August 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL]
by Jeff Neuman Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: " 4. Application Process. ..... Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license." [Emphasis Added] ..................... Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca(a)itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>; acct-staff(a)icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals... Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other's problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam's invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss

9 9

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL]
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 7, 2017 7:11 PM, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com> wrote: All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. SO: Am not sure this is "only" about "what else needs to be answered". It's rather about putting the respective responses side by side to the question instead of having people to go through a conversation which is normally not specific and focused. I went through the transcript and it was obvious that Sam was not allowed to go through all the questions one after the other before people started stopping her to ask clarification/more questions...et all and that is a normal thing that is bound to happen in a conversation. I actually find it strange and do not understand why it is really a big deal to share a response document[1], which I believe must have existed (however rough as I don't expect Sam not to have a response note). This certainly would fall within the least resource consuming tasks compared to enormous documents ICANN produces, some of which will perhaps not be as useful as this(re:Milton). Infact what has been the normal route is to share the response document, talk about it and then take further clarification points from the community. It is not clear why I different approach was taken in this case. That said, I agree with what Farsi suggested as if that is addressed then challenges with OFAC will largely go away. Regard 1. I wonder if we've asked staff and they said no to providing the document. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: *”** 4. Application Process.* *…..* *Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. **However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license**.” [Emphasis Added]* ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en *Jeffrey J. Neuman* *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079> @Jintlaw *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM *To:* Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca(a)itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>; acct-staff(a)icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>; Jordan Carter < jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>; acct-staff(a)icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff(a)icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

OFAC: Background Reading -- a few FAQs and Overviews
by Greg Shatan Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

All, I thought it might be helpful to provide some background information on OFAC in advance of Tuesday's meeting. These are intended to provide overall information on OFAC, not analysis of the relationship between OFAC compliance and ICANN. If there are other helpful general resources, please reply to this email. OFAC FAQ, General Questions: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Sanctions/Pages/faq_general.a… A basic overview of OFAC compliance for US-based businesses (a little old (2011), but still helpful): https://www.law360.com/articles/262952/4-steps-toward-ofac-sanctions-compli… (Also attached as PDF in case the link can't be accessed) Good overview, though oriented toward banks and financial institutions, from FFIEC (Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, a US inter-agency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions): https://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/pages_manual/olm_037.htm Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Foreign_Assets_Control IEEE and OFAC: https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/compliance/legal/ofac/DF_IEEE_MIG_NAV_… Greg

7 12

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #40 - 1 August 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #40– 1 August 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/QAIhB A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D30AD2.FA467DD0] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Action Items: * (none) Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/Jurisdiction-2017…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/Jurisdiction-2017…> Decisions: * (none) Requests: * (none) Documents Presented * OFAC Presentation<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/OFAC%20Presentati…> * OFAC AND OTHER SANCTIONS QUESTIONS FOR ICANN LEGAL<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272128/OFAC%20AND%20OTHE…>

2 1

Issues List
by Greg Shatan Aug. 3, 2017

Aug. 3, 2017

All, Here is the proposed issues list in its current state, downloaded from Google Drive. Greg

