Jurisdiction Questionnaire response analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation
Dear all, I would like to submit analysis of two responses to the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup’s Questionnaire. I am submitting them in two different emails to avoid any confusion, however, I would like to say that these responses have raised the similar concerns related to jurisdiction and I recommend the group to consider these concerns based on the information provided in both of the responses. I would also like to reiterate that I am analysing the responses in my individual capacity. I am not representing my employer - Max Planck Institute. The fact that I am a Russian national has nothing to deal with the fact that I am analysing this response, I am not representing the views of Russian Federation in any capacity or form. So please consider this to be an independent summary with views expressed on my own. *The first response I would like to analyse is the one submitted by the the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. *I am attaching the response to the email, but it can also be found at the jurisdiction questionnaire responses page: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire *Summary of the responses * A note: I am sorry that some of the responses I am referring to rather in lengthy way, because I think as the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation responded with what we actually wanted - real case that they consider relevant - it is with for the group to consider it in a more detailed way. *Question 1* **The respondent states that their business, privacy or ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN’s jurisdiction. The response refers to the fact that ICANN, in particular, is a subject of the US regulations on the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The respondent refers to the provisions of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook and the document governing new registrar accreditation (“Registrar Accreditation: Application”, section 4. “Application Process”) and states that this can affect not only new top-level domain applicants (potential registries after application evaluation), but also companies seeking accreditation as ICANN registrar. To illustrate how this provisions on OFAC sanctions can affect business, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation brings up the case of sanctions implemented in accordance with the Executive Order 13685 of U.S. Administration (December 19th, 2014) prohibiting U.S. companies from supplying services and goods in the Republic of Crimea, doing business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. This led to: - Notification that Google Apps users located in Crimea access to Google services for accounts located in Crimea will get their services suspended within a week. - Notifications from other U.S. technology companies like Amazon, Apple, Paypal; issuance of the Google chrome browser updates that web-sites and hosting registered by individual residents of this region will be removed. - Announcements from several U.S. registrar companies (e.g., GoDaddy) that domain names of registrants from the Republic of Crimea will be removed from registries .com, .net, .org, .info, and others. The announcements referred to trade restrictions which do not allow registrars to do business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. The respondent expressed a strong belief that the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup shall analyse not only incidents that happened and gather information about actual cases, but also analyse the potential risks related to jurisdiction. *Question 2, Question 3.* - No information provided *Question 4a* The respondent doesn’t provide any material. However, Russian Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation expresses an opinion that since ICANN’s policies and their implementation shall be in compliance with the California law, but top-level domain registries enter into agreements with registrars individually, and registrars enter into agreements with the registrants in compliance with law of other countries, there will be conflicts between ICANN’s policies and national law systems. As one of the examples, the respondent refers to the General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR 2016/679. Lastly, the response suggested to answer the questions why the issues related to domain name system and infrastructure shall be under the jurisdiction of a single state. * **Question 4b* With regard to any alternative jurisdiction solutions, the respondent suggests that the following solutions: - Governance of the DNS by the international law/ treaties - Separate main ICANN’s responsibilities over different jurisdictions - Jurisdictional immunity under the US law *Analysis:* I recommend that every participant of the group reads if not the response, but at least the summary of it, and makes his or her own conclusion. However, I recommend the issue of trade sanctions and OFAC to be discussed in details and assessed by the group, as this issue comes up in more than one response and requires a serious consideration. No matter how we treat the political and geo-political issues that lead to the implementation of sanctions, the cases of the sanctions affecting businesses because OFAC and ICANN’s jurisdiction requires the group to answer at least whether this should be taken into consideration and how. The issue of OFAC is also raised in the response of the IGP, which I am also analysing. As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn’t fit the transition requirements. This, however, shall be discussed anyway if the issue of alternative jurisdiction will be raised in the group. Warm regards, Tanya
