Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL]
All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: " 4. Application Process. ..... Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license." [Emphasis Added] ..................... Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals... Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other's problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam's invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
I agree with Jeff's proposal that ICANN be required to make a good faith application for OFAC license whenever it is necessary to fulfill the purpose of registry and/or registrar agreements. And I support his 2d question, requesting details. Note that OFAC doesn't just hamper registries and registrars located or formed in sanctioned countries, but also registries and registrars with officers, directors or significant shareholders from any of the sanctioned countries (regardless where the business is located or formed). Note further that OFAC licenses are time-limited, requiring periodic reapplication. And ICANN legal has told me that they were not required to seek an OFAC license for my client, even though that client had executed registry agreements with ICANN. I disputed that, and they got the license; but there is no guarantee they will seek it again when it expires, even though the registries are live. I can't see any good reason why ICANN should not be required at least to make a good faith effort to get a license. It seems at least to be implied in the registry agreement anyway, via the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract (at least under California law). If ICANN refused to seek a license, it would frustrate the purpose of the entire agreement. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
All,
Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered.
Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call.
1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states:
*”** 4. Application Process.*
*…..*
*Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. **However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license**.” [Emphasis Added]*
…………………
Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited.
1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc.
Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM *To:* Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this:
Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available?
If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work?
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear all,
Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like.
Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.
Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.
Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…
Best regards,
Benedicto
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Greg
I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT
Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript.
Two of these three times she referred to me.
Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.
pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important.
Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.
What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student
We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work
We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems
What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?
Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.
Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?
Cheers
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I also agree with Jeff and Mike. IGP had proposed this change back in January and we hope it happens. One more issue that we discussed during the meeting was about the uncertainty regarding the application of OFAC to non US-based registrars. Some registrars not based in the US might want to avoid risk and not provide services for sanctioned countries because of their contract with ICANN. I think we should follow up on this issue and solve it by just clarifying ( as Steve asked and Sam confirmed ) "that contracted parties are not obligated to follow OFAC solely on the basis of their having a contract with ICANN". Farzaneh On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
I agree with Jeff's proposal that ICANN be required to make a good faith application for OFAC license whenever it is necessary to fulfill the purpose of registry and/or registrar agreements. And I support his 2d question, requesting details.
Note that OFAC doesn't just hamper registries and registrars located or formed in sanctioned countries, but also registries and registrars with officers, directors or significant shareholders from any of the sanctioned countries (regardless where the business is located or formed). Note further that OFAC licenses are time-limited, requiring periodic reapplication. And ICANN legal has told me that they were not required to seek an OFAC license for my client, even though that client had executed registry agreements with ICANN. I disputed that, and they got the license; but there is no guarantee they will seek it again when it expires, even though the registries are live.
I can't see any good reason why ICANN should not be required at least to make a good faith effort to get a license. It seems at least to be implied in the registry agreement anyway, via the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract (at least under California law). If ICANN refused to seek a license, it would frustrate the purpose of the entire agreement.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
All,
Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered.
Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call.
1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states:
*”** 4. Application Process.*
*…..*
*Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. **However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license**.” [Emphasis Added]*
…………………
Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited.
1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc.
Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM *To:* Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this:
Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available?
If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work?
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte < turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Dear all,
Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like.
Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.
Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.
Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…
Best regards,
Benedicto
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican n.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL
Greg
I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT
Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript.
Two of these three times she referred to me.
Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.
pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important.
Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.
What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student
We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work
We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems
What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?
Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.
Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?
