Additional Document for upcoming meeting
All, As mentioned on the Plenary Call, the attached first draft recommendation regarding OFAC, assembled from the input of various participants, will be reviewed on the Subgroup call. The Agenda will be amended accordingly. I look forward to comments from the Subgroup. Greg
First reaction This is well-written and an excellent start. I did find the footnotes highly confusing - particularly the presence of half of footnote 6 on the next page, and I was thoroughly confused by footnote 7. But these are minor issues. A suggestion: I think it would be helpful to share this with the ccNSO Council, for early comment and feedback from Council and the wider ccTLD community, either now, or following further revision. The text is understandably specific about gTLD aspects, but relatively silent about ccTLD aspects - and the work of PTI has been directly affected by recent re-interpretations of OFAC by ICANN. I personally think a similar exposition of how the IANA deals with ccTLDs to match the RAA specifics would be required for full coverage of the issues. I'd be interested in the view of the Chair of the subgroup on the appropriate liaison procedure here. Nigel Roberts (ccNSO Council Member, EU region) On 30/08/17 08:37, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
As mentioned on the Plenary Call, the attached first draft recommendation regarding OFAC, assembled from the input of various participants, will be reviewed on the Subgroup call.
The Agenda will be amended accordingly.
I look forward to comments from the Subgroup.irst
GregF
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Greg I was unable to attend last meeting May you pls send me the draft Rec. on OFAC REFARDS KAVOUSS Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Aug 2017, at 09:58, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
First reaction
This is well-written and an excellent start.
I did find the footnotes highly confusing - particularly the presence of half of footnote 6 on the next page, and I was thoroughly confused by footnote 7. But these are minor issues.
A suggestion: I think it would be helpful to share this with the ccNSO Council, for early comment and feedback from Council and the wider ccTLD community, either now, or following further revision.
The text is understandably specific about gTLD aspects, but relatively silent about ccTLD aspects - and the work of PTI has been directly affected by recent re-interpretations of OFAC by ICANN.
I personally think a similar exposition of how the IANA deals with ccTLDs to match the RAA specifics would be required for full coverage of the issues.
I'd be interested in the view of the Chair of the subgroup on the appropriate liaison procedure here.
Nigel Roberts (ccNSO Council Member, EU region)
On 30/08/17 08:37, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
As mentioned on the Plenary Call, the attached first draft recommendation regarding OFAC, assembled from the input of various participants, will be reviewed on the Subgroup call.
The Agenda will be amended accordingly.
I look forward to comments from the Subgroup.irst
GregF
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, The draft OFAC recommendation is attached to my email, to which you and Nigel replied. Please let me know if you need it to be re-sent. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg I was unable to attend last meeting May you pls send me the draft Rec. on OFAC REFARDS KAVOUSS
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Aug 2017, at 09:58, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
First reaction
This is well-written and an excellent start.
I did find the footnotes highly confusing - particularly the presence of half of footnote 6 on the next page, and I was thoroughly confused by footnote 7. But these are minor issues.
A suggestion: I think it would be helpful to share this with the ccNSO Council, for early comment and feedback from Council and the wider ccTLD community, either now, or following further revision.
The text is understandably specific about gTLD aspects, but relatively silent about ccTLD aspects - and the work of PTI has been directly affected by recent re-interpretations of OFAC by ICANN.
I personally think a similar exposition of how the IANA deals with ccTLDs to match the RAA specifics would be required for full coverage of the issues.
I'd be interested in the view of the Chair of the subgroup on the appropriate liaison procedure here.
Nigel Roberts (ccNSO Council Member, EU region)
On 30/08/17 08:37, Greg Shatan wrote: All,
As mentioned on the Plenary Call, the attached first draft recommendation regarding OFAC, assembled from the input of various participants, will be reviewed on the Subgroup call.
The Agenda will be amended accordingly.
I look forward to comments from the Subgroup.irst
GregF
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Two issues about the OFAC doc: First is a question, I understand that a general licence is given for a particular sanction regime, say against X country. There is no provision for a general licence that is standing, for a particular class of activities (DNS related) and/ or a particular set or class of actors (ICANN) that would automatically apply to every sanction regimes, including new ones. If indeed this be true, then there is no one time guarantee and exemption that can be given to ICANN from OFAC, even if the US administration be inclined to do so. ICANN have to keep asking for exemptions under every new OFAC sanction regime, without any guarantee that it will be given such exempting general license. Am I correct? Second: It surprises me that there is no will here even to recommend that ICANN does ask for a general licence of exemption for a given sanction regime, only that it studies its processes, possibilities, etc. This convinces me that the way many, including the chair, look at what the mandate and purpose of this group is and what I take it to be are quite different. People here seem to think that they should only given such recommendations that US gov is highly likely to accept, and if the likelihood is less than very high it is best to first explore such likelihood before proceeding further. And only to proceed if such high likelihood can be found. This to me is very disparaging to the authority of this group, and its members, which is supposed to be working on the behalf of the global public and not of the US administration, as an advisory group to it. I resent such devaluation of this group, and its mandate and authority (which comes from its legitimacy of representing the interests of the global public).I take the mandate and responsibility of the group to be to recommend practical and sufficiently appropriate means that makes ICANN accountable to all the global public and not just the US public, through the jurisdiction of the US state. parminder On Wednesday 30 August 2017 01:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
As mentioned on the Plenary Call, the attached first draft recommendation regarding OFAC, assembled from the input of various participants, will be reviewed on the Subgroup call.
The Agenda will be amended accordingly.
I look forward to comments from the Subgroup.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
If you can't win the argument on the merits, one may always challenge the process, eh? On 30/08/17 12:05, parminder wrote:
Two issues about the OFAC doc:
First is a question, I understand that a general licence is given for a particular sanction regime, say against X country. There is no provision for a general licence that is standing, for a particular class of activities (DNS related) and/ or a particular set or class of actors (ICANN) that would automatically apply to every sanction regimes, including new ones.
If indeed this be true, then there is no one time guarantee and exemption that can be given to ICANN from OFAC, even if the US administration be inclined to do so. ICANN have to keep asking for exemptions under every new OFAC sanction regime, without any guarantee that it will be given such exempting general license. Am I correct?
Second: It surprises me that there is no will here even to recommend that ICANN does ask for a general licence of exemption for a given sanction regime, only that it studies its processes, possibilities, etc.
This convinces me that the way many, including the chair, look at what the mandate and purpose of this group is and what I take it to be are quite different. People here seem to think that they should only given such recommendations that US gov is highly likely to accept, and if the likelihood is less than very high it is best to first explore such likelihood before proceeding further. And only to proceed if such high likelihood can be found.
This to me is very disparaging to the authority of this group, and its members, which is supposed to be working on the behalf of the global public and not of the US administration, as an advisory group to it. I resent such devaluation of this group, and its mandate and authority (which comes from its legitimacy of representing the interests of the global public). I take the mandate and responsibility of the group to be to recommend practical and sufficiently appropriate means that makes ICANN accountable to all the global public and not just the US public, through the jurisdiction of the US state.
parminder
On Wednesday 30 August 2017 01:07 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
As mentioned on the Plenary Call, the attached first draft recommendation regarding OFAC, assembled from the input of various participants, will be reviewed on the Subgroup call.
The Agenda will be amended accordingly.
I look forward to comments from the Subgroup.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (4)
-
Arasteh -
Greg Shatan -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder