Dear Greg. At the call on 13 Sept as well as on 18 Sept you asked to provide examples that NON US BASED Registrar should not replicate Rules established by OFAC in regard with request from registrant or reseller for domain name Here is the example that you are looking for . This is a real and actual case *An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>>in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people) * *He received the following reply* *Quote* *“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:* *Dear reseller ( XXX) * *Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.* *Kind regards, Mark Assenberg It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:* *Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> +31 38 453 0752* *The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.* *They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.* *It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers.They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses * *It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. * *Regards* *Kavouss *
Dear Greg, Pls kindly reply whether the below texts that you asked me to provide is being included in the text in appropriate part of the text Regards Kavouss On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg. At the call on 13 Sept as well as on 18 Sept you asked to provide examples that NON US BASED Registrar should not replicate Rules established by OFAC in regard with request from registrant or reseller for domain name Here is the example that you are looking for . This is a real and actual case
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>>in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people) *
*He received the following reply*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller ( XXX) *
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards, Mark Assenberg It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> +31 38 453 0752*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers.They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses *
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
Dear Kavouss - since this company is based in Zwolle/Netherlands, maybe they are responding to restrictions/bans setup by the European Union. One would have to check this. http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/cfsp/sanctions/docs/measures_en.pdf Kind regards, Erika On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Pls kindly reply whether the below texts that you asked me to provide is being included in the text in appropriate part of the text Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg. At the call on 13 Sept as well as on 18 Sept you asked to provide examples that NON US BASED Registrar should not replicate Rules established by OFAC in regard with request from registrant or reseller for domain name Here is the example that you are looking for . This is a real and actual case
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>>in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people) *
*He received the following reply*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller ( XXX) *
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards, Mark Assenberg It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers.They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses *
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Erika, I do not understand the European ban or sanctuion. There is no basis for such ban or sanction I request that this issue be included in the introductory part of the report 7 OFAC Rec. and be reflected, where possible, in the recommand part. I hope people now recognized that we are real victim on this issue. Pls kindly look at the matter and also ask Louisewees ( Board Mmember ) to check Regards Kavouss On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss -
since this company is based in Zwolle/Netherlands, maybe they are responding to restrictions/bans setup by the European Union. One would have to check this.
http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/cfsp/sanctions/docs/measures_en.pdf
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Pls kindly reply whether the below texts that you asked me to provide is being included in the text in appropriate part of the text Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg. At the call on 13 Sept as well as on 18 Sept you asked to provide examples that NON US BASED Registrar should not replicate Rules established by OFAC in regard with request from registrant or reseller for domain name Here is the example that you are looking for . This is a real and actual case
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>>in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people) *
*He received the following reply*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller ( XXX) *
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards, Mark Assenberg It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers.They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses *
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Kavouss - I will look into this, I will send a request to the European Commission, goes faster than anything else. Kind regards, Erika On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Erika, I do not understand the European ban or sanctuion. There is no basis for such ban or sanction I request that this issue be included in the introductory part of the report 7 OFAC Rec. and be reflected, where possible, in the recommand part. I hope people now recognized that we are real victim on this issue. Pls kindly look at the matter and also ask Louisewees ( Board Mmember ) to check Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss -
since this company is based in Zwolle/Netherlands, maybe they are responding to restrictions/bans setup by the European Union. One would have to check this.