Cheers
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Kavouss,
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@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
This is a good idea. The question then is one of implementation. How would that be made clear to the contracted parties. I suppose ICANN (through Sam or someone else) could publish its interpretation to that effect. I doubt, however, that ICANN would be willing to warranty the correctness of this and hold any one harmless if it was in error. 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 farzaneh badii Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 4:08 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] I also agree with Jeff and Mike. IGP had proposed this change back in January and we hope it happens. One more issue that we discussed during the meeting was about the uncertainty regarding the application of OFAC to non US-based registrars. Some registrars not based in the US might want to avoid risk and not provide services for sanctioned countries because of their contract with ICANN. I think we should follow up on this issue and solve it by just clarifying ( as Steve asked and Sam confirmed ) "that contracted parties are not obligated to follow OFAC solely on the basis of their having a contract with ICANN". Farzaneh On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: I agree with Jeff's proposal that ICANN be required to make a good faith application for OFAC license whenever it is necessary to fulfill the purpose of registry and/or registrar agreements. And I support his 2d question, requesting details. Note that OFAC doesn't just hamper registries and registrars located or formed in sanctioned countries, but also registries and registrars with officers, directors or significant shareholders from any of the sanctioned countries (regardless where the business is located or formed). Note further that OFAC licenses are time-limited, requiring periodic reapplication. And ICANN legal has told me that they were not required to seek an OFAC license for my client, even though that client had executed registry agreements with ICANN. I disputed that, and they got the license; but there is no guarantee they will seek it again when it expires, even though the registries are live. I can't see any good reason why ICANN should not be required at least to make a good faith effort to get a license. It seems at least to be implied in the registry agreement anyway, via the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract (at least under California law). If ICANN refused to seek a license, it would frustrate the purpose of the entire agreement. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: ” 4. Application Process. ….. Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license.” [Emphasis Added] ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 2. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> >; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> >; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto _____ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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
One other question – as a factual matter I would be curious – even though ICANN has not obligated itself to ask for a license (a hesitancy of commitment that I understand as lawyerly caution) I would like to know if, as a matter of history, ICANN has ever declined to make a good faith effort in a situation where a request seems reasonably called for and if so why? 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 farzaneh badii Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 4:08 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] I also agree with Jeff and Mike. IGP had proposed this change back in January and we hope it happens. One more issue that we discussed during the meeting was about the uncertainty regarding the application of OFAC to non US-based registrars. Some registrars not based in the US might want to avoid risk and not provide services for sanctioned countries because of their contract with ICANN. I think we should follow up on this issue and solve it by just clarifying ( as Steve asked and Sam confirmed ) "that contracted parties are not obligated to follow OFAC solely on the basis of their having a contract with ICANN". Farzaneh On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> > wrote: I agree with Jeff's proposal that ICANN be required to make a good faith application for OFAC license whenever it is necessary to fulfill the purpose of registry and/or registrar agreements. And I support his 2d question, requesting details. Note that OFAC doesn't just hamper registries and registrars located or formed in sanctioned countries, but also registries and registrars with officers, directors or significant shareholders from any of the sanctioned countries (regardless where the business is located or formed). Note further that OFAC licenses are time-limited, requiring periodic reapplication. And ICANN legal has told me that they were not required to seek an OFAC license for my client, even though that client had executed registry agreements with ICANN. I disputed that, and they got the license; but there is no guarantee they will seek it again when it expires, even though the registries are live. I can't see any good reason why ICANN should not be required at least to make a good faith effort to get a license. It seems at least to be implied in the registry agreement anyway, via the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract (at least under California law). If ICANN refused to seek a license, it would frustrate the purpose of the entire agreement. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: ” 4. Application Process. ….. Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license.” [Emphasis Added] ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 2. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br> >; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> >; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> >; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> >; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> >; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> >; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto _____ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> ] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks, Jeff, for putting some focus back into the subgroup. I agree with your suggestion, we learned enough from the interaction with Sam/ICANN legal to know: a) ICANN could be required to seek a license b) The community could formally push to gain a general license for registrar and registry services From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 2:11 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Subject: Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: " 4. Application Process. ..... Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license." [Emphasis Added] ..................... Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals... Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other's problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam's invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss
I am in agreement that the default position should be that ICANN seek an OFAC license for any entity that seeks to contract with it. However, I believe that some discretionary out must be preserved for the extremely rare instance in which the entity seeking to become a contracted party was one with which ICANN did not wish to have even the appearance of endorsement, even though the ultimate decision was in the hands of the US Treasury. I would permit such a discretionary decision not to seek the license subject to: Board formally endorses decision. Decision is publicly posted along with explanatory rationale. Empowered community can override decision. Best regards Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Thanks, Jeff, for putting some focus back into the subgroup. I agree with your suggestion, we learned enough from the interaction with Sam/ICANN legal to know: a) ICANN could be required to seek a license b) The community could formally push to gain a general license for registrar and registry services From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 2:11 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: ” 4. Application Process. ….. Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license.” [Emphasis Added] ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I agree. Our focus should be on “partial immunity” (here: general OFAC license) from the many sanction regimes of States but also following international law (UN sanctions, FATF “soft law” concerning drug trafficking & terrorism financing). It should be taken into account that licences are only one tool of implementation, more important are black lists handled by commercial providers (BankersAccuity, Word-Check etc.) and implemented by financial institutions. Best, Erich Von: Phil Corwin<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> Gesendet: Montag, 7. August 2017 23:36 An: Mueller, Milton L<mailto:milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Thomas Rickert<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] I am in agreement that the default position should be that ICANN seek an OFAC license for any entity that seeks to contract with it. However, I believe that some discretionary out must be preserved for the extremely rare instance in which the entity seeking to become a contracted party was one with which ICANN did not wish to have even the appearance of endorsement, even though the ultimate decision was in the hands of the US Treasury. I would permit such a discretionary decision not to seek the license subject to: Board formally endorses decision. Decision is publicly posted along with explanatory rationale. Empowered community can override decision. Best regards Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Thanks, Jeff, for putting some focus back into the subgroup. I agree with your suggestion, we learned enough from the interaction with Sam/ICANN legal to know: a) ICANN could be required to seek a license b) The community could formally push to gain a general license for registrar and registry services From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 2:11 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: ” 4. Application Process. ….. Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license.” [Emphasis Added] ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM To: Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Benedicto Fonseca Filho Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com<mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Thank you, Schweighofer. I agree with you on immunity. Regards, Wale On 8 Aug 2017 06:20, "Schweighofer Erich" <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at> wrote: I agree. Our focus should be on “partial immunity” (here: general OFAC license) from the many sanction regimes of States but also following international law (UN sanctions, FATF “soft law” concerning drug trafficking & terrorism financing). It should be taken into account that licences are only one tool of implementation, more important are black lists handled by commercial providers (BankersAccuity, Word-Check etc.) and implemented by financial institutions. Best, Erich *Von: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Gesendet: *Montag, 7. August 2017 23:36 *An: *Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] I am in agreement that the default position should be that ICANN seek an OFAC license for any entity that seeks to contract with it. However, I believe that some discretionary out must be preserved for the extremely rare instance in which the entity seeking to become a contracted party was one with which ICANN did not wish to have even the appearance of endorsement, even though the ultimate decision was in the hands of the US Treasury. I would permit such a discretionary decision not to seek the license subject to: Board formally endorses decision. Decision is publicly posted along with explanatory rationale. Empowered community can override decision. Best regards Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote: Thanks, Jeff, for putting some focus back into the subgroup. I agree with your suggestion, we learned enough from the interaction with Sam/ICANN legal to know: a) ICANN could be required to seek a license b) The community could formally push to gain a general license for registrar and registry services *From:* Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>] *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 2:11 PM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho < benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter < jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL] All, Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: *”** 4. Application Process.* *…..* *Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. **However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license**.” [Emphasis Added]* ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en *Jeffrey J. Neuman* *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079> @Jintlaw *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM *To:* Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter < jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this: Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net>; Samantha Eisner < Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Dear all, Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer. Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list. Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals… Best regards, Benedicto ------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL Greg I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript. Two of these three times she referred to me. Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work. pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important. Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited. What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely? Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all. Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ? Cheers On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Kavouss, Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat. Regards Kavouss _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@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
From practical experience of dealing with the IANA I am in profound disagreement disagree with Phil's position as stated. (I am interpreting his use of word "contract" to include all forms of registry relationships with ICANN, including contracted parties and the majority of ccTLDs (of which I think only two have actual contracts). We (the ccTLD community) seem to have early indications that perhaps ICANN/IANA/PTI might have been re-interpreting existing policy in a non-transparent manner because of perceived difficulties with OFAC requirements. This isn't exactly clear right now, so Sam's explanation has been helpful in increasing our understanding. But the default position should NOT be that "ICANN seek an OFAC license for any entity that seeks to contract wit it." I submit the position ought to be that ICANN seek an OFAC license for any person (entity) that seeks to contract with it where that person/entity is from a listed country AND the proposed transactions are reasonably likely to be "prohibited transactions" within the meaning of the legislation.
__ __
I am in agreement that the default position should be that ICANN seek an OFAC license for any entity that seeks to contract with it.
