- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Agenda and Documents for Tomorrow's Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting
by Greg Shatan Aug. 16, 2017

Aug. 16, 2017

All, Here is the agenda and accompanying documents for tomorrow's meeting. I look forward to our call. Greg

4 4

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward
by Seun Ojedeji Aug. 12, 2017

Aug. 12, 2017

Hello Greg, If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again? Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question. Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: Jurisdiction Subgroup Members, As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report. In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these. Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus. I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these. To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: - *Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* - *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* - *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* - *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* - *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* - *The sooner, the better* I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting. Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

5 8

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #41 - 9 August 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Aug. 10, 2017

Aug. 10, 2017

Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #41– 9 August 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/RgIhB 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@01D3113A.26747CA0] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Action Items: * GS -Review list of questions vs OFAC (not from transcript) for the end of the week. * Staff (BT) – Request Sam Eisner review transcript of her meeting with the Jurisdiction group on OFAC and ensure that her answers to questions were properly captured. * GS-Staff – Develop a draft of chapter headings for the final report for early next week to be reviewed by the sub-group. 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/69272134/Jurisdiction%20Su…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272134/Jurisdiction%20Su…> Decisions: * (none) Requests: * Everyone should review the questions they asked on OFAC and advise if they were answered and if they understood the answers (Thiago suggestion). Documents Presented * REVISED OFAC AND OTHER SANCTIONS QUESTIONS<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272134/REVISED%20OFAC%20…> * WS2 Revised Timeline<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69272134/WS2%20Revised%20t…>

4 5

[Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Meeting-20170809-FinalTranscript
by Bernard Turcotte Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

All, As discussed during the call I am attaching the Final Transcript of the 1 August meeting of the Jurisdiction sub-group (which is different than the raw captioning file) Also as discussed this has been forwarded to Samantha Eisner so she can review it to ensure her answer to questions were properly captured. We will forward the revised version once Samantha has had a chance to look at this. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

1 0

Materials for today's call
by Greg Shatan Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

With apologies for getting this out so close to the call, I attach the questions prepared for last week, with the additional questions that came in too late to be included, as well as the WS2 timeline. Greg

1 0

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting, August 9, 2017, 19:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Aug. 9, 2017

Aug. 9, 2017

All, I have attached the agenda for tomorrow's meeting of the Jurisdiction Subgroup. Documents will follow. I look forward to our call. Greg

2 1

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
by Kavouss Arasteh Aug. 8, 2017

Aug. 8, 2017

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

20 32

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