http://eeas.europa.eu/archives/docs/cfsp/sanctions/docs/measures_en.pdf
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Pls kindly reply whether the below texts that you asked me to provide is being included in the text in appropriate part of the text Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg. At the call on 13 Sept as well as on 18 Sept you asked to provide examples that NON US BASED Registrar should not replicate Rules established by OFAC in regard with request from registrant or reseller for domain name Here is the example that you are looking for . This is a real and actual case
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>>in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people) *
*He received the following reply*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller ( XXX) *
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards, Mark Assenberg It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers.They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses *
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? If there is such a provision, this would seem to be a compliance issue. If there is not such a provision, I don't see how this particular issue comes within the scope of our group, since there is no indication that Resello's decision is triggered by OFAC (or by any non-US sanctions for that matter). I have briefly reviewed the Resello Master Reseller Agreement and see no mention of OFAC or sanctions generally. I note that Resello reserves the right to refuse any potential reseller. The agreement can be found here: https://www.resello.com/agreement#TCgeneral Please note that I am not supporting Resello's decision regarding Iranian citizens (though I have no idea why they made it), and I share your dismay with such a business policy. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg. At the call on 13 Sept as well as on 18 Sept you asked to provide examples that NON US BASED Registrar should not replicate Rules established by OFAC in regard with request from registrant or reseller for domain name Here is the example that you are looking for . This is a real and actual case
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>>in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people) *
*He received the following reply*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller ( XXX) *
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards, Mark Assenberg It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers.They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses *
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. *
*Regards*
*Kavouss *
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
Nigel, Resello's agreement is governed by the law of the Netherlands. I have no idea whether Resello is violating Dutch law with this policy (and I continue to have no idea whether there is a legal reason for this policy, either...). With regard to the UK law, out of curiosity, can you point me to where it says citizenship is a protected characteristic? Under US anti-discrimination laws, there are quite a number of protected classes (including race), but I don't believe citizenship is one of them. Always happy to learn more, though. Greg On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
As my tutor (a High Court judge) said "always give authority", so the answer is Section 9(1)(b)
s9.
1. Race includes—
(a)colour;
(b)nationality;
(c)ethnic or national origins.
I know that a non-UK registrar, is obviously, governed not by UK law (unless by agreement), and that different anti-discrimination approaches draw the boundaries slightly differently. But basically, in the UK, you can't make decisions on the basis of someone's nationality, unless it's laid down in law that you must (e.g. immigration rules). See also https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-ch... (I'm actually always been shocked at the apparently legal discrimination that exists in the US between citizens and non-citizens outside of the likes of immigration and working for the government in a national security role.) On 20/09/17 18:39, Greg Shatan wrote:
Nigel,
Resello's agreement is governed by the law of the Netherlands. I have no idea whether Resello is violating Dutch law with this policy (and I continue to have no idea whether there is a legal reason for this policy, either...).
With regard to the UK law, out of curiosity, can you point me to where it says citizenship is a protected characteristic?
Under US anti-discrimination laws, there are quite a number of protected classes (including race), but I don't believe citizenship is one of them. Always happy to learn more, though.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:* *with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work. I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I agree with Greg. It seems clear from what Erica said that this is not an OFAC issue at all but rather an EU sanctions issue (perhaps ICANN should also be getting a general license from the EU 😊) and since it is an individual registrar it isn’t an ICANN issue either Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:07 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s Kavouss, As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work. I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: with the below address <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> Ceintuurbaan 28, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...> 8024 AA Zwolle, +31 38 453 0752 <tel:+31%2038%20453%200752> based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> > wrote: On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear all, EU sanctions may have affected registrars doing business with Iranian citizens. An overview: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/ Mostly relevant (besides individual sanctions) – lifted on 16 January 2016: restrictions in the financial sector: freezing the assets of the Central Bank of Iran and major Iranian commercial banks, laying down notification and authorisation mechanisms for transfers of funds above certain amounts to Iranian financial institutions A general license is a good idea, e.g. excluding explicitly registries and registrars and its financial transactions from financial sanctions in the legal instruments. Decisions are the competence of the Council of the EU, proposed by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Like in the U.S. – it is not easy but possible. Best, Erich Von: Paul Rosenzweig<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 20. September 2017 21:29 An: 'Greg Shatan'<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Kavouss Arasteh'<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: 'ws2-jurisdiction'<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s I agree with Greg. It seems clear from what Erica said that this is not an OFAC issue at all but rather an EU sanctions issue (perhaps ICANN should also be getting a general license from the EU ??) and since it is an individual registrar it isn’t an ICANN issue either Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:07 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s Kavouss, As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work. I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28<https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle<https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752<tel:+31%2038%20453%200752> based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I suggest we do not get into interpreting EU sanctions. That is a whole separate issue and far beyond our mandate here. We have argued over this many times and came to a very good conclusion. When I asked that ICANN should deter the registrars from following OFAC when they do not have to Sam and others said that ICANN should not get involved with the registrars' internal policy especially when it contradicts with their local laws (I am paraphrasing not quoting them). So we came up with a very good language for ICANN to follow, it is in the doc: "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." This language is sufficient for ICANN. If some non-US based registrar sanction Iranians not because of the registrar's contract with ICANN, it is out of our hands to do something about it. We have a general recommendation which fits the purpose. Why are we opening this discussion again? I am sympathetic to this issue. One reason is that I was born and raised in Iran. So if Iranians cannot become resellers or registrants at all because of some registrars policies then I will do whatever I can to persuade those registrars to change their policy (if not against the applicable law), but this is not an issue to be discussed at ICANN and this group. Farzaneh On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Schweighofer Erich < erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at> wrote:
Dear all,
EU sanctions may have affected registrars doing business with Iranian citizens.