H Sent from my iPad
On Aug 7, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Thanks, Jeff, for putting some focus back into the subgroup. ____
I agree with your suggestion, we learned enough from the interaction with Sam/ICANN legal to know: ____
__ __
a) ICANN could be required to seek a license____
b) The community could formally push to gain a general license for registrar and registry services____
__ __
__ __
*From:*Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>] *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 2:11 PM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Subject:* Some interesting points from the OFAC Call [WAS RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL]____
__ __
All,____
__ __
Is someone able to document the questions that were not answered during the teleconference? I was on the teleconference, which was great, and I am not sure what still needs to be answered.____
__ __
Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. ____
__ __
1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: ____
__ __
/”//4. Application Process.____/
/…..____/
/Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. //However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license//.” [Emphasis Added]____/
…………………____
__ __
Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited.____
2. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc.____
Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
__ __
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en> ____
__ __
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*____
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*____
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600____
Mclean, VA 22102, United States____
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>____
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:+1%20703-635-7514>____
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:+1%20202-549-5079>____
@Jintlaw____
__ __
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 7:51 AM *To:* Benedicto Fonseca Filho <benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br>>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL____
__ __
The question I would ask you, Benedicto, and all others suggesting a rather elaborate documentation process, is this:____
__ __
Would you rather this WG develops a final report, or spend most of its remaining time documenting the results of a conference call, the transcript of which is readily available? ____
__ __
If you choose the latter, are you then going to complain that we did not finish our work? ____
__ __
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Benedicto Fonseca Filho *Sent:* Thursday, August 3, 2017 8:23 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>; Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org>>; Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL____
__ __
Dear all,____
____
Let me endorse Kavouss' request - also supported by Seun and Jorge - that answers be provided in written form, with whatever disclaimer might be necessary to ensure they are not in the form of any official legal advice or the like. ____
____
Judging from the last call's transcript, not all questions formulated upon the rapporteur´s invitation were systematically covered during the call, so it is only fair to have the unanswered questions also addressed, preferably in written form. I'd also reiterate the views expressed by others: for the sake of clarity and to allow and promote further participation, it would be necessary to have also in written form (even if succinct) the answers to the questions that were supposedly covered during last call as the transcript does not allow to clearly correlate each question to each comment/answer.____
____
Further, several questions were asked during last call, some of which may have been questions that were only asked at that time. It seems that none of them had to pass the test of consensus either to be asked or to be answered. So it would be unfair now to ask for support for certain questions to be asked and then answered, particularly those questions that were only asked following the rapporteur's invitation in the mailing list.____
____
Finally, I believe that no one would ever feel their views are systematically disregarded if their requests or suggestions were subjected to the same test that is applied to other´s proposals…____
__ __
Best regards,____
__ __
Benedicto ____
__ __
__ __
__ __
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Kavouss Arasteh [kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2017 13:48 *Para:* Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; Thomas Rickert; Samantha Eisner; Bernard Turcotte; Jordan Carter; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURING THE CALL____
Greg____
I do not understand what you are talking ABOUT____
Samantha, during her presentation, three times emphasized that if we had questions we could raise them with her. Read the Transcript.____
Two of these three times she referred to me.____
Pls do not be so formalistic. Let us do our work.____
pls do not complain to anyone about me as it would have negative IMPACT . This issue is important.____
Then I was formally invited to raise my questions with her, pls read transcript after I was so invited.____
What do you want to prove? We are not to be treated like student____
We should be respected. The tone of your message is offensive even though you have used diplomatic offensive language .That does not work____
We are part of a group and must understand each other’s problems ____
What you stated is quasi preventing me to speak freely?____
Why there is prohibition to reply to the invitation that she launched to us and to me? Why I should not address my question to ICANN STAFF? She does not work for you. She is working for ICANN and we are all part of ICANN i replied to Sam’s invitation that is all.____
Why I need the approval of the group in which over represented by those that do not wish that I talk at all ?____
Cheers ____
__ __
__ __
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:____
Kavouss, ____
__ __
Kindly direct your request to the Subgroup, and not to Sam. This is a matter for the Subgroup to consider, rather than any individual participant. The Subgroup can take up your request and decide whether to ask for written responses to questions (and if so, which questions). Thank you.____
__ __
Best regards,____
__ __
Greg____
__ __
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:____
Dear Sam, With tks to your presentation, pls kindly note that I nned written answers to the questions raised before the meeting and those during the meeing either as intervention or in the chat.____
Regards____
Kavouss ____
__ __
__ __
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (9)
-
farzaneh badii -
Jeff Neuman -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Olawale Bakare -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Schweighofer Erich