Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 7, 2017 7:11 PM, "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. SO: Am not sure this is "only" about "what else needs to be answered". It's rather about putting the respective responses side by side to the question instead of having people to go through a conversation which is normally not specific and focused. I went through the transcript and it was obvious that Sam was not allowed to go through all the questions one after the other before people started stopping her to ask clarification/more questions...et all and that is a normal thing that is bound to happen in a conversation. I actually find it strange and do not understand why it is really a big deal to share a response document[1], which I believe must have existed (however rough as I don't expect Sam not to have a response note). This certainly would fall within the least resource consuming tasks compared to enormous documents ICANN produces, some of which will perhaps not be as useful as this(re:Milton). Infact what has been the normal route is to share the response document, talk about it and then take further clarification points from the community. It is not clear why I different approach was taken in this case. That said, I agree with what Farsi suggested as if that is addressed then challenges with OFAC will largely go away. Regard 1. I wonder if we've asked staff and they said no to providing the document. Also, it seems like we have lost some sight of the main points raised during the call. 1. One of the main points I got on the call was that the language found on the Registrar Accreditation page of the ICANN site states: *”** 4. Application Process.* *…..* *Applicant acknowledges that ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws, rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals and entities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the "SDN List"). ICANN is prohibited from providing most goods or services to residents of sanctioned countries or their governmental entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek a license to provide goods or services to an individual or entity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has been requested to provide services to individuals or entities that are not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries, ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required. **However, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN is under no obligations to seek such licenses and, in any given case, OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license**.” [Emphasis Added]* ………………… Although the language states that ICANN does not have to seek licenses for residents of sanctioned countries, they generally do. I would like to see that last paragraph state in writing that they are required to seek a license, but acknowledge that OFAC could decide not to issue a requested license. This would ensure that we could have registries and/or registrars in these countries able to at least apply to become accredited. 1. The second point that was interesting was that ICANN seeks licenses for all changes to the root zone if initiated by entities or residents in the OFAC sanctioned countries. It would be helpful to know the terms (and limits) of those licenses (from an accountability standpoint). Are there certain changes that cannot be made without additional licenses, etc. Thanks again for the information on last weeks call and I look forward to discussing the substance. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/application-2012-02-25-en *Jeffrey J. Neuman* *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@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- 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