[governance] Proposed statement on .ORG sale

[John Levine]

In article <pZcSxdQFegV3fDhki4M3JQzRFTBqJqAe8h2QwypNc_Qstow-4SglGXEscA9bk0i-wpgqbsELfiq6TKFI2SyPvqCdnYP_7AFAQi9yW4oNBoA=@ferdeline.com> you write:
>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?

Registries such as PIR have no registrant billing data.  The
registrant pays the registrar, not the registry.  In many cases there
are even more levels, where the registrant pays a reseller who pays
the registrar who pays the registry.

As far as I can tell, all the info that the registry does have is
covered by section 2.18 of the agreement which forbids disclosing it
outside of the purposes for which it was collected.

Of course, PIR is in the US and is subject to US law, not Chinese law.

R's,
John