An overview: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/
Mostly relevant (besides individual sanctions) – lifted on 16 January 2016: restrictions in the financial sector: freezing the assets of the Central Bank of Iran and major Iranian commercial banks, laying down notification and authorisation mechanisms for transfers of funds above certain amounts to Iranian financial institutions
A general license is a good idea, e.g. excluding explicitly registries and registrars and its financial transactions from financial sanctions in the legal instruments. Decisions are the competence of the Council of the EU, proposed by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Like in the U.S. – it is not easy but possible.
Best,
Erich
*Von: *Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Gesendet: *Mittwoch, 20. September 2017 21:29 *An: *'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc: *'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s
I agree with Greg. It seems clear from what Erica said that this is not an OFAC issue at all but rather an EU sanctions issue (perhaps ICANN should also be getting a general license from the EU 😊) and since it is an individual registrar it isn’t an ICANN issue either
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:07 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] OFAC Rec.s
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg
I do not know what question you raised.
If you believe that *Mark Assenberg* * from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>**,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
*based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
May you address this issue as a factual happening .
Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report
Regards
Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction. Kind regards, Erika On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, I am not "blocking" anything, either. It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like." The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere. You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally. Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment. But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report? I look forward to your response to these concerns. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent
such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows *"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".* As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you . Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net
wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent > such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do > business > with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran > or > otherwise)? > > In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better. Thank you. Greg On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
*"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".*
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * *Yourholding** holding:*
*with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts < nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
> > > On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: > > Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent >> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do >> business >> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran >> or >> otherwise)? >> >> > In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> > this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such > treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). > > How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business > decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of > race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien > over here and incomprehensible. > > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Greg > I do not know what question you raised. > If you believe that Mark Assenberg > from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: > with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28,8024 AA Zwolle, +31 38 453 0752 > based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? > May you address this issue as a factual happening . > Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report > Regards > Kavouss > >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: >> >> >> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: >> >>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent >>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business >>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or >>> otherwise)? >>> >> >> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). >> >> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible. >> >> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort. I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it. In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA. In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
*"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".*
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Greg > I do not know what question you raised. > If you believe that > *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * > *Yourholding** holding:* > > *with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 > AA Zwolle > <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, > +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* > *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis > of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision > (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given > country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? > May you address this issue as a factual happening . > Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report > Regards > Kavouss > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts < > nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: >> >> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent >>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do >>> business >>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, >>> Iran or >>> otherwise)? >>> >>> >> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> >> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such >> treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). >> >> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business >> decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of >> race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien >> over here and incomprehensible. >> >> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > >
Dear Greg You turn my question around and around I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS . It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name. I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they could deal with selling chocolate Pls be realistic Pls do not confuse . I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no logic They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a real and actual case formally reported to the group Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality Why you authorise yourself to be a judge We have not given you such authority You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do not disputes with us You have no right to disputed We are on equal fooling There is no superiority between we two Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the introduction as reported since you can not deny that You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal I will not give up I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it.
In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA.
