[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi John,

Respectfully, if you are commenting on this issue (which is a statement addressed to the ISOC Board), I think you should make it clear that you are a current member of the ISOC Board.

And ICANN policy does not supersede national law vis-a-vis requests say, for, law enforcement data. If the Chinese government requests the billing data for a registrant who is a Hong Kong dissident, which is data collected by PIR but not even subject to the registry agreement, would Ethos challenge the Chinese government’s request?

Regards, Ayden

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 21:30, John Levine <icggov at johnlevine.com> wrote:

> In article <ra9OhJUD8y54axTJtUzRwatTAFA-vOhiRc-GgtG4orhgvZz_p_KJJxMb50GOlqasWWJjjf2JnaqUM5WZpk3pH5nM2f4WLPDxEFPAsTPT5Sg=@ferdeline.com> you write:
>>Could .ORG registrants in China be assured, once Ethos Capital takes ownership of PIR, that if the
>>Chinese government requested the contact information of a .ORG registrant, that Mr Chehade would
>>not instruct Ethos Capital to do as the Chinese government wishes?
>
> Disclosing registrant information would be a violation of section 2.18
> of the registry agreement and grounds for ICANN to revoke the
> contract. Why would they take that risk?
>
> Also, Ethos says Fadi is an advisor, not the owner. It's hard to
> imagine why they would take instructions from him.
>
> R's,
> John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20191205/72ddb2bc/attachment.htm>