Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation
All, Please take a few minutes to *read and respond* to this email, and the *proposed changes* discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. *Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. * To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: · A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. · A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. *The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows:* 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: *There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions.* *Examples of that are related to Godaddy*[1]* and Online Nic,*[2]* which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries.* Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: *An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people).* *He received the following reply:* *Quote* *“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:* *Dear reseller (XXX)* *Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.* *Kind regards,* *Mark Assenberg”* *It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:* *Yourholding* *Ceintuurbaan 28* *8024 AA Zwolle* *+31 38 453 0752* *The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.* *They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.* *It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses.* *It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA.* *[Recommendation]* *The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case.* *The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability.* *The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA.* 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. * The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.* Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.) *On suggested change 1*: 1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them)*.* 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate? *On suggested change 2*: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere? *On suggested change3:* 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to? ------------------------------ [1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. [2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California. [3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
Dear all 1: I think registrars can set their business policies as they see fit. If they do not respect applicable law to the conduct of their business, ultimately that is their problem. ICANN should provide objective information to them, especially regarding sanctions regime. I understand that the difference between legal advice and objective information is a thin line to walk. In that sense, I believe that the current language of the recommendation better reflects that. I would not oppose referring to the media reports, although I find the formulation a bit vague and so I am not strongly in favour of adding it either. 2: For the same reasons as above, I am not in favour of seeing this added. Registrars are free to pursue their business as they see fit within the framework given by the law. And ultimately, to me, this is not a jurisdiction issue. It has been discussed that this could be discriminatory; maybe ICANN should do something about it, and certainly it can/could/should be discussed, but I do not think it has its place in the current recommendation. 3: I do not understand what the blue text adds, and to some extent what it means. Is someone undermining ICANN's awareness-rising processes? Besides, I am fine with the red text. Best, 2017-09-26 8:52 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
Please take a few minutes to *read and respond* to this email, and the *proposed changes* discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary.
There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. *Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. *
To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion.
In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents:
· A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be.
· A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic.
*The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows:*
1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads:
*There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions.*
*Examples of that are related to Godaddy*[1]* and Online Nic,*[2]* which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries.*
Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation:
Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.
2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”:
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people).*
*He received the following reply:*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller (XXX)*
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards,*
*Mark Assenberg”*
*It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding*
*Ceintuurbaan 28*
*8024 AA Zwolle*
*+31 38 453 0752*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses.*
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA.*
*[Recommendation]*
*The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case.*
*The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability.*
*The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA.*
3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well.
ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. * The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.*
Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.)
*On suggested change 1*:
1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change?
a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them?
b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup?
c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them)*.*
2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions.
a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to?
b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars?
3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”?
a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this?
b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate?
*On suggested change 2*:
1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC?
2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))?
3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation?
4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch)
5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions?
6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads:
a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships."
7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere?
*On suggested change3:*
1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient?
2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to?
3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to?
------------------------------
[1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
[2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California.
[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
Dear Sir. A discriminatory disputation had been raised apparently with misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC, We need to consider they there is RAA to be respected thus the absolute and ballet freedom does not exist nor relevant Presumably the Registrar indirectly referred to the likelihood of application of OFAC regulations which is commented by all ( see complication of expressed views) there is no direct or indirect relation between this case and OFAC thus it must be a) included the factual report as was requested by Greg on 13 and subsequent meeting b) the irrelevance of OFAC to the case needs to be reflected c) the silent situation. In RAA as described by my several message should be reflected I know you may not be in d'aboyer if the issue but kindly do not oppose to that Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2017, at 19:33, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all
1: I think registrars can set their business policies as they see fit. If they do not respect applicable law to the conduct of their business, ultimately that is their problem. ICANN should provide objective information to them, especially regarding sanctions regime. I understand that the difference between legal advice and objective information is a thin line to walk. In that sense, I believe that the current language of the recommendation better reflects that. I would not oppose referring to the media reports, although I find the formulation a bit vague and so I am not strongly in favour of adding it either.
2: For the same reasons as above, I am not in favour of seeing this added. Registrars are free to pursue their business as they see fit within the framework given by the law. And ultimately, to me, this is not a jurisdiction issue. It has been discussed that this could be discriminatory; maybe ICANN should do something about it, and certainly it can/could/should be discussed, but I do not think it has its place in the current recommendation.
3: I do not understand what the blue text adds, and to some extent what it means. Is someone undermining ICANN's awareness-rising processes? Besides, I am fine with the red text.
Best,
2017-09-26 8:52 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All, Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: · A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. · A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows: 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions. Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries. Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people). He received the following reply: Quote “On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com> wrote: Dear reseller (XXX) Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. Kind regards, Mark Assenberg” It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 8024 AA Zwolle +31 38 453 0752 The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company. They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision. It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. [Recommendation] The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case. The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability. The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.
Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.)
On suggested change 1:
1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate?