In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote: Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Greg > Dear Erika$ > What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. > You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. > You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. > Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . > Pls kindly do not further block this > You blocking whatever, you do not like > Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative > Regards > Kavouss > >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: >> Kavouss, >> >> As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. >> >> I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work. >> >> I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Greg >> >>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Dear Greg >>> I do not know what question you raised. >>> If you believe that Mark Assenberg >>> from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: >>> with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28,8024 AA Zwolle, +31 38 453 0752 >>> based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? >>> May you address this issue as a factual happening . >>> Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent >>>>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business >>>>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or >>>>> otherwise)? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). >>>> >>>> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible. >>>> >>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >> >
Dear Kavouss, It seems to me there is some miscommunication here between Greg and yourself. If I understand well, you are asking under what basis could Resellor refuse to enter into business with any person, company or country. Is that right Kavouss? On the other hand, I believe Greg has stated that being no contractual obligation for Resellor to be forced to enter into business with persons, companies or countries with which it does not want to do business with, then Resellor is free to chose, freely, who to do business with. Is that right Greg? I hope this helps us bridge this communication gap I feel we’re having. Best regards, León
El 23/09/2017, a las 16:52, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Greg You turn my question around and around I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS . It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name. I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they could deal with selling chocolate Pls be realistic Pls do not confuse . I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no logic They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a real and actual case formally reported to the group Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality Why you authorise yourself to be a judge We have not given you such authority You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do not disputes with us You have no right to disputed We are on equal fooling There is no superiority between we two Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the introduction as reported since you can not deny that You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal I will not give up I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it.
In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA.
In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <tel:+31%2038%20453%200752> based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
León, You are correct. Furthermore, I am just trying to get the facts out so the Subgroup can consider Kavouss's proposed language. I believe the facts I am trying to get would give the best possibility for this contribution to be positively considered. There does seem to be misunderstanding and misinterpretation of my motives, which is unfortunate. I am merely trying to facilitate understanding and consideration, and ultimately consensus. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:58 PM León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
It seems to me there is some miscommunication here between Greg and yourself.
If I understand well, you are asking under what basis could Resellor refuse to enter into business with any person, company or country. Is that right Kavouss?
On the other hand, I believe Greg has stated that being no contractual obligation for Resellor to be forced to enter into business with persons, companies or countries with which it does not want to do business with, then Resellor is free to chose, freely, who to do business with. Is that right Greg?
I hope this helps us bridge this communication gap I feel we’re having.
Best regards,
León
El 23/09/2017, a las 16:52, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Greg You turn my question around and around I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS . It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name. I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they could deal with selling chocolate Pls be realistic Pls do not confuse . I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no logic They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a real and actual case formally reported to the group Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality Why you authorise yourself to be a judge We have not given you such authority You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do not disputes with us You have no right to disputed We are on equal fooling There is no superiority between we two Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the introduction as reported since you can not deny that You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal I will not give up I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it.
In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA.
In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
*"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".*
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > wrote:
> Kavouss, > > As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in > our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to > OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. > > I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the > policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it > is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, > then it seems to be unconnected to our work. > > I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this > policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that > requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one > that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that > Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars > abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Greg >> I do not know what question you raised. >> If you believe that >> *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * >> *Yourholding** holding:* >> >> *with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 >> AA Zwolle >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, >> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* >> *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis >> of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision >> (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given >> country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? >> May you address this issue as a factual happening . >> Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts < >> nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: >>> >>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would >>>> prevent >>>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do >>>> business >>>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, >>>> Iran or >>>> otherwise)? >>>> >>>> >>> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, >>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> >>> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such >>> treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). >>> >>> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business >>> decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of >>> race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien >>> over here and incomprehensible. >>> >>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> >
Dear Leon Thanks Finally one of the co-/chairs came in after days and days of discussions Do you believe that a Registrar having RAA could unilaterally refuse to enter into a business with an individual as it assumes that has had full freedom to decide as such Pls as a lawyer tell me the following If a Registrar could decide ax such what is the purpose and usefulness of RAA THROW IT INTO BASKET, I believe there must be some obligation to positively respond as DNS is not a personal affairs such as selling potatoes . I wonder how you came to the conclusions that Resello has full freedom to treat Domain Name which is an international resources similar to potatoes Moreover ,In your .view what is the difficulty to I include this actual and real case reported in the document Because one or some .,,,individual do not wish to do so on a non founded ground Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 23:58, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
It seems to me there is some miscommunication here between Greg and yourself.
If I understand well, you are asking under what basis could Resellor refuse to enter into business with any person, company or country. Is that right Kavouss?
On the other hand, I believe Greg has stated that being no contractual obligation for Resellor to be forced to enter into business with persons, companies or countries with which it does not want to do business with, then Resellor is free to chose, freely, who to do business with. Is that right Greg?
I hope this helps us bridge this communication gap I feel we’re having.
Best regards,
León
El 23/09/2017, a las 16:52, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Greg You turn my question around and around I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS . It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name. I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they could deal with selling chocolate Pls be realistic Pls do not confuse . I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no logic They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a real and actual case formally reported to the group Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality Why you authorise yourself to be a judge We have not given you such authority You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do not disputes with us You have no right to disputed We are on equal fooling There is no superiority between we two Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the introduction as reported since you can not deny that You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal I will not give up I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it.
In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA.
In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: > Kavouss, > > I am not "blocking" anything, either. > > It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like." > > The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere. > > You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally. > > Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment. > > But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report? > > I look forward to your response to these concerns. > > Best regards, > > Greg Shatan > >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote: >> Dear Kavouss - >> I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction. >> >> Kind regards, >> Erika >> >>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Dear Greg >>> Dear Erika$ >>> What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. >>> You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. >>> You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. >>> Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . >>> Pls kindly do not further block this >>> You blocking whatever, you do not like >>> Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative >>> Regards >>> Kavouss >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Kavouss, >>>> >>>> As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. >>>> >>>> I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work. >>>> >>>> I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Dear Greg >>>>> I do not know what question you raised. >>>>> If you believe that Mark Assenberg >>>>> from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: >>>>> with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28,8024 AA Zwolle, +31 38 453 0752 >>>>> based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? >>>>> May you address this issue as a factual happening . >>>>> Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report >>>>> Regards >>>>> Kavouss >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent >>>>>>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business >>>>>>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or >>>>>>> otherwise)? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). >>>>>> >>>>>> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Dear Kavouss, Thanks for your quick reply. My answers below. Best regards, León
El 23/09/2017, a las 17:29, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Leon Thanks Finally one of the co-/chairs came in after days and days of discussions
We try to let discussions flow on their own. We only step in when we believe there is some facilitation needed. As I believe is the case. So this was no lack of attention or dedication but a continued exercise of neutrality.
Do you believe that a Registrar having RAA could unilaterally refuse to enter into a business with an individual as it assumes that has had full freedom to decide as such
One thing is what I do or don’t believe, another very different is the fact that there isn’t anything in the RAA (to the best of my knowledge) that takes away any Registrars freedom to manage its business as it sees fit its interests. This last fact is what I would encourage us all to focus rather than in personal beliefs which, as noble as they may be, are out of our discussion’s scope.
Pls as a lawyer tell me the following If a Registrar could decide ax such what is the purpose and usefulness of RAA Any contract is based in the freedom of contracting of the parties that agree to it. If one does not agree with what is in a given contract, one does not enter into it or otherwise proposes changes and if they’re rejected one keeps away from signing it. THROW IT INTO BASKET, I believe there must be some obligation to positively respond as DNS is not a personal affairs such as selling potatoes . This is not the scope of this subgroup’s discussion in my opinion. RAA is something shaped through a PDP so if there were any reforms to be made I am sure they should be ran through the PDP for that end. I wonder how you came to the conclusions that Resello has full freedom to treat Domain Name which is an international resources similar to potatoes My knowledge and understanding might not be as good as yours so I apologize if my limitations led me to conclusions which your higher knowledge may lead differently. However, with my limited knowledge and understanding, I came to that conclusion based on the contractual freedom that the parties have as a matter of legal principle. I could, of course, be wrong. Moreover ,In your .view what is the difficulty to I include this actual and real case reported in the document Because one or some .,,,individual do not wish to do so on a non founded ground I have no problem in including whatever the subgroup and the plenary wish to include in the report. Remember that anyone can also add a dissenting view to whatever conclusions the subgroup arrives to. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 23:58, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
It seems to me there is some miscommunication here between Greg and yourself.
