Hi, I completely agree with Gurshabad assessment. But as others already pointed out, it is an intended consequence of the extension. In the context of domain registration, privacy cannot be expected. So my question is rather, does this extension make the situation worse?
As you were asking for examples. China and Denmark require preregistration of registrants. Denmark does even require preregistration of hosts. Denmark has plans to only allow registrations with a Danish electronic id. In my assessment, a registrant cannot have any expectation of privacy. And therefore the extension does not worsen the situation for the registrant. /Ulrich Vittorio Bertola <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi., 3. Okt. 2018 um 17:05 Uhr: > Il 3 ottobre 2018 alle 15.42 Niels ten Oever < [email protected]> > ha scritto: > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:14:10PM +0000, Gould, James wrote: > > The draft is intended for interoperability and is independent of the > verification process. > > > I am a bit confused with your reasoning that the verificationcode > extension has is independent from the implementation of this extension, > because the extension exists to enable implementation, right? Why else > would it exist? > > The EPP extension takes no position on specific verification processes > which are a "local matter" for the implementation. > > The EPP extension does enable it, so it does have a position on it. > > This exchange strikes me because of the discussion that we have been > having on content tagging on HRPC (Nalini, Barry and I are still working on > it). > > So my question is: is any protocol that supports additional points of > content control at the national level favouring censorship, and thus > inherently bad and contrary to human rights? > > Or even, if you prefer: is all censorship inherently bad? More > specifically, if the national government or policy verification authority > used the proposed EPP extension to block the registration of > lets-kill-all-the-jews.cctld or child-pornography-for-everyone.cctld, is it > censoring the Internet, or is it just doing its job on behalf of its > citizens? > > And in that context, shouldn't the right to free expression of the user be > balanced with the right to cultural and legal sovereignty of that country's > citizens, which may end up establishing laws which legitimately make some > content illegal in their country? (not to mention the rights of the people > that may be harmed by the circulation of certain content) > > All in all, and with no offense for the reviewer's laudable efforts, the > assessment in the review that any local point of control is bad because it > could be used to harm someone's rights is IMHO too simplistic: it could > also be used to defend someone else's rights. > > Regards, > > -- > > Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange > [email protected] > Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext > -- Ulrich Wisser [email protected]
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