On suggested change 2: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere?
On suggested change3: 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to?
[1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
[2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California.
[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn - @rbl0012 - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
All, It would be good to hear from more participants regarding these suggested changes to the OFAC Recommendation. The OFAC Recommendation needs to be finalized on tomorrow's meeting. There has been ample time to review the draft and the suggested changes. The more responses we have on the list, the easier it will be to finalize the recommendation on the call. Kavouss, To clarify, the factual point I requested was examples where non-US registrars (without OFAC obligations) had refused business or terminated registrant relationships based on OFAC compliance. The Resello example doesn't cover this point. Obviously, the GoDaddy and OnlineNIC examples do not cover this point either. Media reports have been mentioned, but the Subgroup has not seen these reports, and therefore can't cite them in its Report. The Report does deal with the evidence the Subgroup have seen. This relates to non-US registrars posting T&Cs with OFAC provisions. The Report covers the possibility of mistaken application of OFAC obligations by non-US registrars without the obligation to comply. The Subgroup has not recognized an issue of the RAA not being "respected," because no one has identified a section of the RAA that would be violated. If OFAC is irrelevant to the Resello example, why should it be reflected in the report? I haven't seen any support in the Subgroup for inclusion. As for the "silence" in the RAA -- if the Subgroup sees this as an issue, and wishes to consider a recommendation to change the RAA, then there would be a basis for considering inclusion in the Report. I have not seen any support for this. All, I would like to offer an observation.In my view (and based on 10 years of experience in Working Groups), it has not generally been effective to ask someone not to oppose a suggestion they do not favor. What has been effective is to persuade someone to view the suggestion favorably. In other words, opposition/non-support won't be eliminated by request; it needs to be eliminated by persuading the person to see things differently so that their underlying position changes. This is most effective when it is coupled by a willingness to change the "ask" so that it can be supported by the other person(s), ideally in collaboration with those other persons. In the end, the positions in a Working Group (or Subgroup) Report need to be the consensus (aka rough consensus) of the Subgroup, not the views of any one participant. The sooner that participants transfer "ownership" of a position from the individual to the group, the more likely that the group will adopt that position. Of course, this is only what I have seen in my experience in Working Groups ; it may be more effective in other types of groups to seek "non-objection" as a path to decision-making without also seeking to change people's views. This observation is offered only to assist this Subgroup in reaching decisions, both now and in the next very few weeks. Apologies for the philosophical digression. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir. A discriminatory disputation had been raised apparently with misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC, We need to consider they there is RAA to be respected thus the absolute and ballet freedom does not exist nor relevant Presumably the Registrar indirectly referred to the likelihood of application of OFAC regulations which is commented by all ( see complication of expressed views) there is no direct or indirect relation between this case and OFAC thus it must be a) included the factual report as was requested by Greg on 13 and subsequent meeting b) the irrelevance of OFAC to the case needs to be reflected c) the silent situation. In RAA as described by my several message should be reflected I know you may not be in d'aboyer if the issue but kindly do not oppose to that Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2017, at 19:33, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all
1: I think registrars can set their business policies as they see fit. If they do not respect applicable law to the conduct of their business, ultimately that is their problem. ICANN should provide objective information to them, especially regarding sanctions regime. I understand that the difference between legal advice and objective information is a thin line to walk. In that sense, I believe that the current language of the recommendation better reflects that. I would not oppose referring to the media reports, although I find the formulation a bit vague and so I am not strongly in favour of adding it either.
2: For the same reasons as above, I am not in favour of seeing this added. Registrars are free to pursue their business as they see fit within the framework given by the law. And ultimately, to me, this is not a jurisdiction issue. It has been discussed that this could be discriminatory; maybe ICANN should do something about it, and certainly it can/could/should be discussed, but I do not think it has its place in the current recommendation.
3: I do not understand what the blue text adds, and to some extent what it means. Is someone undermining ICANN's awareness-rising processes? Besides, I am fine with the red text.
Best,
2017-09-26 8:52 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
Please take a few minutes to *read and respond* to this email, and the *proposed changes* discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary.
There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. *Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. *
To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion.
In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents:
· A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be.
· A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic.
*The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows:*
1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads:
*There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions.*
*Examples of that are related to Godaddy*[1]* and Online Nic,*[2]* which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries.*
Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation:
Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.
2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”:
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people).*
*He received the following reply:*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller (XXX)*
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards,*
*Mark Assenberg”*
*It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding*
*Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28%0D+%0D+*8024+AA+Zwolle*&entry=gmail&source=g>*
*8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28%0D+%0D+*8024+AA+Zwolle*&entry=gmail&source=g>*
*+31 38 453 0752*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses.*
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA.*
*[Recommendation]*
*The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case.*
*The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability.*
*The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA.*
3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well.
ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. * The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.*
Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.)
*On suggested change 1*:
1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change?
a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them?
b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup?
c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them)*.*
2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions.
a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to?
b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars?