If I understand well, you are asking under what basis could Resellor refuse to enter into business with any person, company or country. Is that right Kavouss?
On the other hand, I believe Greg has stated that being no contractual obligation for Resellor to be forced to enter into business with persons, companies or countries with which it does not want to do business with, then Resellor is free to chose, freely, who to do business with. Is that right Greg?
I hope this helps us bridge this communication gap I feel we’re having.
Best regards,
León
El 23/09/2017, a las 16:52, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> escribió:
Dear Greg You turn my question around and around I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS . It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name. I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they could deal with selling chocolate Pls be realistic Pls do not confuse . I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no logic They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a real and actual case formally reported to the group Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality Why you authorise yourself to be a judge We have not given you such authority You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do not disputes with us You have no right to disputed We are on equal fooling There is no superiority between we two Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the introduction as reported since you can not deny that You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal I will not give up I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it.
In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA.
In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com <mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss,
As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction.
I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, then it seems to be unconnected to our work.
I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg I do not know what question you raised. If you believe that Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for Yourholding holding: with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, +31 38 453 0752 <tel:+31%2038%20453%200752> based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis of which section of the RAA refrain such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? May you address this issue as a factual happening . Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote:
Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would prevent such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)?
In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions).
How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien over here and incomprehensible.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Greg Leon All thanks to all of you reflecting on the matter . I suggest the following 1.In the introductory part of the document, briefly describe the case as reported by me( See my earlier message reporting / describing the case ) 2. in the recommends part insert the following The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above while did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provisionin the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request .The group therefore considered that there was a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. Do are agree to act and reflect that minimum information Kavouss On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:44 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
Thanks for your quick reply. My answers below.
Best regards,
León
El 23/09/2017, a las 17:29, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Leon Thanks Finally one of the co-/chairs came in after days and days of discussions
We try to let discussions flow on their own. We only step in when we believe there is some facilitation needed. As I believe is the case. So this was no lack of attention or dedication but a continued exercise of neutrality.
Do you believe that a Registrar having RAA could unilaterally refuse to enter into a business with an individual as it assumes that has had full freedom to decide as such
One thing is what I do or don’t believe, another very different is the fact that there isn’t anything in the RAA (to the best of my knowledge) that takes away any Registrars freedom to manage its business as it sees fit its interests. This last fact is what I would encourage us all to focus rather than in personal beliefs which, as noble as they may be, are out of our discussion’s scope.
Pls as a lawyer tell me the following If a Registrar could decide ax such what is the purpose and usefulness of RAA
Any contract is based in the freedom of contracting of the parties that agree to it. If one does not agree with what is in a given contract, one does not enter into it or otherwise proposes changes and if they’re rejected one keeps away from signing it.
THROW IT INTO BASKET, I believe there must be some obligation to positively respond as DNS is not a personal affairs such as selling potatoes .
This is not the scope of this subgroup’s discussion in my opinion. RAA is something shaped through a PDP so if there were any reforms to be made I am sure they should be ran through the PDP for that end.
I wonder how you came to the conclusions that Resello has full freedom to treat Domain Name which is an international resources similar to potatoes
My knowledge and understanding might not be as good as yours so I apologize if my limitations led me to conclusions which your higher knowledge may lead differently. However, with my limited knowledge and understanding, I came to that conclusion based on the contractual freedom that the parties have as a matter of legal principle. I could, of course, be wrong.
Moreover ,In your .view what is the difficulty to I include this actual and real case reported in the document Because one or some .,,,individual do not wish to do so on a non founded ground
I have no problem in including whatever the subgroup and the plenary wish to include in the report. Remember that anyone can also add a dissenting view to whatever conclusions the subgroup arrives to.
Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 23:58, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> wrote:
Dear Kavouss,
It seems to me there is some miscommunication here between Greg and yourself.
