[ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Re: ccTLD Revocation

Eduardo Diaz eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com
Thu Dec 5 02:46:00 UTC 2013


Rinalia:

I agree with you in adding Hong's case in the ALAC statement as well. These
issues are not interpreted at all and they should. It will help the IANA
operator in creating clear, concise, transparent and standard procedures
for all types of revocation.

-ed


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> > >> > Date: Dec 2, 2013 7:12 AM
> > >> > Subject: Re: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation
> > >> > To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Ed,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> what do you think?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Rinalia
> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> > >> From: "Keith Davidson" <keith at internetnz.net.nz>
> > >> > >> Date: Nov 22, 2013 3:26 AM
> > >> > >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ccTLD Revocation
> > >> > >> To: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>
> > >> > >> Cc: "apralo" <apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC
> Working
> > >> > List"
> > >> > >> <alac at 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 at internetnz.net.nz
> > >> > >>> <mailto:keith at 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 at pasifikanexus.nu
> > >> > >>>         <mailto:sala at 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 at gmail.com
> > >> > >>>             <mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at 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 at atlarge-lists.__icann.org
> > >> > >>>                 <mailto:APAC-Discuss at 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 at atlarge-lists.__icann.org
> > >> > >>>         <mailto:APAC-Discuss at 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 at atlarge-lists.__icann.org
> > >> > >>>     <mailto:APAC-Discuss at 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 at 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+(ALAC)
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> ALAC mailing list
> > >> ALAC at 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+(ALAC)
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> >
> > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at 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+(ALAC)
>



-- 
*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.



More information about the ALAC mailing list