3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”?
a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this?
b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate?
*On suggested change 2*:
1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC?
2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))?
3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation?
4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch)
5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions?
6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads:
a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships."
7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere?
*On suggested change3:*
1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient?
2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to?
3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to?
------------------------------
[1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
[2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California.
[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15 <+33%207%2086%2039%2018%2015>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
For the reasons we'll stated by Milton I think this change should not be accepted -- Paul Sent from myMail app for Android Tuesday, 26 September 2017, 03:23PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com : >All, > >It would be good to hear from more participants regarding these suggested changes to the OFAC Recommendation. The OFAC Recommendation needs to be finalized on tomorrow's meeting. There has been ample time to review the draft and the suggested changes. The more responses we have on the list, the easier it will be to finalize the recommendation on the call. > >Kavouss, > >To clarify, the factual point I requested was examples where non-US registrars (without OFAC obligations) had refused business or terminated registrant relationships based on OFAC compliance. The Resello example doesn't cover this point. Obviously, the GoDaddy and OnlineNIC examples do not cover this point either. Media reports have been mentioned, but the Subgroup has not seen these reports, and therefore can't cite them in its Report. > >The Report does deal with the evidence the Subgroup have seen. This relates to non-US registrars posting T&Cs with OFAC provisions. The Report covers the possibility of mistaken application of OFAC obligations by non-US registrars without the obligation to comply. > >The Subgroup has not recognized an issue of the RAA not being "respected," because no one has identified a section of the RAA that would be violated. > >If OFAC is irrelevant to the Resello example, why should it be reflected in the report? I haven't seen any support in the Subgroup for inclusion. > >As for the "silence" in the RAA -- if the Subgroup sees this as an issue, and wishes to consider a recommendation to change the RAA, then there would be a basis for considering inclusion in the Report. I have not seen any support for this. > >All, > >I would like to offer an observation.In my view (and based on 10 years of experience in Working Groups), it has not generally been effective to ask someone not to oppose a suggestion they do not favor. What has been effective is to persuade someone to view the suggestion favorably. In other words, opposition/non-support won't be eliminated by request; it needs to be eliminated by persuading the person to see things differently so that their underlying position changes. This is most effective when it is coupled by a willingness to change the "ask" so that it can be supported by the other person(s), ideally in collaboration with those other persons. In the end, the positions in a Working Group (or Subgroup) Report need to be the consensus (aka rough consensus) of the Subgroup, not the views of any one participant. The sooner that participants transfer "ownership" of a position from the individual to the group, the more likely that the group will adopt that position. > >Of course, this is only what I have seen in my experience in Working Groups ; it may be more effective in other types of groups to seek "non-objection" as a path to decision-making without also seeking to change people's views. > >This observation is offered only to assist this Subgroup in reaching decisions, both now and in the next very few weeks. Apologies for the philosophical digression. > >Best regards, > >Greg > >On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com > wrote: >>Dear Sir. >>A discriminatory disputation had been raised apparently with misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC, >>We need to consider they there is RAA to be respected thus the absolute and ballet freedom does not exist nor relevant >>Presumably the Registrar indirectly referred to the likelihood of application of OFAC regulations which is commented by all ( see complication of expressed views) there is no direct or indirect relation between this case and OFAC thus it must be a) included the factual report as was requested by Greg on 13 and subsequent meeting >>b) the irrelevance of OFAC to the case needs to be reflected >>c) the silent situation. In RAA as described by my several message should be reflected >>I know you may not be in d'aboyer if the issue but kindly do not oppose to that >>Regards >>Kavouss >> >>Sent from my iPhone >> >>On 26 Sep 2017, at 19:33, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr > wrote: >> >>>Dear all >>> >>>1: I think registrars can set their business policies as they see fit. If they do not respect applicable law to the conduct of their business, ultimately that is their problem. ICANN should provide objective information to them, especially regarding sanctions regime. I understand that the difference between legal advice and objective information is a thin line to walk. In that sense, I believe that the current language of the recommendation better reflects that. I would not oppose referring to the media reports, although I find the formulation a bit vague and so I am not strongly in favour of adding it either. >>> >>>2: For the same reasons as above, I am not in favour of seeing this added. Registrars are free to pursue their business as they see fit within the framework given by the law. And ultimately, to me, this is not a jurisdiction issue. It has been discussed that this could be discriminatory; maybe ICANN should do something about it, and certainly it can/could/should be discussed, but I do not think it has its place in the current recommendation. >>> >>>3: I do not understand what the blue text adds, and to some extent what it means. Is someone undermining ICANN's awareness-rising processes? Besides, I am fine with the red text. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>> >>>2017-09-26 8:52 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > : >>>>All, >>>>Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC >>>>Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. >>>>There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I >>>>can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. >>>>To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do >>>>not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following >>>>revisions.” If you think it would help >>>>others, please explain your conclusion. >>>>In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: >>>>>· A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates >>>>>the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. >>>>>Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to >>>>>be. >>>>>· A document with virtually all of the emails >>>>>devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. >>>>The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are >>>>as follows: >>>>1. The first proposed change appears intended to >>>>be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by >>>>Non-US Registrars.” The first part >>>>reads: >>>>There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US >>>>registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately >>>>because they might get affected by US sanctions. >>>>Examples of that are >>>>related to Godaddy [1] and Online Nic, [2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction >>>>countries. >>>>Kavouss asked that the second part be >>>>inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: >>>>Registrars should be reminded that they >>>>should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by >>>>OFAC. >>>>2. The second proposed change relates to an >>>>action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. >>>>It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the >>>>section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, >>>>possibly entitled “ Policy >>>>of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to >>>>OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: >>>>An individual domain >>>>Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to < sales@resello.com > in an online >>>>form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to >>>>Iranian people). >>>>He received >>>>the following reply: >>>>Quote >>>>“On Tue, Sep 19, >>>>2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales < sales@resello.com > wrote: >>>>Dear reseller >>>>(XXX) >>>>Unfortunately >>>>our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if >>>>they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. >>>>Kind regards, >>>>Mark Assenberg” >>>>It is worth >>>>mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: >>>>Yourholding >>>>Ceintuurbaan 28 >>>>8024 AA Zwolle >>>>+31 38 453 >>>>0752 >>>>The name is >>>>Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based >>>>company. >>>>They do not >>>>want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, >>>>they is our internal policy decision. >>>>It is >>>>important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which >>>>are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid >>>>giving services to a given citizens. >>>>This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. >>>>They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. >>>>It is >>>>important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the >>>>rules inside USA. >>>>[Recommendation] >>>>The group in >>>>attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation >>>>might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC >>>>Regulation to the case. >>>>The Group >>>>concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and >>>>its applicability. >>>>The Group also >>>>did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a >>>>business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did >>>>not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny >>>>the request. [3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further >>>>examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. >>>>3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation >>>>relating to General Licenses. After >>>>Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the >>>>red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better >>>>in the text. After the red language was >>>>added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. >>>>ICANN should then pursue >>>>one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest >>>>possible time , unless significant obstacles were discovered in the >>>>“study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them >>>>to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find >>>>other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between >>>>ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of >>>>“friction.” It >>>>is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing >>>>general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with >>>>affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation >>>>is critical and should not be undermined. >>>> >>>>Finally, there >>>>have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which >>>>have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased >>>>and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them >>>>(or see if any members might answer them). >>>>(I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the >>>>proposed changes.) >>>> >>>>On >>>>suggested change 1 : >>>> >>>>1. Do you >>>>have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? >>>>a. If the >>>>Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer >>>>to them, or the activities reported in them? >>>>b. For US >>>>registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue >>>>for this Subgroup? >>>>c. For non-US >>>>registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC >>>>Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because >>>>they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them) . >>>>2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who >>>>are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. >>>>a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers >>>>to? >>>>b. Are >>>>there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? >>>>3. What does it mean to say “ Registrars >>>>should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in >>>>regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? >>>>a. If this >>>>refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you >>>>believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? >>>>b. What >>>>proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate? >>>> >>>>On suggested change 2 : >>>>1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC >>>>sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? >>>>2. What >>>>section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., >>>>a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country >>>>(whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? >>>>3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to >>>>OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup >>>>approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? >>>>4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) >>>>5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into >>>>interpreting EU sanctions? >>>>6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? >>>>It reads: >>>>a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to >>>>registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their >>>>RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC >>>>sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to >>>>understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately >>>>reflect those laws in their customer relationships." >>>>7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to >>>>ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere? >>>> >>>>On suggested change3: >>>>1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) >>>>insufficient? >>>>2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” >>>>refer to? >>>>3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to? >>>> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>[1] NOTE >>>>TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as >>>>GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. >>>>[2] NOTE >>>>TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as >>>>OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California. >>>>[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for >>>>resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused >>>>without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>>Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix >>>LinkedIn - @rbl0012 - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15 >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >>>Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > >_______________________________________________ >Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Greg The tone of your message , contrary to the tone of another participant, is very friendly and highly appreciated At least you did not interfere with the policy that I followed and did not make any judgement . Pls make every possible effort to address the matter in a manner that you get the agreement of all. I have not seen any record that a national from a third country claimed that he or she defends the interest of another country. That person who tried to provide a reasonable image of himself has inappropriately attacking the dignity of another person in giving a wrong image of him which is totally unacceptable and categorically rejected. Once again, make all possible effort to find out how you could address the misinterpretation of a Registrar in denying the legitimate request Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 27 Sep 2017, at 00:23, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
It would be good to hear from more participants regarding these suggested changes to the OFAC Recommendation. The OFAC Recommendation needs to be finalized on tomorrow's meeting. There has been ample time to review the draft and the suggested changes. The more responses we have on the list, the easier it will be to finalize the recommendation on the call.
Kavouss,
To clarify, the factual point I requested was examples where non-US registrars (without OFAC obligations) had refused business or terminated registrant relationships based on OFAC compliance. The Resello example doesn't cover this point. Obviously, the GoDaddy and OnlineNIC examples do not cover this point either. Media reports have been mentioned, but the Subgroup has not seen these reports, and therefore can't cite them in its Report.
The Report does deal with the evidence the Subgroup have seen. This relates to non-US registrars posting T&Cs with OFAC provisions. The Report covers the possibility of mistaken application of OFAC obligations by non-US registrars without the obligation to comply.
The Subgroup has not recognized an issue of the RAA not being "respected," because no one has identified a section of the RAA that would be violated.
If OFAC is irrelevant to the Resello example, why should it be reflected in the report? I haven't seen any support in the Subgroup for inclusion.
As for the "silence" in the RAA -- if the Subgroup sees this as an issue, and wishes to consider a recommendation to change the RAA, then there would be a basis for considering inclusion in the Report. I have not seen any support for this.
All,
I would like to offer an observation.In my view (and based on 10 years of experience in Working Groups), it has not generally been effective to ask someone not to oppose a suggestion they do not favor. What has been effective is to persuade someone to view the suggestion favorably. In other words, opposition/non-support won't be eliminated by request; it needs to be eliminated by persuading the person to see things differently so that their underlying position changes. This is most effective when it is coupled by a willingness to change the "ask" so that it can be supported by the other person(s), ideally in collaboration with those other persons. In the end, the positions in a Working Group (or Subgroup) Report need to be the consensus (aka rough consensus) of the Subgroup, not the views of any one participant. The sooner that participants transfer "ownership" of a position from the individual to the group, the more likely that the group will adopt that position.
Of course, this is only what I have seen in my experience in Working Groups ; it may be more effective in other types of groups to seek "non-objection" as a path to decision-making without also seeking to change people's views.
This observation is offered only to assist this Subgroup in reaching decisions, both now and in the next very few weeks. Apologies for the philosophical digression.
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Sir. A discriminatory disputation had been raised apparently with misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC, We need to consider they there is RAA to be respected thus the absolute and ballet freedom does not exist nor relevant Presumably the Registrar indirectly referred to the likelihood of application of OFAC regulations which is commented by all ( see complication of expressed views) there is no direct or indirect relation between this case and OFAC thus it must be a) included the factual report as was requested by Greg on 13 and subsequent meeting b) the irrelevance of OFAC to the case needs to be reflected c) the silent situation. In RAA as described by my several message should be reflected I know you may not be in d'aboyer if the issue but kindly do not oppose to that Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2017, at 19:33, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all
1: I think registrars can set their business policies as they see fit. If they do not respect applicable law to the conduct of their business, ultimately that is their problem. ICANN should provide objective information to them, especially regarding sanctions regime. I understand that the difference between legal advice and objective information is a thin line to walk. In that sense, I believe that the current language of the recommendation better reflects that. I would not oppose referring to the media reports, although I find the formulation a bit vague and so I am not strongly in favour of adding it either.
2: For the same reasons as above, I am not in favour of seeing this added. Registrars are free to pursue their business as they see fit within the framework given by the law. And ultimately, to me, this is not a jurisdiction issue. It has been discussed that this could be discriminatory; maybe ICANN should do something about it, and certainly it can/could/should be discussed, but I do not think it has its place in the current recommendation.
3: I do not understand what the blue text adds, and to some extent what it means. Is someone undermining ICANN's awareness-rising processes? Besides, I am fine with the red text.
Best,
2017-09-26 8:52 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All, Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: · A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. · A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows: 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions. Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries. Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people). He received the following reply: Quote “On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com> wrote: Dear reseller (XXX) Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. Kind regards, Mark Assenberg” It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 8024 AA Zwolle +31 38 453 0752 The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company. They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision. It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. [Recommendation] The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case. The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability. The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.
Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.)
On suggested change 1:
1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate?
On suggested change 2: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere?
On suggested change3: 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to?
[1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
[2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California.
[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn - @rbl0012 - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Greg and all members of the subgroup. I support the draft with your edits in red, which are intended to accommodate the concerns of Arasteh Kavouss. I oppose ALL the proposed additional text suggested by Kavouss (in light blue). That text adds nothing substantive to the recommendations and #2 in particular recounts a specific incident in needless detail that is not relevant to the section it is placed in. I would remind us of the definition of rough consensus; it is clear that Kavouss’s changes have been proposed numerous times, we understand his reasoning, and yet they command _no support_ from anyone else. Therefore they can be left out of the report and we should proceed. I would remind Mr. Kavouss that his repetitive and dilatory insistence on these changes is actually undermining our attempt to make progress on OFAC sanctions and are against the interests of people in his own country. From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:53 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation All, Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: • A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. • A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows: 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions. Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries. Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people). He received the following reply: Quote “On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> wrote: Dear reseller (XXX) Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. Kind regards, Mark Assenberg” It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 8024 AA Zwolle +31 38 453 0752 The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company. They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision. It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. [Recommendation] The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case. The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability. The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined. Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.) On suggested change 1: 1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate? On suggested change 2: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere? On suggested change3: 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to? ________________________________ [1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. [2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California. [3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
Dear Milton Thank you for your comments But it would be more appropriate that you leave the issue of interest in my country to the people of my country and not others There is no need that you defend that interest . I understand that you may defending your own country,s interest which you have rights to do so Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2017, at 19:41, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Greg and all members of the subgroup. I support the draft with your edits in red, which are intended to accommodate the concerns of Arasteh Kavouss. I oppose ALL the proposed additional text suggested by Kavouss (in light blue). That text adds nothing substantive to the recommendations and #2 in particular recounts a specific incident in needless detail that is not relevant to the section it is placed in.
I would remind us of the definition of rough consensus; it is clear that Kavouss’s changes have been proposed numerous times, we understand his reasoning, and yet they command _no support_ from anyone else. Therefore they can be left out of the report and we should proceed.
I would remind Mr. Kavouss that his repetitive and dilatory insistence on these changes is actually undermining our attempt to make progress on OFAC sanctions and are against the interests of people in his own country.
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:53 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation
All,
Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary.
There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation.
To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion.
In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents:
· A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be.
· A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic.
The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows:
1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads:
There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions.
Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries.
Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation:
Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.
2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”:
An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people).
He received the following reply:
Quote
“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com> wrote:
Dear reseller (XXX)
Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.
Kind regards,
Mark Assenberg”
It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:
Yourholding
Ceintuurbaan 28
8024 AA Zwolle
+31 38 453 0752
The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.
They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.
It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses.
It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA.
[Recommendation]
The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case.
The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability.
The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA.
3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well.
ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.
Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.)
On suggested change 1:
1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate?
On suggested change 2:
1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere?
On suggested change3:
1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient?
2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to?
3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to?
[1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
[2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California.
[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, If I may, I'd like to return to two observations I made earlier in this thread, since I believe they apply to your latest email: *Opposition/non-support won't be eliminated by request; it needs to be eliminated by persuading the other person to see things differently so that their underlying position changes* *The positions in a Working Group (or Subgroup) Report need to be the consensus (aka rough consensus) of the Subgroup, not the views of any one participant.* I'll make one more observation: We should presume that a participant's opposition/non-support of a position is based on a substantive, thoughtful difference in views, rather than "*defending your own country's interest," at least when it comes to private sector participants. *Painting any disagreement as a partisan squabble substantially *reduces* the likelihood that consensus will be reached. I hope this will help the Subgroup's exchange of views and decision-making. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Milton Thank you for your comments But it would be more appropriate that you leave the issue of interest in my country to the people of my country and not others There is no need that you defend that interest . I understand that you may defending your own country,s interest which you have rights to do so Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Sep 2017, at 19:41, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Greg and all members of the subgroup.
I support the draft with your edits in red, which are intended to accommodate the concerns of Arasteh Kavouss.
I oppose ALL the proposed additional text suggested by Kavouss (in light blue). That text adds nothing substantive to the recommendations and #2 in particular recounts a specific incident in needless detail that is not relevant to the section it is placed in.
I would remind us of the definition of rough consensus; it is clear that Kavouss’s changes have been proposed numerous times, we understand his reasoning, and yet they command _*no support*_ from anyone else. Therefore they can be left out of the report and we should proceed.
I would remind Mr. Kavouss that his repetitive and dilatory insistence on these changes is actually undermining our attempt to make progress on OFAC sanctions and are against the interests of people in his own country.
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:53 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation
All,
Please take a few minutes to *read and respond* to this email, and the *proposed changes* discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary.
There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. *Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. *
To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion.
In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents:
· A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be.
· A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic.
*The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows:*
1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads:
*There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions.*
*Examples of that are related to Godaddy*[1]* and Online Nic,*[2]* which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries.*
Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation:
Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC.
2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”:
*An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people).*
*He received the following reply:*
*Quote*
*“On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com <sales@resello.com>> wrote:*
*Dear reseller (XXX)*
*Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport.*
*Kind regards,*
*Mark Assenberg”*
*It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding:*
*Yourholding*
*Ceintuurbaan 28 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28%0D+%0D+*8024+AA+Zwolle*&entry=gmail&source=g>*
*8024 AA Zwolle <https://maps.google.com/?q=Ceintuurbaan+28%0D+%0D+*8024+AA+Zwolle*&entry=gmail&source=g>*
*+31 38 453 0752 <+31%2038%20453%200752>*
*The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company.*
*They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision.*
*It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses.*
*It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA.*
*[Recommendation]*
*The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case.*
*The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability.*
*The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.**[3]** The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA.*
3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well.
ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. * The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined.*
Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.)
*On suggested change 1*:
1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change?
a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them?
b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup?
c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them)*.*
2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions.
a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to?
b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars?
3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”?
a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this?
b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate?
*On suggested change 2*:
1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC?
2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))?
3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation?
4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch)
5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions?
6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads:
a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships."
7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere?
*On suggested change3:*
1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient?
2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to?
3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to?
------------------------------
[1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
[2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California.
[3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Thanks Greg, I do not support the three suggested changes. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:53 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation All, Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: • A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. • A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows: 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions. Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries. Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people). He received the following reply: Quote “On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> wrote: Dear reseller (XXX) Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. Kind regards, Mark Assenberg” It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 8024 AA Zwolle +31 38 453 0752 The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company. They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision. It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. [Recommendation] The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case. The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability. The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined. Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.) On suggested change 1: 1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate? On suggested change 2: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere? On suggested change3: 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to? _____ [1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. [2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California. [3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
The statements in amendments to items 1 and 2 are speculative in nature, and do not rightly belong in a recommendation for specific action as part of Work Stream 2. So I do not support Greg’s proposed amendments 1 and 2. The proposed amendment to Recommendation 3 is less of a concern, so I am neutral on that one. Steve DelBianco From: <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 2:52 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation All, Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: · A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. · A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows: 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions. Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries. Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people). He received the following reply: Quote “On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> wrote: Dear reseller (XXX) Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. Kind regards, Mark Assenberg” It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 8024 AA Zwolle +31 38 453 0752 The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company. They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision. It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. [Recommendation] The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case. The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability. The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined. Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.) On suggested change 1: 1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate? On suggested change 2: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere? On suggested change3: 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to? ________________________________ [1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. [2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California. [3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
Dear Greg, Dear All I do not support adding change 1. Reason: I have no knowledge of the reports in the media, but more importantly, registrars are allowed to set their business policies as they prefer, as long as they respect applicable law and are not violating contract conditions with ICANN. I do not support adding change 2. Reason: Registrars are allowed to set their business policies as they prefer, as long as they respect applicable law and are not violating contract conditions with ICANN. Furthermore, the proposed text is very detailed and does not seem relevant for the section it is proposed to be added to. I do not support adding change 3. Reason: I don’t see any added value in the suggested text. Best, Finn Sendt fra min iPad Fra: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Greg Shatan Sendt: 26. september 2017 08:53 Til: ws2-jurisdiction Emne: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Response Requested: Proposed Changes to OFAC Recommendation All, Please take a few minutes to read and respond to this email, and the proposed changes discussed here, so that we can finalize the OFAC Recommendation and send it to the Plenary. There are three remaining proposed changes as far as I can tell. These changes are below. Please indicate whether you support adding any of proposed changes 1, 2 and/or 3 to the OFAC Recommendation. To make it easy, please respond along the lines of “I [support/do not support] adding change 1” or “I would support change 1 with the following revisions.” If you think it would help others, please explain your conclusion. In addition to the changes, I have attached two documents: • A draft of the OFAC Recommendation that incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Kavouss. Where unclear, I placed a change where it seemed most likely intended to be. • A document with virtually all of the emails devoted to these proposed changes, arranged chronologically by topic. The proposed changes suggested by Kavouss are as follows: 1. The first proposed change appears intended to be added to the Issue and Recommendation “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.” The first part reads: There are several reports in the media that US-Based and Non-US registrars have asked registrants to transfer out their domains immediately because they might get affected by US sanctions. Examples of that are related to Godaddy[1] and Online Nic,[2] which made pressure against registrants having citizenship of Sanction countries. Kavouss asked that the second part be inserted into the corresponding Recommendation: Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC. 2. The second proposed change relates to an action taken by Resello, a Dutch registrar. It’s also unclear where this would go (it does not seem to fit in the section “Application of OFAC Limitations by Non-US Registrars.”) Perhaps it would go into a new section, possibly entitled “Policy of not Doing Business with Iranian Customers/Resellers (Unconnected to OFAC/Sanctions) by a Non-US Registrar”: An individual domain Name Iranian National reseller residing outside Iran sent a request to <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> in an online form, asking to become reseller of Domain Name in Iran (to sell domains to Iranian people). He received the following reply: Quote “On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Resello Sales <sales@resello.com<mailto:sales@resello.com>> wrote: Dear reseller (XXX) Unfortunately our policy restricts doing business with Iranian customers/resellers, even if they aren't living in Iran, but have an Iranian passport. Kind regards, Mark Assenberg” It is worth mentioning that Resello is a subsidiary company for following holding: Yourholding Ceintuurbaan 28 8024 AA Zwolle +31 38 453 0752 The name is Yourholding and they are based in Netherlands. So they are not US-Based company. They do not want to explain why they don't want to provide service to Iranian. They say, they is our internal policy decision. It is important to make it clear that none of Registrars and service providers which are not US Nationals or not based in USA cannot make internal policies to avoid giving services to a given citizens. This is a global business not a personal decision of a company or its managers. They must fully observe the expected behaviour and responses. It is important to emphasize that non-US based companies should not to replicate the rules inside USA. [Recommendation] The group in attempting to address the case mentioned above thought that the above situation might have been arised as result of misinterpretation of applicability of OFAC Regulation to the case. The Group concluded that there was no relation between the case and OFAC Regulation and its applicability. The Group also did not find any provision in RAA to obligate the Resello to get into a business with the domain name reseller to provide the requested domain name did not find also any provision in the RAA to allow the registrar to reject / deny the request.[3] The group therefore considered / recommends that there is a need that ICANN further examine the matter with a view to address the silent point in the RAA. 3. The third suggested change is intended to change the Recommendation relating to General Licenses. After Kavouss suggested several changes (including the language in blue), I added the red language to reflect Kavouss’s changes in a way that seemed to read better in the text. After the red language was added, Kavouss continued to request that the language in blue be added as well. ICANN should then pursue one or more OFAC general licenses at the earliest possible time, unless significant obstacles were discovered in the “study” process. If there are significant obstacles, ICANN should report them to the [empowered] community and seek its advice on how to proceed. If unsuccessful, ICANN would need to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions between ICANN and residents of sanctioned countries to be consummated with a minimum of “friction.” It is critical that ICANN communicate regularly about progress toward securing general licenses, in order to raise awareness in the ICANN community and with affected parties. The role of ICANN, to make awareness about such situation is critical and should not be undermined. Finally, there have been a number of questions asked about each of these suggested changes, which have largely gone unanswered. I’ve rephrased and listed them here, since it could be helpful for the Subgroup to consider them (or see if any members might answer them). (I am not suggesting these questions need to be answered to evaluate the proposed changes.) On suggested change 1: 1. Do you have the “reports in the media” referred to in the proposed change? a. If the Subgroup has not seen the reports in the media, can the Subgroup Report refer to them, or the activities reported in them? b. For US registrars, considering that they have to comply with OFAC, is this an issue for this Subgroup? c. For non-US registrars, why isn’t the current text of this section of the OFAC Recommendation sufficient? (It discusses possible mistaken application of OFAC sanctions by non-US registrars because they think contracting with ICANN imposes OFAC compliance obligations on them). 2. Since GoDaddy and OnlineNIC are both US-based registrars, does it make sense to refer to them?who are required to comply with OFAC sanctions. a. Do you know what “made pressure against” refers to? b. Are there any example of this “pressure”? With non-US registrars? 3. What does it mean to say “Registrars should be reminded that they should not normally examine zero risk policy in regard of penalties imposed by OFAC”? a. If this refers to the exercise of business or legal judgment of registrars, do you believe it is appropriate for the Subgroup Report to comment on this? b. What proposed issue does this Recommendation resolve/remediate? On suggested change 2: 1. Is this an example of a non-US Registrar complying with OFAC sanctions? Where is the connection to OFAC? 2. What section of the RAA is being violated by this business decision (i.e., a registrar deciding not to do business with citizens of a given country (whether it is Canada, Haiti, Iran or otherwise))? 3. If Resello's business decision does not seem to be related to OFAC, US jurisdiction or to any ICANN-related jurisdiction, does the Subgroup approve this as an “Issue” or our group to make a Recommendation on? If so, what recommendation? 4. Is this possibly an EU sanctions issue (the registrar is Dutch) 5. If this is possibly an EU sanctions issue, should we get into interpreting EU sanctions? 6. Why is the current language of the Recommendation insufficient? It reads: a. "ICANN needs to bring awareness of these issues to registrars. ICANN should clarify to registrars that the mere existence of their RAA with ICANN does not cause them to be required to comply with OFAC sanctions. ICANN should also explore various tools to remind registrars to understand the applicable laws under which they operate and to accurately reflect those laws in their customer relationships." 7. What connection does this have to OFAC sanctions or to ICANN's "jurisdiction" -- in the US or elsewhere? On suggested change3: 1. Why is the language already added to the text (in red) insufficient? 2. What situation does “make awareness about such situation” refer to? 3. Is there a concern that something will be “undermined”? What does this refer to? ________________________________ [1] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: GoDaddy is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in Delaware as GoDaddy, LLC and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. [2] NOTE TO SUBGROUP: OnlineNIC is a U.S.-based registrar incorporated in California as OnlineNIC, Inc. and headquartered in San Leandro, California. [3] Resello’s “General Terms and Conditions,” for resellers state in Article 1.1 that “acceptance by Resello … may be refused without reason.” https://www.resello.com/agreement
participants (8)
-
Arasteh -
Finn Petersen -
Greg Shatan -
McAuley, David -
Mueller, Milton L -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX -
Steve DelBianco