On principle yes, I could agree with Eduardo. But as a practical matter, 'colouration' of the government will always be an issue. So then as a practical matter, I am loathe to believe that a request -for example - from one of the little fellas or one of those places where the cult of personality is the supreme law..or where they count the votes before they are cast....should be both compelling and binding. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Keith,
Please have a look at Eduardo's response (forwarded below), which is guided by a real case.
Can you kindly venture into the shades of nuance to address the situation that he has highlighted?
I think this discussion will be useful for the ALAC in considering its input on revocation.
Best regards,
Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Eduardo Diaz" <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> Date: Dec 2, 2013 7:12 AM Subject: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Cc:
Rinalia:
Governments may be treated as another stakeholder as far as the RFC-1591 is concerned but a government with a mandate, e.g. a "local law", to revocate, should have more weight and standing than any other
stakeholder.
So the question still stands: if a government requests a revocation without reaching a consent with the ccTLD manager, will the IANA operator send it back to be resolved locally? If so, the ccTLD manager has the last saying in the whole process. The applicability of "local law" in the RFC 1591 should be clearly interpreted by the framework to cover cases like these.
-ed
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Ed,
what do you think?
Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz> Date: Nov 22, 2013 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Cc: "apralo" <apac-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Hi Rinalia, all,
We have discussed the concept of Governments vs other parties who seek a revocation, and see no reason to differentiate governments from any other stakeholder group in this regard. In terms of the policies outlined in RFC1591, governments are not accorded any special status, but references are made to the applicability of "local law" instead.
The shades of nuance of the difference, or sameness of this could take quite some debate - which I am happy to entertain if you think it useful.
Cheers
Keith
On 22/11/2013 6:55 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Keith,
Thank you for jumping in on this issue. Can you clarify on whether the WG discussed in any way how revocation should be handled if it is requested by governments and if there are special criteria that would apply in such cases?
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Nov 22, 2013 1:46 AM, "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:keith@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote:
Just as an aside, I am the Chair of the Working Group that drafted the Revocation document as part of the overall Framework of Interpretation working group in ICANN, so if there are issues or clarifications required on this, I would be happy to discuss with folks on this list.
Cheers
Keith
On 22/11/2013 2:09 a.m., Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Sala,
There is time for input, but the urgency level must be maintained as the ALAC is scheduled to vote on the statement on 12th December. I recognize that the issue affects many interested parties, which is why I sent out a second call for comments recently. I look forward to more input on the important topic of revocation from the community with Maureen's mobilization and coordination.
Thank you for your help.
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Nov 21, 2013 8:48 PM, "Sala T" <sala@pasifikanexus.nu <mailto:sala@pasifikanexus.nu>> wrote:
Dear Rinalia,
Thank you for this. Since this first came out, I had sent it to the region and also to the Regulators, ccTLD managers and Government Policy makers. I had a meeting with Pacific Regional Regulators Resource Center which is a unit comprising all the Regulators and Policy makers. Some of them are also members of ALSes in the Pacific.
There was overwhelming response that they were busy with Plenipotentiary preparations.
I will be having another meeting with some of them for the purpose of feeding into the process and hopefully by crowd-sourcing where there are geographical challenges. I will work with Maureen to feed this into the wiki etc. This may involve having a specific webinar and will brief Maureen and get her to take the lead on this as she is ALAC and ccNSO liaison.
Please give us time to put submissions in.
Best Regards, Sala
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 19, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear At-Large Colleagues,
The ALAC is preparing a statement on the topic of ccTLD "revocation",
which
refers to a process where the IANA Operator rescinds the responsibility
for
the management of a ccTLD from the manager. In such a situation, a
country
code Top Level Domain will be re-delegated without the consent of the incumbent ccTLD manager in cases where there are “persistent problems
with
the operations of the domain” and where there continues to be
“substantial
misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite the IANA Operator’s
best
efforts to stop the misconduct.
A draft statement has been prepared and is available for your
input/comment
on the following wikipage: https://community.icann.org/__ pages/viewpage.action?pageId=__43980716
<https://community.icann.org/ pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43980716>
If you have thoughts or opinions on this topic, please do provide your input/comments on the wikipage.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Rinalia _________________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.__icann.org <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__ org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss
< https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac- discuss>
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_________________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.__icann.org <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann. __org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss>
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_________________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.__icann.org <mailto:APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.__org/mailman/listinfo/apac-__discuss
<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss>
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)