[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Potential Question for GAP Analysis Consideration for the Group

Michael Palage michael at palage.com
Sat Apr 16 16:21:37 UTC 2022

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-request-01feb22-en.pdf 


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-eu-toolbox-against-counterfeiting-06-04-2022-en.pdf  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,






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20220416/d9e6414d/attachment.html>

More information about the GNSO-Accuracy-ST mailing list