Dear Tatiana Thanks for your analysis, which is very useful. Allow me to comment on the last para about your opinion on the proposed solutions in Russian Federation's response. I quote your email "As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn’t fit the transition requirements. " First about jurisdictional immunity. It is not true that US law allows immunity only to such organisations which are registered under international law. The relevant law, US International Organisations Immunities Act , has provided jurisdictional immunity to organisations registered as non profits under US law. International Fertilizer and Development Centre is one such US registered non profit that has been provided jurisdictional immunity, a fact which has been pointed out in an ICANN commissioned study on the jurisdiction issue ( https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html ). Pl allow me to note that this fact has been brought to the notice of this group several times. Therefore, there is no problem in ICANN getting jurisdictional immunity under the mentioned Act even as it continues to be a US non profit. In light of this fact, I would like to know your views about the desirability of seeking such jurisdictional immunity for ICANN. Now, for your observation "do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties)". I see no mention of jurisdiction issue in transition requirements. You can point me to it if I have missed it. You perhaps refer to this part of the original NTIA notice on IANA transition; "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution." Oversight of IANA, which was with NTIA, is quite different from jurisdiction over IANA and ICANN which was and remains of the US state. No one is suggesting replacing the now lapsed NTIA oversight role with that of a gov or inter-gov organisation. What is being proposed is replacement of US jurisdiction (which remains, and US state is certainly a government) with international jurisdiction. One governmental thing with another... regards parminder On Monday 29 May 2017 05:05 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to submit analysis of two responses to the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup’s Questionnaire. I am submitting them in two different emails to avoid any confusion, however, I would like to say that these responses have raised the similar concerns related to jurisdiction and I recommend the group to consider these concerns based on the information provided in both of the responses.
I would also like to reiterate that I am analysing the responses in my individual capacity. I am not representing my employer - Max Planck Institute. The fact that I am a Russian national has nothing to deal with the fact that I am analysing this response, I am not representing the views of Russian Federation in any capacity or form. So please consider this to be an independent summary with views expressed on my own.
*The first response I would like to analyse is the one submitted by the the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. *I am attaching the response to the email, but it can also be found at the jurisdiction questionnaire responses page: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire
*Summary of the responses *
A note: I am sorry that some of the responses I am referring to rather in lengthy way, because I think as the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation responded with what we actually wanted - real case that they consider relevant - it is with for the group to consider it in a more detailed way.
*Question 1*
**The respondent states that their business, privacy or ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN’s jurisdiction. The response refers to the fact that ICANN, in particular, is a subject of the US regulations on the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The respondent refers to the provisions of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook and the document governing new registrar accreditation (“Registrar Accreditation: Application”, section 4. “Application Process”) and states that this can affect not only new top-level domain applicants (potential registries after application evaluation), but also companies seeking accreditation as ICANN registrar. To illustrate how this provisions on OFAC sanctions can affect business, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation brings up the case of sanctions implemented in accordance with the Executive Order 13685 of U.S. Administration (December 19th, 2014) prohibiting U.S. companies from supplying services and goods in the Republic of Crimea, doing business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. This led to: - Notification that Google Apps users located in Crimea access to Google services for accounts located in Crimea will get their services suspended within a week. - Notifications from other U.S. technology companies like Amazon, Apple, Paypal; issuance of the Google chrome browser updates that web-sites and hosting registered by individual residents of this region will be removed. - Announcements from several U.S. registrar companies (e.g., GoDaddy) that domain names of registrants from the Republic of Crimea will be removed from registries .com, .net, .org, .info, and others. The announcements referred to trade restrictions which do not allow registrars to do business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea.
The respondent expressed a strong belief that the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup shall analyse not only incidents that happened and gather information about actual cases, but also analyse the potential risks related to jurisdiction.
*Question 2, Question 3.* - No information provided
*Question 4a*
The respondent doesn’t provide any material. However, Russian Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation expresses an opinion that since ICANN’s policies and their implementation shall be in compliance with the California law, but top-level domain registries enter into agreements with registrars individually, and registrars enter into agreements with the registrants in compliance with law of other countries, there will be conflicts between ICANN’s policies and national law systems. As one of the examples, the respondent refers to the General Data Protection Regulation – GDPR 2016/679. Lastly, the response suggested to answer the questions why the issues related to domain name system and infrastructure shall be under the jurisdiction of a single state. * **Question 4b* With regard to any alternative jurisdiction solutions, the respondent suggests that the following solutions: - Governance of the DNS by the international law/ treaties - Separate main ICANN’s responsibilities over different jurisdictions - Jurisdictional immunity under the US law
*Analysis:* I recommend that every participant of the group reads if not the response, but at least the summary of it, and makes his or her own conclusion. However, I recommend the issue of trade sanctions and OFAC to be discussed in details and assessed by the group, as this issue comes up in more than one response and requires a serious consideration. No matter how we treat the political and geo-political issues that lead to the implementation of sanctions, the cases of the sanctions affecting businesses because OFAC and ICANN’s jurisdiction requires the group to answer at least whether this should be taken into consideration and how. The issue of OFAC is also raised in the response of the IGP, which I am also analysing.
As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn’t fit the transition requirements. This, however, shall be discussed anyway if the issue of alternative jurisdiction will be raised in the group.
Warm regards, Tanya
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hi Parminder: What is "international jurisdiction"? I've never heard of it. Best, Paul From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 5:38 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire response analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Dear Tatiana Thanks for your analysis, which is very useful. Allow me to comment on the last para about your opinion on the proposed solutions in Russian Federation's response. I quote your email "As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn't fit the transition requirements. " First about jurisdictional immunity. It is not true that US law allows immunity only to such organisations which are registered under international law. The relevant law, US International Organisations Immunities Act , has provided jurisdictional immunity to organisations registered as non profits under US law. International Fertilizer and Development Centre is one such US registered non profit that has been provided jurisdictional immunity, a fact which has been pointed out in an ICANN commissioned study on the jurisdiction issue ( https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html ). Pl allow me to note that this fact has been brought to the notice of this group several times. Therefore, there is no problem in ICANN getting jurisdictional immunity under the mentioned Act even as it continues to be a US non profit. In light of this fact, I would like to know your views about the desirability of seeking such jurisdictional immunity for ICANN. Now, for your observation "do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties)". I see no mention of jurisdiction issue in transition requirements. You can point me to it if I have missed it. You perhaps refer to this part of the original NTIA notice on IANA transition; "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution." Oversight of IANA, which was with NTIA, is quite different from jurisdiction over IANA and ICANN which was and remains of the US state. No one is suggesting replacing the now lapsed NTIA oversight role with that of a gov or inter-gov organisation. What is being proposed is replacement of US jurisdiction (which remains, and US state is certainly a government) with international jurisdiction. One governmental thing with another... regards parminder On Monday 29 May 2017 05:05 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: Dear all, I would like to submit analysis of two responses to the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup's Questionnaire. I am submitting them in two different emails to avoid any confusion, however, I would like to say that these responses have raised the similar concerns related to jurisdiction and I recommend the group to consider these concerns based on the information provided in both of the responses. I would also like to reiterate that I am analysing the responses in my individual capacity. I am not representing my employer - Max Planck Institute. The fact that I am a Russian national has nothing to deal with the fact that I am analysing this response, I am not representing the views of Russian Federation in any capacity or form. So please consider this to be an independent summary with views expressed on my own. The first response I would like to analyse is the one submitted by the the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. I am attaching the response to the email, but it can also be found at the jurisdiction questionnaire responses page: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire Summary of the responses A note: I am sorry that some of the responses I am referring to rather in lengthy way, because I think as the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation responded with what we actually wanted - real case that they consider relevant - it is with for the group to consider it in a more detailed way. Question 1 The respondent states that their business, privacy or ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction. The response refers to the fact that ICANN, in particular, is a subject of the US regulations on the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The respondent refers to the provisions of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook and the document governing new registrar accreditation ("Registrar Accreditation: Application", section 4. "Application Process") and states that this can affect not only new top-level domain applicants (potential registries after application evaluation), but also companies seeking accreditation as ICANN registrar. To illustrate how this provisions on OFAC sanctions can affect business, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation brings up the case of sanctions implemented in accordance with the Executive Order 13685 of U.S. Administration (December 19th, 2014) prohibiting U.S. companies from supplying services and goods in the Republic of Crimea, doing business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. This led to: - Notification that Google Apps users located in Crimea access to Google services for accounts located in Crimea will get their services suspended within a week. - Notifications from other U.S. technology companies like Amazon, Apple, Paypal; issuance of the Google chrome browser updates that web-sites and hosting registered by individual residents of this region will be removed. - Announcements from several U.S. registrar companies (e.g., GoDaddy) that domain names of registrants from the Republic of Crimea will be removed from registries .com, .net, .org, .info, and others. The announcements referred to trade restrictions which do not allow registrars to do business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. The respondent expressed a strong belief that the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup shall analyse not only incidents that happened and gather information about actual cases, but also analyse the potential risks related to jurisdiction. Question 2, Question 3. - No information provided Question 4a The respondent doesn't provide any material. However, Russian Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation expresses an opinion that since ICANN's policies and their implementation shall be in compliance with the California law, but top-level domain registries enter into agreements with registrars individually, and registrars enter into agreements with the registrants in compliance with law of other countries, there will be conflicts between ICANN's policies and national law systems. As one of the examples, the respondent refers to the General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR 2016/679. Lastly, the response suggested to answer the questions why the issues related to domain name system and infrastructure shall be under the jurisdiction of a single state. Question 4b With regard to any alternative jurisdiction solutions, the respondent suggests that the following solutions: - Governance of the DNS by the international law/ treaties - Separate main ICANN's responsibilities over different jurisdictions - Jurisdictional immunity under the US law Analysis: I recommend that every participant of the group reads if not the response, but at least the summary of it, and makes his or her own conclusion. However, I recommend the issue of trade sanctions and OFAC to be discussed in details and assessed by the group, as this issue comes up in more than one response and requires a serious consideration. No matter how we treat the political and geo-political issues that lead to the implementation of sanctions, the cases of the sanctions affecting businesses because OFAC and ICANN's jurisdiction requires the group to answer at least whether this should be taken into consideration and how. The issue of OFAC is also raised in the response of the IGP, which I am also analysing. As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn't fit the transition requirements. This, however, shall be discussed anyway if the issue of alternative jurisdiction will be raised in the group. Warm regards, Tanya _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
That is because it doesn't exist. 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 icannlists Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:11 PM To: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire response analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Hi Parminder: What is "international jurisdiction"? I've never heard of it. Best, Paul From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 5:38 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire response analysis: Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Dear Tatiana Thanks for your analysis, which is very useful. Allow me to comment on the last para about your opinion on the proposed solutions in Russian Federation's response. I quote your email "As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn't fit the transition requirements. " First about jurisdictional immunity. It is not true that US law allows immunity only to such organisations which are registered under international law. The relevant law, US International Organisations Immunities Act , has provided jurisdictional immunity to organisations registered as non profits under US law. International Fertilizer and Development Centre is one such US registered non profit that has been provided jurisdictional immunity, a fact which has been pointed out in an ICANN commissioned study on the jurisdiction issue ( https://archive.icann.org/en/psc/corell-24aug06.html ). Pl allow me to note that this fact has been brought to the notice of this group several times. Therefore, there is no problem in ICANN getting jurisdictional immunity under the mentioned Act even as it continues to be a US non profit. In light of this fact, I would like to know your views about the desirability of seeking such jurisdictional immunity for ICANN. Now, for your observation "do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties)". I see no mention of jurisdiction issue in transition requirements. You can point me to it if I have missed it. You perhaps refer to this part of the original NTIA notice on IANA transition; "NTIA will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution." Oversight of IANA, which was with NTIA, is quite different from jurisdiction over IANA and ICANN which was and remains of the US state. No one is suggesting replacing the now lapsed NTIA oversight role with that of a gov or inter-gov organisation. What is being proposed is replacement of US jurisdiction (which remains, and US state is certainly a government) with international jurisdiction. One governmental thing with another... regards parminder On Monday 29 May 2017 05:05 PM, Dr. Tatiana Tropina wrote: Dear all, I would like to submit analysis of two responses to the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup's Questionnaire. I am submitting them in two different emails to avoid any confusion, however, I would like to say that these responses have raised the similar concerns related to jurisdiction and I recommend the group to consider these concerns based on the information provided in both of the responses. I would also like to reiterate that I am analysing the responses in my individual capacity. I am not representing my employer - Max Planck Institute. The fact that I am a Russian national has nothing to deal with the fact that I am analysing this response, I am not representing the views of Russian Federation in any capacity or form. So please consider this to be an independent summary with views expressed on my own. The first response I would like to analyse is the one submitted by the the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. I am attaching the response to the email, but it can also be found at the jurisdiction questionnaire responses page: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction+Questionnaire Summary of the responses A note: I am sorry that some of the responses I am referring to rather in lengthy way, because I think as the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation responded with what we actually wanted - real case that they consider relevant - it is with for the group to consider it in a more detailed way. Question 1 The respondent states that their business, privacy or ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction. The response refers to the fact that ICANN, in particular, is a subject of the US regulations on the economic and trade sanctions program administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The respondent refers to the provisions of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook and the document governing new registrar accreditation ("Registrar Accreditation: Application", section 4. "Application Process") and states that this can affect not only new top-level domain applicants (potential registries after application evaluation), but also companies seeking accreditation as ICANN registrar. To illustrate how this provisions on OFAC sanctions can affect business, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation brings up the case of sanctions implemented in accordance with the Executive Order 13685 of U.S. Administration (December 19th, 2014) prohibiting U.S. companies from supplying services and goods in the Republic of Crimea, doing business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. This led to: - Notification that Google Apps users located in Crimea access to Google services for accounts located in Crimea will get their services suspended within a week. - Notifications from other U.S. technology companies like Amazon, Apple, Paypal; issuance of the Google chrome browser updates that web-sites and hosting registered by individual residents of this region will be removed. - Announcements from several U.S. registrar companies (e.g., GoDaddy) that domain names of registrants from the Republic of Crimea will be removed from registries .com, .net, .org, .info, and others. The announcements referred to trade restrictions which do not allow registrars to do business with individuals and entities located in the Republic of Crimea. The respondent expressed a strong belief that the WS2 Jurisdiction subgroup shall analyse not only incidents that happened and gather information about actual cases, but also analyse the potential risks related to jurisdiction. Question 2, Question 3. - No information provided Question 4a The respondent doesn't provide any material. However, Russian Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation expresses an opinion that since ICANN's policies and their implementation shall be in compliance with the California law, but top-level domain registries enter into agreements with registrars individually, and registrars enter into agreements with the registrants in compliance with law of other countries, there will be conflicts between ICANN's policies and national law systems. As one of the examples, the respondent refers to the General Data Protection Regulation - GDPR 2016/679. Lastly, the response suggested to answer the questions why the issues related to domain name system and infrastructure shall be under the jurisdiction of a single state. Question 4b With regard to any alternative jurisdiction solutions, the respondent suggests that the following solutions: - Governance of the DNS by the international law/ treaties - Separate main ICANN's responsibilities over different jurisdictions - Jurisdictional immunity under the US law Analysis: I recommend that every participant of the group reads if not the response, but at least the summary of it, and makes his or her own conclusion. However, I recommend the issue of trade sanctions and OFAC to be discussed in details and assessed by the group, as this issue comes up in more than one response and requires a serious consideration. No matter how we treat the political and geo-political issues that lead to the implementation of sanctions, the cases of the sanctions affecting businesses because OFAC and ICANN's jurisdiction requires the group to answer at least whether this should be taken into consideration and how. The issue of OFAC is also raised in the response of the IGP, which I am also analysing. As to the alternative jurisdiction solutions: again, it is up to the group to continue the discussion and I think that as this issue being constantly raise we will have to come to it at some point if we realise that there are some serious risks coming from ICANN being incorporated in the US. However, I would like to note - as my personal opinion - that some of the proposed solutions very likely either do not meet the transition requirement (governance by international treaties) or probably impossible - e.g. If I am not mistaken the jurisdictional immunities under the US law could be given only to the international organisation, which, in turn, doesn't fit the transition requirements. This, however, shall be discussed anyway if the issue of alternative jurisdiction will be raised in the group. Warm regards, Tanya _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _____ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
participants (4)
-
Dr. Tatiana Tropina -
icannlists -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig