[Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions
Seun Ojedeji
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Sep 26 14:06:30 UTC 2017
Dear all,
Based on the background recently provided, it seem resello is a US based
entity so one would expect OFAC to apply just like it does for ICANN.
Should ICANN then be the one to ask for a waiver for resello? I don't think
so.
Regards
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Sep 26, 2017 2:13 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> As I read it they said “our policy” not “our national policy” – and in any
> event “our national policy” might very well mean “the policy we follow
> nation-wide” and not “the policy our national government imposes.”
>
>
>
> P
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kavouss Arasteh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2017 8:51 AM
> *To:* Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at team.neustar>; ws2-jurisdiction <
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RES: OFAC
> Recommendation -- Further Suggested Revisions
>
>
>
> Dear Beckie
>
> Yes pls read the text as he said " *based on our national Policy *......"
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at team.neustar>
> wrote:
>
> Could someone clarify one point for me? Did the Registrar affirmatively
> state that it was unwilling to work with Iranian reseller because of OFAC?
> Or it that an assumption only?
>
> Becky Burr
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 18:26, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Greg
>
> Thanks
>
> The issue is that the Registrar refusal to get involved in the business
> apparently and perhaps actually resulted from misinterpretation of OFAC
> Regulations as that Registrar was over prudent to totally exclude any
> likelihood of application of OFAC by US to the case .
>
> If in the view of the group , see the compilation of views by all of you
> as conveyed to you as a cut and paste text , there is no link between the
> request and OFAC then it should be explained that such irrelevance of the
> refusal to OFAC as the refusal seemed to have been based on the
> misinterpretation of the Registrar that there might have been a relation
> thereto
>
> Then, the group while confirming that inapplicability of OFAC to the
> case needs to (to be mentioned in the document to clarify the matter for
> the case and for any future misinterpretation.
>
> Moreover, the group needs to mention that the need to verify whether there
> is a clear provision in the RAA to obligate the Registrar to enter into
> business with registrant or there is no provision to authorise it to refuse
> ,i.e. silent situation in RAA . In that case the Group while excluding the
> applicability or relation between the request and OFAC recommend ICANN to
> examine the matter and take necessary action, as appropriate
>
> Regards
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Kavouss,
>
>
>
> It might help Paul and others to understand your point if you could
> explain your three points, specifically:
>
> a) Why it is necessary to include this case/anecdote in the OFAC
> Recommendation
>
> b) Why it is relevant to the OFAC Recommendation that Resello's decision
> could *not* be attributed to OFAC applicability
>
> c) Why it is relevant to the OFAC Recommendation that the RAA has no
> obligation for the Registrar to enter into the requested Reseller agreement
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul
>
> You have never ever Been at loss
>
> This addition is necessary to address the case as contained in my
> suggestion as further elaborated in the sense a) to include the case as
> reported , b) to mention that the refusal of Resello could not be
> attributed to the likelihood of OFAC applicability and c) to Mention that
> RAA is silent in obligation of Registrar to enter into business with
> requérant of domain name purchase as well as its refusal
>
> I hope it is clear
>
> Tks
>
> Kavouss
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2017, at 00:57, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> We already have .. at some length. I confess in this instance I really am
> at a loss as to what more is desired.
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=grvWAwyNT097vY4v9uiI5SpAWPQ9RL3qJnEKLDZJJ4o&e=>
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=QZg6_N_7tZaDa5yi_94NMsyDiQhAX1f-AGdeWkzBOJY&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2017 10:25 AM
> *To:* paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com; olgacavalli at gmail.com;
> Samantha.Eisner at icann.org
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation --
> Further Suggested Revisions
>
>
>
> Dear all, dear Paul,
>
>
>
> I guess what is being highlighted is a potential „chilling effect“ that
> could be addressed through improved awareness and communication – something
> we may well mention in this recommendation…
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Paul
> Rosenzweig
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 25. September 2017 16:12
> *An:* 'Olga Cavalli' <olgacavalli at gmail.com>; 'Samantha Eisner' <
> Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> *Cc:* 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [Ext] RES: OFAC Recommendation --
> Further Suggested Revisions
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=grvWAwyNT097vY4v9uiI5SpAWPQ9RL3qJnEKLDZJJ4o&e=>
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=QZg6_N_7tZaDa5yi_94NMsyDiQhAX1f-AGdeWkzBOJY&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=l0zMXq81yFPIhPWH9iYzDLnDtfycIlng1sD9-RJ8UNM&e=>
>
> Los Angeles, California 90094
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=l0zMXq81yFPIhPWH9iYzDLnDtfycIlng1sD9-RJ8UNM&e=>
>
> USA
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=l0zMXq81yFPIhPWH9iYzDLnDtfycIlng1sD9-RJ8UNM&e=>
>
> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 <(310)%20578-8631>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@
> icann.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@
> redbranchconsulting.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=
> 0x9A830097CA066684[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-
> jurisdiction-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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=l0zMXq81yFPIhPWH9iYzDLnDtfycIlng1sD9-RJ8UNM&e=>
>
> Los Angeles, California 90094
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=l0zMXq81yFPIhPWH9iYzDLnDtfycIlng1sD9-RJ8UNM&e=>
>
> USA
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12025-2BWaterfront-2BDrive-2C-2BSuite-2B300-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BLos-2BAngeles-2C-2BCalifornia-2B90094-5F-5F-5F-5F-2BUSA-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=l0zMXq81yFPIhPWH9iYzDLnDtfycIlng1sD9-RJ8UNM&e=>
>
> 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-
> bounces 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-
> jurisdiction-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-
> jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2017 05:10
> Para: gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested
> Revisions
>
>
>
>
> Dear Greg,
>
> would it be possible that Kavouss' concerns are addressed by you also
> bilaterally as he seems not to be satisfied with these explanations, This
> could help avoiding any misunderstanding?
>
> I feel we are very close to consensus and such an effort would most
> probably be helpful in order to allow all to be on board.
>
> kind regards
>
> Jorge
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Datum: 20. September 2017 um 07:25:56 MESZ
> An: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested
> Revisions
>
> All,
>
> I wanted to reflect in this email thread how the various topics in the
> paragraph submitted by Kavouss for potential inclusion in the "General
> License" recommendation have been dealt with in the document. Here are the
> different sections of the text, followed by my notes in italics.
>
> Generally, ICANN must pursue the application for general license at
> earliest time and should advertise and communicate with registries and
> registrars to revise their registrant agreements and not to copy and paste
> the general agreements found in US-based registrars. The role of ICANN, to
> make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be
> undermined.
>
> This is now covered in the section on General Licenses, so this is not
> needed here.
>
> There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars
> have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because
> they might get affected by US sanctions.
>
> This is not related to General Licenses, so it should not be included in
> that recommendation. Regarding non-US registrars: This issue is generally
> discussed in the section "Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US
> Registrars." If the Subgroup receives media reports of non-US registrars
> taking such actions and it appears there may be no legal basis for these
> actions, we could cite them in this section. Since the Subgroup has not
> seen the reports mentioned here, we do not have any basis to include this
> sentence, and so it is not included.
>
> Regarding US registrars, who have OFAC compliance obligations, there does
> not appear to be an issue that falls within the purview of the Subgroup.
> It may well be that these registrars are complying with their legal
> obligations (or seeking to become compliant with their legal obligations).
>
> Samples of that are related to Godaddy and Online Nic, which made pressure
> against registrants having Iranian citizenship.
>
> These are both US-based registrars, who are required to comply with OFAC
> sanctions. As noted above, it may well be that these registrars are
> complying with their legal obligations (or seeking to become compliant with
> their legal obligations). This does not fit with the issue discussed in
> this report, which relates to mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by
> non-US registrars, so it is not included.
