- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

OFAC Recommendation
by Greg Shatan Oct. 2, 2017

Oct. 2, 2017

All, In order to finalize the OFAC Recommendation, I attach a copy of the latest draft of the OFAC Recommendation with several proposed changes. I need to ascertain the level of support for including these changes. On our last call, we discussed these proposed changes, and also suggestions made on the list to include an instance involving the registrar Resello. Based on that call and discussion on the list, I believe that the group supports finalizing the document without the suggested changes. As discussed on the call, I am distributing this version of the OFAC Recommendation with the following statement: *During the preparation of this Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. * If you have not already done so, please respond and indicate whether or not you support the inclusion of these suggested changes or the Resello matter in the OFAC Recommendation. Thank you. Greg

7 6

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch Sept. 29, 2017

Sept. 29, 2017

Dear Greg, I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing. and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you. Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions. Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider. In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense. You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome). Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach. As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region). The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements. I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law. Please help me and the Subgroup understand better. Thank you, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week. Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options. I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so. I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group. I hope this clarifies matters. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg, In the pdf this is not clear. Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions? I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings. I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed. I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions. Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word. Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, The changes in "red ink" are from you? Thanks for clarifying. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation All, Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-k… (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode). Please review and be prepared to discuss. Thank you. Greg

3 6

Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #48 | 27 September 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Hello all, You may find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Requests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #48 – 27 September 2017 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/hyUhB. The transcript will be posted on when it becomes available (usually in 3 to 5 business days after the call). A copy of the DAIRs and raw caption notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D337C2.8C7C5D20] Action Items: * GS to send the latest version of the OFAC recommendation to the list to see if there are significant objections to this version. 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/69281159/CCWG-Accountabili…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69281159/CCWG-Accountabili…> Decisions: * OFAC recommendation – not accept changes proposed by KA Requests: * Participants contribute to the Choice of Law document.

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WS2_Jurisdiction_Applicable Law and Choice of Venue_Draft Recommendation
by Greg Shatan Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Kavouss, All of your suggested changes (sent to me 12:08 EDT after an earlier version was sent at 5:22 am EDT) were added to the Google Doc, and then reflected in the Word and PDF documents, and circulated at 1:42 pm EDT. You caught one mistake (resulting from the process of transferring Google Docs to Word) and notified me, reattaching your v2, which I corrected and then recirculated at 2:12 pm. You now write to me at 2:26 pm and seem to imply that I have somehow ignored a document that was "sent three times" by you. On this particular email, you have also included a number of "cc's" from the GAC who do not participate in this Working Group. This could create the impression that I am ignoring your contributions in spite of you sending them repeatedly to me. As the above timeline indicates, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed I have responded to your emails before even responding to my clients. I am sure it was not your intent to create a perception that your work is being marginalized or ignored, so I am responding here to make sure that a mistaken view of the workings of this group is not taken away by those glimpsing it on copy. I look forward to our upcoming call. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Greg, I have sent you an edited file as attached and sent three > times.- > This needs to be discussed -Regards > Kavouss > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> All, >> >> Here are Word and PDF copies of the first draft recommendation created by >> Raphael. This will be discussed on our call. >> >> >> Greg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> >

2 2

WS2_Jurisdiction_Applicable Law and Choice of Venue_Draft Recommendation
by Greg Shatan Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

All, Here are Word and PDF copies of the first draft recommendation created by Raphael. This will be discussed on our call. Greg

2 2

OFAC Recommendation
by Greg Shatan Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Here is the version with Kavouss's suggested changes. Greg

1 0

Agenda
by Greg Shatan Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

All, I have attached the agenda for the upcoming meeting. Greg

1 1

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Complaint
by Kavouss Arasteh Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Dear Co-Chairs Mr. Milton Muller should formally appologize for his inappropriate statement as Highlighted in Red. Regarding other parts of his statement I have no comments as everyone is free to express his or her views This formal appology is required before this eveing meeting Kavouss On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Co-Chair > I request you to study the statement and allegation made against me by Mr. > Muller as indicated in colour > Tks > See Below > Greg and all members of the subgroup. > > *I support the draft with your edits in red, which are intended to > accommodate the concerns of Arasteh Kavouss.* > > *I oppose ALL the proposed additional text suggested by Kavouss (in light > blue). That text adds nothing substantive to the recommendations and #2 in > particular recounts a specific incident in needless detail that is not > relevant to the section it is placed in. * > > > > *I would remind us of the definition of rough consensus; it is clear that > Kavouss’s changes have been proposed numerous times, we understand his > reasoning, and yet they command _no support_ from anyone else. Therefore > they can be left out of the report and we should proceed. * > > > > *I would remind Mr. Kavouss that his repetitive and dilatory insistence on > these changes is actually undermining our attempt to make progress on OFAC > sanctions and are against the interests of people in his own country. * >

2 1

Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
by Greg Shatan Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

All, Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD… (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode). Please review and be prepared to discuss. Thank you. Greg

3 10

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
by Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Jorge, I unfortunately haven't had more than a cursory reading of your proposed changes. I should certainly have done so before in order to give you proper feedback, but since my last inputs from last week I haven't had enough time to give them a proper read. As such, as of now, I cannot really state my position on the whole matter (and I am unfortunately not in circumstances where I can spare enough time before the call to do so.) Rest assured that I will go over your edits tomorrow. Best, On 27 Sep 2017 17:47, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week. Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19. Best Jorge *Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options. I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so. I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group. I hope this clarifies matters. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Dear Greg, In the pdf this is not clear. Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions? I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings. I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed. I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions. Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word. Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, The changes in "red ink" are from you? Thanks for clarifying. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation All, Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode). Please review and be prepared to discuss. Thank you. Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

3 3