Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
This proposal indicates the possibility of blockage/removal of domains upon “lawful government legal process” so to comply with the “local law”. What would be “local law” in this case? Seeing that Verisign is a US based company, does “local law” limited to the US?
Although the April 26’s update mentioned that it is “not guarantee any government can seize or delete any domain name in the TLD”, the proposal still brings uncertainty on how to prevent possible abuse and violation to human right by certain countries that yet to have/obey to their own law(s).
In case the content hosted on a .NET domain violate some countries’s law, it may not be violating others. Hence, depending on the location of operator, removal of this .NET domain may not be needed. A more proper approach can be to only block access to the related .NET domain from within the concerning countries.
We are objecting this renewal proposal due to the uncertainty of possible abuse and/or violation to human right (freedom of speech specifically), clearer definitions and articles on refined condition of removal request / objection request / removal process needs to be implanted.