[Ncsg-discuss] Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Statement of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on the Suspension of Domain Services

[Niels ten Oever]

Hi all,

I think it is quite telling that PIR is not responding whatsoever to the
questions regarding the human rights impact assessment framework and
appeal process.

PIR is pretty much saying that they have no space to maneuver
whatsoever, which I think is very much underplaying their actual
responsibilities as a public interest actor. Also because they pass on
the impact to much less resourced civil society actors.

I think we should follow-up to this as well as the statement by ISOC on
this:

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2026/10/why-internet-infrastructure-decisions-rarely-stay-localized/

Curious to hear what other people think about this.

Best,

Niels




On 10/15/26 16:34, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> 
> Please find PIR response to our letter.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Rafik - Thank you for your letter. Public Interest Registry (PIR)
> is a U.S.-based organization and is required to comply with U.S. law,
> including applicable sanctions. In this case, the affected .ORG domain
> name was identified on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
> Asset Control (OFAC) Specially Designated Global Terrorist List.
> Therefore, PIR is legally mandated to suspend it. The registrant of the
> domain has a right to challenge the designation determination. PIR has
> no involvement in that process. Should the registrant be successful in
> such a proceeding, the suspension would be lifted. This was not a
> discretionary suspension under our Anti-Abuse Policy; this was a
> compulsory compliance action. 
> 
> 
> Regarding the referenced General License, that specific License strictly
> covers transactions that are "ordinarily incident and necessary to the
> wind down of any transaction," and because suspension of a domain name
> does not require any “wind-down,” this situation falls outside of the
> covered scope of the license. While some OFAC General Licenses permit
> transactions that cover “the maintenance of operations” in their scope,
> this License does not. As OFAC has clarified in its guidance in other
> wind-down situations (_see_ OFAC Frequently Asked Questions, Question
> 975), wind-down authorizations without this maintenance of operations
> coverage are not grace periods to continue ongoing business activities
> but are applicable only where a transaction genuinely requires a process
> to unwind rather than where the service can be stopped immediately.
> Evidently, other service providers, including Paypal and the
> registrant’s bank, interpreted the License the same way. 
> 
> 
> We are not in a position to assess the validity of, or override, OFAC’s
> determination of a terrorist organization. We understand the concerns,
> but they are best directed towards the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> Brian Cimbolic
> Chief Legal and Industry Affairs Officer 
> 
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator - critical infrastructure lab - University of
Amsterdam
Assistant Professor - Department of European Studies - University of
Amsterdam

W: https://criticalinfralab.net
W: https://nielstenoever.net
PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C