Excellent discussion on this thread. Eduardo Diaz has raised an important gap about the interpretation of RFC1591 (based on a real case), which puts into question whether or not the IANA Operator is empowered to act in cases where there is a request to revocate from a local government (backed by local law), but where there are no operational problems and no substantial misbehavior on the part of the ccTLD Operator. The gap is a valid one, and since there is concern in our community about this issue, I suggest that it be flagged as a gap in the ALAC statement to the ccNSO on revocation that requires a resolution (irrespective of the status of discussions between the GAC and the ccNSO). Hong Xue has raised an important issue on establishing a requirement for the IANA Operator to consult with local government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator. I generally think this is good practice that our community can advocate for. Noting that trust in governments can vary depending on context, I would like to ask: Are there any concerns about this? If not, I would propose adding this requirement into the ALAC statement as well. Best regards, Rinalia On Dec 5, 2013 8:24 AM, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, whether the IANA operator should, in any case, follow the competent authority's decision, has been raised by GAC when ccNSO presented its report on "revocation". So far both sides have yet to work out a solution to coherently interpret how to make sure the revocation by IANA according to the RFC 1591 consistent with the GAC Principles. Roughly, revocation is deemed a narrow conception that does not involve "re-delegation", which is in the sovereignty of the government of the ccTLD territory. Then we could run into a puzzling situation in which a revoked ccTLD operator may be re-delegated back by the government. Who then should have the final say in this regard? Could the (disputed) ccTLD manager appeal to the ICANN Board or sue ICANN to the court of CA?
To avoid the above conflict of "enforcement", I mentioned on confluence wiki that IANA operator would better consult the local government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator. Otherwise, the IANA's revocation decision would either be backfired at the ccTLD territory or cycling back and forth without finality.
Hong
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
As a matter of practical matter the IANA operator should follow the government mandate regardless of "colouration". Otherwise who is the judge?
-ed
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>wrote:
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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- *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. _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org