4 4

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

+1 so long as ICANN legal is fine with what was prepared by staff. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 2, 2017 5:20 AM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mike(a)rodenbaugh.com> wrote: I agree we should have written responses, but they could be prepared by ICANN staff from transcripts rather than by ICANN legal more formally? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <+1%20415-738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Aug 1, 2017 9:17 PM, "parminder" <parminder(a)itforchange.net> wrote: > That would be an equivalent, but not sure if all the questions were able > to be comprehensively responded to in the call (where I was not present). > Written replies ensures completeness, both of the range of questions/ > responses, and of a particular response, which may or may not happen in a > quick tele-chat ... > > Is there an issue with getting written replies? If required they could > come with legal disclaimer etc. > > I second the request for written replies to all OFAC related questions > that were submitted by this group. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 02 August 2017 09:15 AM, avri doria wrote: > > Hi, > > With captioning, don't we already have an equivalent to written answers? > > avri > > > > On 01-Aug-17 15:55, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Kavouss, > > Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a > matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual > participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether > to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which > questions). Thank you. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh > <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > > Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I > nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting > and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. > Regards > Kavouss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Hello Kavouss, A national holiday is what I meant. I was actually trying to emphasize why your concern should be considered. However it seem that didn't get to you well. :-) As to the question on whether a meeting has been postponed due to holiday(mostly US holiday) in the working group (CCWG) since this process since started in 2014. I am sure I have seen some of them in the past and can take the pain of searching the archive if it will really help you believe but most importantly if it will help better support my point for consideration but I guess it doesn't matter anymore. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 1, 2017 1:32 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear Seun, I never ever referred to public holidays of any country as there might be several public holiday .I was just referring to National Holidays and not public holidays. Pls give me an example by which any meeting was organized in the past on 4th of July?¨ I certainly remember NONE Pls kindly read the statement before being sent Regards Kavouss On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Greg, all > > In the past, meetings have been shifted due to holidays in the US. Now I > understand that majority of the active participants in this working group > are probably from that side hence the shifting. > > Nevertheless that should not mean that the active participant in the > minority be denied when it comes to their scenario. I think it will not be > appropriate (in this context) to ask for consensus on this particular > subject matter since the outcome will be obvious(owning to the balance in > the group). > > I believe what will be appropriate is to have a consensus agreement that > NO meeting will be scheduled on any country's public holiday (so long as > there is at least one member of the group raising the concern). > > Regards > PS: Occasionally I for one like to have the meeting during public holiday > so it gives me more volunteer time. ;-) > Sent from my mobile > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On Aug 1, 2017 1:08 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Kavouss, > > I'm sorry that my efforts to determine the sense of the group with regard > to rescheduling did not meet with your approval. I can only try my best. > For your information, I did not receive any of your four emails objecting > to the formulation of the question until after I sent out my agenda email. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Greg, >> >> You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift >> back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled. >> >> I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change >> the date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your >> question to ask >> >> Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially >> planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August >> >> Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the >> question decide that : >> >> *"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as >> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."* >> >> *You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing >> whether or not the charge to initial date was opposed.* >> >> *You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like >> you * >> >> *How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.* >> >> I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and >> strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the >> new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day. >> >> Pls do not impose your views >> >> Regards >> >> Kavouss >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < >> kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Greg, >>> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views . >>> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in >>> the last part of this message. >>> Thank you very much for your message. >>> >>> There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or >>> double standards in that message as briefly discussed below >>> >>> >>> >>> *Your introductory / opening part of the message.* >>> >>> *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup >>> for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based >>> on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”. * >>> >>> *Reply * >>> >>> *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not >>> appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and >>> they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a >>> categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into >>> a total divergence manner * >>> >>> *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam >>> Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion >>> planned for this week,* >>> >>> *Reply* >>> >>> *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should >>> in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If >>> she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She >>> will do at the subsequent meeting.* >>> >>> *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect >>> to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial >>> well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that >>> I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms >>> and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.* >>> >>> *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff >>> as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC, >>> as I mentioned we need to clearly know the application and implementation >>> of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not >>> agreed or rejected by you.* >>> >>> *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an >>> email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is >>> a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the >>> Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”* >>> >>> *Reply.* >>> >>> *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well >>> coordinated view ha ha???* >>> >>> *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful >>> country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do >>> not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to >>> sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while >>> I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been >>> no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all* >>> >>> *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep >>> the call schedule as is”.* >>> >>> *Reply* >>> >>> *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting >>> from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you >>> did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you >>> asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my >>> intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.* >>> >>> *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether >>> there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not >>> know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant* * >>> >>> *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and >>> since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we >>> need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare >>> NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to >>> say it is a disproportionate comparison* >>> >>> *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk >>> to the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN >>> Staff REQUIREMENT you need to raise the following question * >>> >>> *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for >>> Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda >>> but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August, >>> the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the >>> meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss >>> respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland >>> and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long >>> time ago* >>> >>> *Question* >>> >>> *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to >>> revert back to Wednesday 02 August* >>> >>> *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling >>> changes.* >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as >>>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2. >>>> >>>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF): >>>> >>>> 1. Agenda >>>> 2. Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding >>>> OFAC and sanctions matters. (These are largely unedited, so there are some >>>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.) >>>> 3. Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's >>>> meeting. >>>> >>>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and >>>> future calls: >>>> a. *The call will start on time.* >>>> b. Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will >>>> not be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or >>>> comments should be raised on the list. >>>> c. We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible, >>>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list). >>>> I hope that this will make calls more productive. >>>> >>>> I look forward to our call. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > >

1 0

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

All, First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2. I have attached the following (in Word and PDF): 1. Agenda 2. Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC and sanctions matters. (These are largely unedited, so there are some ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.) 3. Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's meeting. Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove useful. *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and future calls: a. *The call will start on time.* b. Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will not be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or comments should be raised on the list. c. We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible, and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list). I hope that this will make calls more productive. I look forward to our call. Greg

3 8

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting on Tuesday, August 1 at 13:00 UTC
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Hello Greg, all In the past, meetings have been shifted due to holidays in the US. Now I understand that majority of the active participants in this working group are probably from that side hence the shifting. Nevertheless that should not mean that the active participant in the minority be denied when it comes to their scenario. I think it will not be appropriate (in this context) to ask for consensus on this particular subject matter since the outcome will be obvious(owning to the balance in the group). I believe what will be appropriate is to have a consensus agreement that NO meeting will be scheduled on any country's public holiday (so long as there is at least one member of the group raising the concern). Regards PS: Occasionally I for one like to have the meeting during public holiday so it gives me more volunteer time. ;-) Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 1, 2017 1:08 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss, I'm sorry that my efforts to determine the sense of the group with regard to rescheduling did not meet with your approval. I can only try my best. For your information, I did not receive any of your four emails objecting to the formulation of the question until after I sent out my agenda email. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Greg, > > You raised a question whether there is any significant support to shift > back the meeting from Tuesday to Wednesday as initially scheduled. > > I asked you after sufficient justification that your decision to change > the date was not correct but to go forward change the sense of your > question to ask > > Is there strong 7 significant OPPOSITION to go back to the initially > planned date .i.e. Wednesday 02 August > > Then then after few mints without waiting to receive any reaction to the > question decide that : > > *"First, I confirm that the meeting remains on Tuesday, August 1, as there > was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2."* > > *You do not have such a right to impose your views without hearing whether > or not the charge to initial date was opposed.* > > *You are very clever but there are others who are similarly clever like > you * > > *How you can decide in 3 mints that everything is as you wanted.* > > I totally disagree with you and assume that until you receive serious and > strong objection to my suggestion you are not authorized to maintain the > new time.We have not yet decided whether it would wednesday or other day. > > Pls do not impose your views > > Regards > > Kavouss > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Greg, >> I totally disagree with you in rushing for your own views . >> I suggested that you change the sense of the question as described in the >> last part of this message. >> Thank you very much for your message. >> >> There are incoherence and inconsistencies and lack of standards or double >> standards in that message as briefly discussed below >> >> >> >> *Your introductory / opening part of the message.* >> >> *1.“I would like to see if there is significant support in the Subgroup >> for moving this week's call back to Wednesday, August 2 at 13:00 UTC based >> on the request from Kavouss Arasteh below”. * >> >> *Reply * >> >> *This is provocative in the sense that you know many people do not >> appreciate active participation of people with integrity at the meeting and >> they make every effort to negate and oppose to all his proposal in a >> categorical manner . Thus raising such such would turn the discussion into >> a total divergence manner * >> >> *2.”I note the following (1) if we move the call back to Wednesday, Sam >> Eisner can't join us and thus we would not have the OFAC-related discussion >> planned for this week,* >> >> *Reply* >> >> *While we welcome any information provided by ICANN staff but we should >> in no way be bow down and be subordinated or yielded by their wishes. If >> she is unable to attend, there would be neither earthquake nor Surname. She >> will do at the subsequent meeting.* >> >> *Moreover, what she intends to tell us we do not know? We do not expect >> to receive some cut and paste information from a very substantial >> well-structured information on OFAC .What we wanted were the questions that >> I raised, namely the application and implementation of certain OFAC terms >> and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not agreed or rejected by you.* >> >> *We do not need partial ,incomplete information based on one ICANN Staff >> as we are sufficiently mature to get the description and functions of OFAC, >> as I mentioned we need to clearly know the application and implementation >> of certain OFAC terms and provisions to g TLD and cc TLD that was not >> agreed or rejected by you.* >> >> *3 “ (2) Mr. Arasteh approved the move from Wednesday to Tuesday in an >> email on Friday, July 28, and (3) Virgin of Los Angeles Day on August 2 is >> a national holiday in Costa Rica, not a regional or urban holiday (the >> Virgin of Los Angeles is the patron saint of Costa Rica”* >> >> *Reply.* >> >> *I have seen the same reply from another Member of the Group: a well >> coordinated view ha ha???* >> >> *Please note that I was referring to National Holidays of a respectful >> country from which there are three active participants at the meeting. I do >> not understand reference to Los Angles state as I referred to only to >> sovereign country and not a State7 County within a country. Moreover, while >> I fully respect the national holiday of those countries but there has been >> no participants from those countries in our over 30 meeting at all* >> >> *4” In the absence of significant support in the Subgroup, we will keep >> the call schedule as is”.* >> >> *Reply* >> >> *Your statement is inappropriate because a9 when you moved the meeting >> from Wednesday to Tuesday (Because of Mrs. Samantha Eisner????) ,**you >> did not ask whether there was significant support ????? **Then why you >> asking for significant support knowing that several people are against my >> intervention because they are against THE SINGER and Not THE SONG.* >> >> *Then **I asked you to shift the sense of the question and ask whether >> there is significant opposition to my request. *In addition I do not >> know out of 25 participant what constitutes *“Significant* * >> >> *5. I simply said tomorrow is the National Holiday of Switzerland and >> since there are several participants from that country at the meeting, we >> need to respect that National Day. If you do not respect that and compare >> NATIONAL Day of Switzerland wit** Virgin of Los Angeles, I am sorry to >> say it is a disproportionate comparison* >> >> *Once again ,if you want to ask question about my proposal to go bacjk to >> the initially planned day and not the day which just meets one ICANN Staff >> REQUIREMENT you need to raise the following question * >> >> *Kavouss Arasteh argued that the meeting was initially planned for >> Wednesday 02 Augusts since several day which people planned their agenda >> but since one ICANN staff was unable to attend that meeting on 02 August, >> the Secretariat and the rapporteur by using default position change the >> meeting day which unfortunately fall with Swiss National Holiday. Kavouss >> respectfully appealed to all to respect the National Holiday of Switzerland >> and go back to the initial meeting day which was planned / schedules long >> time ago* >> >> *Question* >> >> *“IS THERE STRONG AND SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO Kavouss, proposal to >> revert back to Wednesday 02 August* >> >> *Please weigh in quickly as time is very tight for such scheduling >> changes.* >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> First, I confirm that the meeting remains on *Tuesday, August 1,* as >>> there was no further support for moving it back to Wednesday, August 2. >>> >>> I have attached the following (in Word and PDF): >>> >>> 1. Agenda >>> 2. Collected questions from the Subgroup for ICANN Legal regarding OFAC >>> and sanctions matters. (These are largely unedited, so there are some >>> ambiguities in some questions and some overlaps between various questions.) >>> 3. Decisions, Action Items and Requests ("DAIR") from last week's >>> meeting. >>> >>> Reminder: I have posted some background reading on OFAC that may prove >>> useful. >>> >>> *A note on process: *Based on suggestions made last week, for this and >>> future calls: >>> a. *The call will start on time.* >>> b. Decisions, Action Items and Requests from the prior meeting will not >>> be reviewed on the call. They are attached here and any questions or >>> comments should be raised on the list. >>> c. We will get to the major items of substance as quickly as possible, >>> and move process issues to the end of calls (or if need be, the list). >>> I hope that this will make calls more productive. >>> >>> I look forward to our call. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

2 1