>
> To determine the nature of registrant, registrars usually refer to Admin
> contact details recorded in whois database. If admin address and phone
> number is related to sanctioned countries, it is assumed that domain owner
> is a hidden risk for the registrar, therefore registrars try to examine
> zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.
>
> This is not related to the General License either. This seems to be
> directed toward registrars' business practices and business judgment.
> Without commenting on the validity of the issue, this would not appear to
> be an issue for this Subgroup or the CCWG. Furthermore, if these are
> registrars with OFAC compliance obligations, then it may well be that these
> registrars are complying with their legal obligations. If these are non-US
> registrars without OFAC compliance obligations, then this issue is covered
> generally under "Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars." As
> such the paragraph is not included.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<
> mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear Paul
> Thank you very much for your comments
> I am open to soften the text as you suggested e.g. to replace " prove " by
> " determine" and the term"must" be a less stronger term such as" need"
> which is between must/ shall/ and may However, due to the fact that we are
> severely affected by the process, may I humbly request you to kindly agree
> to retain the idea with slightly modified text to also be agreeable to you.
> I am jerky awaiting to receive your fair suggestion as soon possible
> Regards Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 19 Sep 2017, at 02:16, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> wrote:
>
> All
>
> Given the lateness with which we received Kavouss's suggested paragraph
> and revisions and the fact that I, regretfully, could not make the call,
> let me note my disagreement with two aspects of it:
>
> First, on page 5, it is suggested that a survey be undertaken to "prove"
> that non-US registrars are imposing OFAC requirements. Since the point of
> the survey is to determine what is true, it is premature to assume that it
> will "prove" the facts assumed by the proposer. The word "prove" is
> therefore in error and should be replaced by "determent whether"
>
> Second, I oppose the proposed new paragraph at the end simply because, as
> written, I have absolutely no idea what is meant. But use of terms like
> "must" as an imperative are always inappropriate in recommendations.
> Insofar as I can discern the intent (that there is some action being taken
> by registries against registrants) that issue is a new one that needs to be
> fully discussed and it is, of course, quite different from the OFAC general
> license idea for ICANN that we have been discussing (which would only
> relate to ICANN's on RAA agreements).
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@
> 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=
> 0x9A830097CA066684[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-
> jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:13 PM
> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Recommendation -- Further Suggested
> Revisions
>
> CORRECTED VERSION ATTACHED. A paragraph suggested by Kavouss, which is in
> the Google Doc, did not show up in the Word document (nor in the PDF, which
> is based on the Word doc). Corrected versions are attached. Thank you to
> Kavouss for catching this. Please see the last paragraph in the document
> so that you can review this suggested text.
>
> Also, some crossed-out text at the very end that was supposed to be
> deleted (as noted on last week's call) has now been deleted from the
> attached (and the Google Doc).
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<
> mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have attached a further revised OFAC Recommendation, reflecting changes
> suggested by Kavouss Arasteh and Seun Ojedeji. Word and PDF versions are
> attached, and the Google Doc reflects these suggested changes as well.
>
> I look forward to our call.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=5MBhZo9ZQ16Oh9-oTT0ueNZBLLEhBYLfWOsCUtn-yqU&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=5MBhZo9ZQ16Oh9-oTT0ueNZBLLEhBYLfWOsCUtn-yqU&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=5MBhZo9ZQ16Oh9-oTT0ueNZBLLEhBYLfWOsCUtn-yqU&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=5MBhZo9ZQ16Oh9-oTT0ueNZBLLEhBYLfWOsCUtn-yqU&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=5MBhZo9ZQ16Oh9-oTT0ueNZBLLEhBYLfWOsCUtn-yqU&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ws2-2Djurisdiction&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jfd6XppNR7epMjIOy8D72ZpL7AqIw_wnhitKzx-slBM&s=5MBhZo9ZQ16Oh9-oTT0ueNZBLLEhBYLfWOsCUtn-yqU&e=>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170926/4566e5cf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list