zPytklxrdyXT0gBBB9bIiM9n2wk_Fbuglkwg&e=>
>>
>> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x
>> 9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=dYTtbBIgukseIqTDSE_jTP6FcRo3hGEm3jck9IgSNlI&s=5LOM0e7F4IVRj4YB10BUhCEuJx6mKXl3NBgL0KM8-Nk&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdi
>> ction-bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf
>> Of *Tijani BEN JEMAA
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:22 PM
>> *To:* Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation --
>> Further Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Sam,
>>
>>
>>
>> You didn’t answer my question which was:
>>
>> According to the California and US jurisdictions, does OFAC apply to any
>> of ICANN's contracted parties solely due to their contracts with ICANN?
>>
>>
>>
>> I will very much appreciate a clear and to the point answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>>
>> +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 21 sept. 2017 à 20:45, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN cannot and does not obligate its contracted parties to follow OFAC
>> regulations. ICANN requires them to follow applicable laws.
>>
>> —
>>
>> Samantha Eisner
>>
>> Deputy General Counsel, ICANN
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>
>> Los Angeles, California 90094
>>
>> USA
>>
>> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 <(310)%20578-8631>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 3:20 PM
>> *To: *Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner at icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <
>> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: OFAC Recommendation --
>> Further Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Samantha,
>>
>>
>>
>> You said « ICANN agrees that OFAC does not apply to any of ICANN's
>> contracted parties solely due to a contract with ICANN. ». Does that mean
>> that according to the California and US jurisdictions, OFAC does not apply
>> to any of ICANN's contracted parties solely due to a contract with ICANN?
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>>
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>>
>> +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 20 sept. 2017 à 21:44, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for that helpful response Samantha!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2017 9:37 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Seun -
>>
>>
>>
>> To your question below, and as noted in my presentation to the
>> Jurisdiction group below, ICANN agrees that OFAC does not apply to any of
>> ICANN's contracted parties solely due to a contract with ICANN. However,
>> ICANN cannot provide any advice to a contracted party as to which laws and
>> regulations are (or are not) applicable, and each contracted party is
>> responsible for understanding that as part of their business operations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> ____
>>
>> Samantha Eisner
>>
>> Deputy General Counsel, ICANN
>>
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300[maps.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-250D-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-250D-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=9ca8NCIEA-Ax-xcRchljermQjUSdiR0U4i7sHsVe4pU&s=jqlKpYuoR60ghP7UB1YO7aIqTRwXGUJTucqk39U7mRA&e=>
>>
>> Los Angeles, California 90094[maps.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-250D-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-250D-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=9ca8NCIEA-Ax-xcRchljermQjUSdiR0U4i7sHsVe4pU&s=jqlKpYuoR60ghP7UB1YO7aIqTRwXGUJTucqk39U7mRA&e=>
>>
>> USA[maps.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-250D-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-250D-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=9ca8NCIEA-Ax-xcRchljermQjUSdiR0U4i7sHsVe4pU&s=jqlKpYuoR60ghP7UB1YO7aIqTRwXGUJTucqk39U7mRA&e=>
>>
>> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 <+1%20310-578-8631>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bo
>> unces at icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:17 PM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L
>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>> Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2017 4:03 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> We do ask ICANN to clarify that registrars do not need to follow OFAC
>> sanctions simply due to their contracts with ICANN, and that is important.
>>
>> SO: Can we get ICANN legal to respond to the above as I think it will
>> help someone like myself move from sitting on the fence on this particular
>> topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdic
>> tion-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:48 AM
>> *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>;
>> Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
>> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>; Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further
>> Suggested Revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> 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> 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 [mailto:ws2-jurisdict
>> ion-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<mai
>> lto: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 redbranchcons
>> ulting.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 <+1%20202-547-0660><tel:(202)%20547-0660
>> <(202)%20547-0660>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650><tel:(202)%20329-9650
>> <(202)%20329-9650>>
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739><tel:(202)%20738-1739
>> <(202)%20738-1739>> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=SSg9DqnAreY7rqmepf941C1TwRABY8LDqML_434HenE&s=v-k9kgNfbevSG1hsn5C_hu8J81Lt2LmdyMcrbvhL3e8&e=>
>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/[redbranchconsulting.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=SSg9DqnAreY7rqmepf941C1TwRABY8LDqML_434HenE&s=HnmhcBwRiPc7pnKaGKkyyI8tqyDISzgIfxYVHliaAzU&e=>
>> >
>> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x
>> 9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=w1jlqVWntmqtI5dedIDLQ6uBxH_Jh-uBee_4imohzko&m=SSg9DqnAreY7rqmepf941C1TwRABY8LDqML_434HenE&s=3dySAIxgq5-Bu6Q6V_dX3UG4LDr_Xc36YIrFFDwE5L0&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdic
>> tion-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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170925/073aa6dd/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list