Hi Mike, I do not think any of this is relevant to our work. The MIIT rules are about a government enforcing its regime of censorship and social control down to the registrant, not about accuracy. The request from ICANN also seems to be an issue more related to ICANN requesting information whether the requested change is really necessary, e.g. for Verisign to justify the request rather than trying to enforce national laws. This is purely a matter of ICANN being asked to change the registry obligations and wanting more info before it allows that. You are reading too much into this. Further, this kind of exercise would be something for the group members to undertake, not the chair. Once again, you are not moderating, you are trying to direct, and I find that objectionable. Best, -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. This email and any files transmitted are confidential and intended only for the person(s) directly addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, transmission, distribution, or other forms of dissemination is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this email with any files that may be attached. On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 6:22 PM Michael Palage <michael@palage.com> wrote:
Hello All,
I was reviewing some recent RSEP filings and I came across the following RSEP which I believe may be relevant to our work from a couple of perspectives. For those that may not be well verse in ICANN acronym parlance, RSEP stands for Registry Service Evaluation Process and is the mechanism by which Registries can roll-out/amend new registry services. A list of all RSEP filings are available here, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en
In connection with RSEP 2022004, there is a communication from Verisign “in response to ICANN’s January 28, 2022 request that Verisign submit non-confidential documentation regarding Verisign’s plans to comply with new local law compliance directives from MIIT associated with the Measures for the Administration of Domains Names.” See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rsep-2022004-verisign-et-al-requ...
There were a couple of things that jumped out at me after reading this communication. First, I found it out that ICANN was requesting information from Verisign about its “plans to comply with new local law compliance.” In the past I have cited to Section 3.7.2 of the 2013 RAA that states “Registrar shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations” and ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation that cite to “lessening the burdens of government.” Now when I have raised these points in the past, the consensus within the group seemed to be that ICANN was not responsible for enforcing national law. This view also seems to be consistent ICANN’s recent response to the European Union regarding counterfeiting where it stated “ICANN org does not enforce laws; this is a task for governments.” See https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/icann-evidence-e... Therefore, I found it odd that ICANN would be writing to Verisign about its compliance with national law.
The second question that popped into my head, did ICANN send out similar communication to all registry operators, or only those listed gTLD Registry Operators as approved by MIIT (see http://xn--eqrt2g.xn--vuq861b/#), or only those Registries that had previously sought RSEP related to Registration Validation? I guess this is question the group may want to ask Brian, alternatively I could individually file an DIDP request with ICANN, but they usually take 30 days and are generally lacking in the breath of their response. While the RySG representatives have repeatedly pushed back against specific registries being called out in our work, I just do not see how we can overlook something which on its face appears to be directly within our wheelhouse.
Third question, could ICANN Org provide this group a copy of the Measures for the Administration of Domains Names cites in its letter to Verisign. Given that ICANN has probably obtained a translation of this new law, it would be helpful if ICANN could provide both the Chinese as well as English versions.
Best regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________ GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list GNSO-Accuracy-ST@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-accuracy-st
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.