Re: [HR-rt] [regext] Human Rights Review of draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode

Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> Fri, 05 October 2018 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
X-Original-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hr-rt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44298130DE7; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0UBkgaKa92Zq; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx5b.knipp.de (kmx5b.knipp.de [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:29::6a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA6C3130DDA; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 00:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx5b.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1173000FA; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 07:39:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41D870BD0; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:39:12 +0200 (MESZ)
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'lists@digitaldissidents.org'" <lists@digitaldissidents.org>, "'jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org'" <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "'hr-rt@irtf.org'" <hr-rt@irtf.org>, "'hrpc@irtf.org'" <hrpc@irtf.org>, "'regext@ietf.org'" <regext@ietf.org>, "'gurshabad@cis-india.org'" <gurshabad@cis-india.org>
References: <EE368E9F-E08F-4960-BC0D-88B94D66EF02@verisign.com> <20181003134215.GA23633@mir> <641561c1e0c94f93b45ff3c0809cea27@verisign.com>
From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Message-ID: <e0843f57-64ca-9b2e-c762-d4d6af7f9474@knipp.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 09:39:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/64.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <641561c1e0c94f93b45ff3c0809cea27@verisign.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: kmx5b.knipp.de
X-Rspamd-Server: s671
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AF1173000FA
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; IP_WHITELIST(0.00)[195.253.2.54]; NEURAL_HAM(-0.00)[-0.123,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:195.253.0.0/16, country:DE]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hr-rt/0_6v2i8fpuybLy1cZkjp5r8zVxk>
Subject: Re: [HR-rt] [regext] Human Rights Review of draft-ietf-regext-verificationcode
X-BeenThere: hr-rt@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Human Rights Protocol Considerations Review Team <hr-rt.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hr-rt/>
List-Post: <mailto:hr-rt@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hr-rt>, <mailto:hr-rt-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 07:39:19 -0000

On 04.10.18 14:26, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Niels ten Oever
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 9:42 AM
>> To: Gould, James <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;
>> Cc: hr-rt@irtf.org; hrpc@irtf.org; regext@ietf.org; gurshabad@cis-
>> india.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Human Rights Review of draft-ietf-regext-
>> verificationcode
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:14:10PM +0000, Gould, James wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review, Gurshabad. I'll consider your feedback in the
>> 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
> 

Hi Scott,

sorry to say that, but for DENIC, this is not correct. Of course, the registrar 
is obliged to provide a valid registrant address, but there is no mandatory, 
automated pre- nor post-validation of it in the DENIC registration process. Only 
in case of a complaint of a third party (for an obvious "Mickey Mouse" or 
incomplete address), DENIC requests the registrar to provide a correct address.

The link you provided refers to the case that the domain is involved in a 
lawsuit. It is a requirement that has been changed in the context of the EU GDPR 
and has actually been relaxed compared to the previous requirements.

Regards,

Klaus