If I understand well, you are asking under what basis could Resellor refuse to enter into business with any person, company or country. Is that right Kavouss?
On the other hand, I believe Greg has stated that being no contractual obligation for Resellor to be forced to enter into business with persons, companies or countries with which it does not want to do business with, then Resellor is free to chose, freely, who to do business with. Is that right Greg?
I hope this helps us bridge this communication gap I feel we’re having.
Best regards,
León
El 23/09/2017, a las 16:52, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Greg You turn my question around and around I am asking you under what terms and conditions of RAA , Resellor could deny to get involve in a business with a reseller of domain name under RAS . It is not a private business of selling chocolate . It is Domain Name. I know you naught have some sympathy with them ad you believe they are free to act relating to domain name under a global interest such as they could deal with selling chocolate Pls be realistic Pls do not confuse . I request you and appeal you not to counter argue on something that has no logic They can not deny to deal with a domain name without any valid reason What is your personal problem to include that in the introduction as a real and actual case formally reported to the group Why you dispute with me on a fact and reality Why you authorise yourself to be a judge We have not given you such authority You self volunteered and we gave not objected to that provided that you do not disputes with us You have no right to disputed We are on equal fooling There is no superiority between we two Pls once again and again and again mention this fact and reality in the introduction as reported since you can not deny that You have formally asked me on two consecutive calls to provide you with example and now it is a full week that you disputed and disputed with us Is there any other motivation that you continue to reject my proposal I will not give up I will continue to ask and ask à faire treatment
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 22:32, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
It's their business. I assume they can run it as they see fit, unless they violate their contract or the law. As such there would be no need for a provision of the sort you envision. Frankly, I've never seen such a provision in a contract of any sort.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but it seems as if you just turned my question around without attempting to answer it.
In any event, if there is no provision governing the company's discretion to enter into Reseller agreements with the parties of their choosing, then their decision would not be contrary to the terms and conditions of their RAA.
In any event, if you could review the RAA and see how it might apply to this situation, that would help the Subgroup evaluate the RAA element of your proposal.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:19 PM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no specific section in mind I just want to know which section of RAA give such authority to resello to deny service? Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Sep 2017, at 21:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am out for the day, so I will give this a more detailed review later. One quick question -- what section of the RAA are you referring to? That will help the Subgroup understand your proposal better.
Thank you.
Greg
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:21 AM Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
De ar Greg, Sorry for misinterpretation .I did not make any allegatiuon at all I just reflected my impression of the way the matter is treated. The statement you made above, could only be interpreted that the suggestion made is not favoured by you according to your reasoning and or your judgement . In my view when Something is not pursued it is blocked.My be the term blocked was not a correct one but in reality it did not carried forward Sorry ,if the term " Blocked " boithered you then I replaced it by " is not currently being carried forward " Now back to the issue Under discussion Yes , it does not have direct relation with OFAC but why not you mention what you said in your last reply as follows
*"It was reported to the Group that a registrar ( RESELLO) has developed / used a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, .The group did not conclude that it has any direct ( or indirect ) connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction.The Group inferred from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. There seems to be legitimate that ICANN investigate the matter carefully and remind RESELLO that such course of action would be counterproductive as it is contray to the terms and conditions specified7 stipulated in the RAA".*
As you know I have raised this matter, independently from the activities of the Jurisdiction Group with Chairman,and CEO of ICANN and chair of the GNSO Council copied to to CCWG co-chairs and you .
Now may I kindly request you to consider the language that I proposed you and include it in appropriate / relevant part of the Report with ,possibly, some cross refernce in the body of recommands part . Awaiting your kind consideration and quick reply Kavouss
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
I am not "blocking" anything, either.
It is a very serious allegation to say that a rapporteur is blocking something that they "do not like." You have absolutely no idea what I "like" and "do not like."
The "problem" with "indicating" the Resello situation "in the introductory part of the Report" is that it has absolutely no connection, direct or indirect, to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere.
