Dear all, dear Kavouss

Thank you for your email.

The PDP I am referring to is that set out in the ICANN bylaws for the ccNSO: <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexB>

I have tried to be as clear as I can be on the process question. The policy regarding delegations of ccTLD managers is in RFCs and has most recently been understood through the lens of Framework of Interpretation, a joint effort between the ccNSO and the GAC (see https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-and-redelegations for 2015 Board adoption of the report).

Arising from that work the ccNSO has commenced a PDP dealing with the first of two issues, that being how to deal with the retirement of a ccTLD.

There is another PDP to come, on how to resolve disputes regarding the delegation, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs.

It seems to me that the example you raise below is one that would give rise to a dispute, and it is the mechanism to resolve such disputes that is not clear today. That's why the ccNSO will conduct a PDP to make it clear.

My interventions have aimed only to remind everyone in this group that the CCWG can't make policy on this subject. It has no authority or scope to do so, because policy on these ccTLD subjects is the responsibility of the ccNSO.

My purpose in offering that reminder is so that all of the participants in the group can choose where to focus their discussion. There might be other matters where the group can make recommendations with more impact. The group might think that offering views on those is more important. Or, it might think that offering views for the ccNSO to consider is more important. I haven't got a view either way - the ccNSO's sole responsibility for making policy on ccTLD matters isn't in doubt.

I just want to make sure that everyone is clear about what this group can do, and on the specific point of ccTLD policy, what it cannot do. I have no view about the GNSO. I am not suggesting this group or the CCWG "consult" the ccNSO per se. Even if the ccNSO could respond with an opinion about jurisdiction matters, that would still be of no use to the CCWG in making recommendations. Any recommendations that dealt with ccTLD policy would lead to the CCWG's recommendations on the subject being unable to be adopted by the ICANN Board.

Since this is only one very narrow matter in the wide range of jurisdiction-related topics, I am sure there is no need to close this group or deny Greg the right to keep doing the hard work he is doing to be the rapporteur in this interesting and vital area.

All best regards,

Jordan

On 18 September 2017 at 02:47, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Jordan
I am not sure what type of PDP you suggest for unilateral decision of American court for delegation or transfer of .ir to third party .
We wish to limit such type of order as well as the potential influence of US government or any other government to interfere with the ccTLD of any other country based on founded or non founded claims
If neither ICANN not any other entity is authorised to intervene or interfere with ccTLD of any country or any geographic territory that equally applies to US government, US court and say other government and its court
Fortunately New Zealand or U.K. ccTLD were not yet subject to such interference
Pls kindly clarify your position . In other word are you supporting such interference or opposing to that
Reply to Milton
If you believe that the sub group should consult GNSO and Jordan and Nigel believe that the subgroup should consult ccNSO to address such disturbing unilateral influence of US government and its court and any other government and its court then we need to close the shop of Grec and stop all discussions
Regards
Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

On 15 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:

The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters can be made.

That’s fine. The same is true of the GNSO and the ASO for that matter. This subgroup identifies problems and recommends solutions.
It’s up to others to develop policies to implement the solutions.

Dr. Milton Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

<image002.jpg>

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive

InternetNZ

Office: +64 4 495 2118 | Mobile: +64 21 442 649 | Skype: jordancarter

Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz