I came in contact with what you call "the US's naughty list (like Iran,
Cuba, Syria)" a couple of years ago, when I went to Myanmar in 2010,
2011, and 2012 to participate in "Barcamps".

2009 we had a few people from there participating in a Barcamp in Phnom
Penh, and as some visitors said they had plans to hold also Barcamps and
would like to have international participation - in case they get
permission - I agreed, and surprisingly there was a permission on short
notice in January 2010, so I went (with my ticket and hotel paid by myself).

They had expected to have up to 500, later up to 1000 local participants
- there were finally actually about 2500, 40% female (at a time when
ISOC databases did not consider it to be important to indicate gender
for members - I got this later changed).

I spoke about the history of the Internet in Cambodia - but I was asked
"next year" to share information about international Internet stuff.

Before I went to Myanmar in 2011, I raised the question of any support
for my visit to Myanmar, in person not in writing, with the top of ICANN
- "this does not fit into the structures."

I still went and talked about ICANN and ISOC. And there was a group of
about 20 people in a special meeting about ISOC. I had mentioned this to
ISOC headquarters staff, and I was instructed to keep my visits to
Myanmar strictly personal (at that time is was ISOC Cambodia Chapter
president), because ISOC registered in the USA is not allowed to have
"dealings" with Myanmar - though in 2012 the Yangon Barcamp meeting with
more than 3000 participants was officially opened by Aug San Suu Kyi.
Political change had already started.

So to be on the "US's naughty list" made all my Myanmar dealings (and
expenses) "personal."

So, yes, this is an important issue - and not only in theory, but as my
own experiences show.


Norbert
Cambodia
=





On 04/17/2015 03:31 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Robin, this is a question for the CWG as well, as they have been
> proposing all-American admin+oversight scenarios.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 04/16/2015 03:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> This is an excellent question which I have forwarded on to the CCWG Legal Sub-Team to prepare a response.  I will forward the CCWG Legal Sub-Team answer to this question on to this list when we have it - very soon!  Thanks for raising the issue.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>> Dear Legal Sub-Team,
>>>
>>> I've received the below question from a stakeholder group member about
>>> the implications of the US law, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
>>> under the Membership Model under consideration that I believe warrants an
>>> answer from our legal experts.
>>>
>>> Note: OFAC acts to prevent "prohibited transactions", which are
>>> considered trade or financial transactions and other dealings in which US
>>> persons [such as ICANN] may not engage unless authorized by OFAC or
>>> expressly exempted by statute.  OFAC enforces economic sanctions against
>>> countries, businesses, or groups of individuals, using the blocking of
>>> assets and trade restrictions to achieve US foreign policy and national
>>> security goals.  
>>>
>>> Will it be more difficult for participants in countries that are on the
>>> US's naughty list (like Iran, Cuba, Syria) to be able to participate in
>>> the reformed ICANN and to fully exercise equal rights given this US trade
>>> law OFAC?  Will they need to apply for and obtain a special exemption
>>> from OFAC in order to do so?  Does it make a difference between the two
>>> models under consideration how this law will impact participation from
>>> individuals in those countries?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2015, at 8:52 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I need some clarification regarding  the designators / membership models that  were introduced to enhance the accountability of ICANN.
>>>
>>> I have not looked into the details of these recommendations, I totally understand that membership is not at individual level but I would very much like to know how the intake of members by the constituencies work if we were to choose one of the models or if any other model is proposed. 
>>>
>>>
>>> I am interested in knowing how the membership intake is regulated. Will the constituencies remain autonomous in selecting their members?  If the intake is also regulated as it is with associations members then it might well be subject to the US sanction law that are applied to several countries. Therefore those located in countries sanctioned by the US cannot become members ! or it may cost alot. 
>>>
>>> This might not even be an issue and I might be off track and ignorant about this but getting an early clarification is better .
>>>
>>> Now you might ofcourse say that but the membership has nothing to do with financial transactions (which it might have sometimes). Please don't get me started. ISOC has more than once rejected the establishment of an Iran ISOC chapter with a very generic answer! stating  their great reason: OFAC doesnt let them ! But ofcourse that is wrong and ISOC can ask OFAC for a license but they won't bother, there might be other problems as well. Anyhow, ICANN has been dealing with OFAC very well so far. but I don't know what will happen in the future. So an answer from someone who knows better is much appreciated ! 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Farzaneh