Scott, all, On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 12:26:25PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > context of technical issues with the draft. The registration of domain > > names in some jurisdictions may be subject to various requirements that > > involve verification by a party other than the registry. > > > > Could you please be so kind to link to some of these legal requirements? > > There are several examples of registry operators that require verification as > part of their domain registration process. Here are a few ccTLD examples: > > https://www.denic.de/en/faqs/faqs-for-domain-applicants/#faq-19 while in fact we do have some requirements - as laid out in this FAQ snippet, none of those involve third party validation, let alone at registration time. [...] > Any one of these registries could use the verification code approach if it > were available. Technically speaking, we do not use EPP, so we cannot serve as an example. Conceptually, since no ex-ante validation is involved, this extension would not be of interest for us. > In addition, Section 3.7.2 of the 2013 ICANN Registrar Accreditation > Agreement (RAA) says, "Registrar shall abide by applicable laws and > governmental regulations". I'm not sure how this would help make the case. It doesn't need ICANN nor the RAA to bind registrars to applicable law and regulation. In the opposite direction, I don't think that each and every "local" requirement (automatically) has to result in a standardized extension. I do think, though, that this WG - and the IESG - might want to be extra careful regarding the boundaries between protocol and policy. -Peter _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