You have chosen to infer that Resello's policy is somehow related to OFAC, even though they are a non-US registrar and they have made absolutely no reference to OFAC or US law or ICANN. There is no basis for that inference. Without a basis, there is no reason for the Subgroup to include the Resello situation in the Recommendations on US sanctions or sanctions generally.
Without any connection to OFAC, sanctions regime or ICANN's jurisdiction, "Resello" only shows us that a registrar has a business policy of not entering into reseller agreements with Iranian passport holders. Personally, I do not like this policy (so now you have some idea what I "do not like"), though I would want more facts before making a final judgment.
But why would it be in our Report? It shows that a registrar developed a business policy of not doing business with Iranian passport holders, independent of any sanctions, US or otherwise. This may be a bad policy, but we can't say it has any connection to sanctions (US or otherwise) or ICANN's jurisdiction. Putting this in the Report would not support any Issues or Recommendation the Subgroup has identified. If anything, it would be counterproductive, as it could infer from Resello's decision that there are reasons, unrelated to OFAC, for declining to do business with nationals of an OFAC-sanctioned country. Why would we want that in this Report?
I look forward to your response to these concerns.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Dear Kavouss - I'm not blocking anything. Just making a comment with regard to the point you raised in relation to the Dutch case, insofar that I was saying the Dutch decision might relate to an EU restriction and not to an US restriction.
Kind regards, Erika
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg Dear Erika$ What is the problem that you indicate that in the introductory part of the Report. You have asked me on 13 and 18 of September to provide you with the factual evidence on this type of discrimination or restriction and I have provided that to you. You you are blocking it. You are are expected to reflect the report on this type of restriction whether directly or indirectly related to OFAC. Your action is not to decide what is right and what is wrong. There is no veto right given to you .I insist to reflect that . Pls kindly do not further block this You blocking whatever, you do not like Pls kindly, ionce again. be helpful, fair and collaborative Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > wrote:
> Kavouss, > > As a factual happening, I don't see why this should be reflected in > our report. Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to > OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction. > > I asked you whether Resello's agreement with ICANN (the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement (RAA)) prohibits Resello from establishing the > policy you have mentioned. If ICANN does not prohibit this policy, and it > is not triggered by OFAC or some other connection to ICANN's jurisdictions, > then it seems to be unconnected to our work. > > I don't know whether there is an EU or Dutch law that requires this > policy, or whether there is one that prohibits it. If there is one that > requires it, that is not an "ICANN jurisdiction" issue. If there is one > that prohibits it and Resello is violating Dutch law, then it may be that > Resello is violating the RAA requirement (Section 3.7.2) that Registrars > abide by applicable law. But again, that's a Compliance issue. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < > kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Greg >> I do not know what question you raised. >> If you believe that >> *Mark Assenberg from Resello which is a subsidiary company for * >> *Yourholding** holding:* >> >> *with the below address Ceintuurbaan 28 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source=g>,8024 >> AA Zwolle >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28+8024+AA+Zwolle&entry=gmail&source...>, >> +31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>* >> *based in Netherlands.being a non US-Based company on the basis >> of which *section of the RAA refrain such a business decision >> (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given >> country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise)? >> May you address this issue as a factual happening . >> Pls kindly advise how you trest and reflect that in the report >> Regards >> Kavouss >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Nigel Roberts < >> nigel@channelisles.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20/09/17 18:19, Greg Shatan wrote: >>> >>> Can you please guide me to the section of the RAA that would >>>> prevent >>>> such a business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do >>>> business >>>> with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, >>>> Iran or >>>> otherwise)? >>>> >>>> >>> In the United Kingdom, never mind the RAA, >>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28,8024+AA+Zwolle+%3Chttps://maps.go...> >>> this would be quite illegal (see s.13, prohibited conduct) unless such >>> treatment is required by law (e.g. required by legally binding sanctions). >>> >>> How can anyone in the 21st century believe that any "business >>> decision" doctrine could allow making decisions on the basis of >>> race/citizenship (or any other protected characteristic) is quite alien >>> over here and incomprehensible. >>> >>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> >
participants (9)
-
Arasteh -
Erika Mann -
farzaneh badii -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Schweighofer Erich