Patricio, my understanding (vis-a-vis with what GAC and ICANN was doing since 2000) is that when IANA "steps in" is just to provide valuable information for a fair proceedings... This information and positioning helps and informs the process to come to a conclusion... I really think it would be important for the easy transition not to overload IANA with police or deciding topics - keeping IANA just as an operational body... But may be I'm missing something best demi PS. RFC1591 is older than ICANN... With ICANN's inception we assumed in some way that the final decision about redelegations, originally in IANA, transited to ICANN, keeping IANA "funcion" just operational and informative... On 03/02/2015 11:09 PM, Patricio Poblete wrote:

I agree that the task of designing an appropriate appeals mechanism for ccTLD managers that have been subject to a revocation should be handled through a PDP in an appropriate time frame.

However, I cannot agree with Demi that IANA has no role in redelegations (except implementing what has been decided elsewhere). For instance, RFC1591 says

The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in.

So, the IANA has the power to "step in" in cases of "substantial mis-behavior". The FOI report says

4.2. The FOIWG interprets RFC1591 to permit the IANA Operator to revoke a ccTLD delegation in appropriate circumstances where the manager has substantially misbehaved (section 3.4 of RFC1591).

4.3. The FOIWG interprets “misbehaviour” (section 3.4 of RFC1591) in this context to refer to conduct involving the failure of a manager to (i) carry out the necessary responsibilities of that role, or (ii) carry out those responsibilities in the manner required by RFC1591.

4.4. The FOIWG interprets substantial misbehaviour (section 3.4 of RFC1591) to involve misbehaviour (as defined above) that is either egregious or persistent and may include performing the necessary responsibilities of a manager in a manner that imposes serious harm or has a substantial adverse impact on the Internet community by posing a threat to the stability and security of the DNS.

4.5. The FOIWG interprets RFC1591 to limit the IANA Operator’s authority to step-in to situations where substantial misbehaviour by the ccTLD manager (a) poses a risk to the security and stability of the DNS or (b) involves the manager's failure, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure, to perform the objective requirements (i.e., to be on the Internet, maintain IP and email connectivity, identify a technical contact and to identify an in-country administrative contact).

4.6. The FOIWG interprets RFC1591 to mean that the IANA Operator should not step in regarding issues of equity, justice, honesty, or – except insofar as it compromises the stability and security of the DNS – competency, and that such issues would be better resolved locally.

This is the FOI WG's interpretation of current policy. Are we going to change it as part of the stewardship transition process?

Patricio

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Demi Getschko <demi@nic.br <mailto:demi@nic.br>> wrote:

I think that the issue of delegations and redelegations is not related to IANA context. IANA just have to implement, in a right way, what it is decided in other police arenas... Better not to mix this issue with IANA oversight transition, in my view... Best demi

On 03/02/2015 07:34 PM, Keith Davidson wrote:

Hi all,

I would have thought the appropriate CWG action for this would be to recognise that RFC1591 recommends an appeals mechanism for delegations and redelegations, as highlighted by the FOI final report, and then call on the ccNSO and the ccTLD community to address this issue within a reasonable timeframe, recognising there is insufficient time to build an appropriate mechanism prior to the IANA transition.

To me, it is a waste of time and energy, as well as being out of scope, for the CWG to be addressing this issue. As ICANN contracted parties, the gTLD community is far removed from the issues surrounding RFC1591 and delegations and redelegations of ccTLDs. There is no commonality, and ccTLD delegations and redelegations is the sole property of the ccTLD community to resolve.

Cheers

Keith

On 3/03/2015 10:41 a.m., Chris Disspain wrote:

Jay, All,

Just for clarity, I am not saying that there shouldn't be a mechanism. Indeed as a member of the FoI WG I agreed with the report recommending that there should.

My point is simply that work on such a mechanism is for the ccTLDs to undertake and not within the remit of the CWG and not something that must be done prior to transition since such a mechanism, would need to be created within a PDP. Please tell me if that is wrong headed of me.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> E: ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important 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. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On 3 Mar 2015, at 08:01 , Jay Daley <jay@nzrs.net.nz <mailto:jay@nzrs.net.nz>> wrote:

Eberhard

It would be very helpful if we could separate out the two different points you are making as they are getting confused.

Your first point, that only the ccTLD manager should have the ability to object/appeal/etc is well understood and there is no consensus for anything different from that. Let's keep that separate from the second point.

Your second point that you don't want an independent appeal mechanism but would rather have a mechanism to fix the board is surprising. Weren't you a member and active participant in the FOI WG that produced the report that Patricio quoted?

4.8. Note: The FOIWG believes it is consistent with RFC1591 (section 3.4) and the duty to act fairly to recognize the manager has the right to appeal a notice of revocation by the IANA Operator to an independent body.

Have you now changed your mind?

best Jay

On 3/03/2015, at 9:54 am, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:

Jay,

you might want to read up on what a tort is.

But, the point I have been trying to make in Singapore is still pertinent, if something is wrong with the Board, we need to fix the Board not add more layers which later will need fixing.

We need to go much deeper than that, we need to figure out what a ccTLD is and what the relation of a ccTLD manager to the IANA Function Manager is.

Acknowledging that an appeal mechanism of any sort has input on a ccTLD would be contrary to my position.

With regards to what is wrong with the Board, interesting what the Malaysians say now about the .ML repatriation from in-country to abroad...

There can be 252 ccTLD Managers screaming, raving and ranting, about the 253rd but it doesn't matter, only what the 253rd (incumbent) manager says is relevant for that ccTLD.

el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

-- Jay Daley Chief Executive NZRS Ltd desk: +64 4 931 6977 <tel:%2B64%204%20931%206977> mobile: +64 21 678840 <tel:%2B64%2021%20678840> linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jaydaley>

_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity

To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>

_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity

To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>

_______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org> http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity

To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org <mailto:ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org>

_______________________________________________ Cctldworld mailing list Cctldworld@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld