[APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Re: ccTLD Revocation
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 21:32:01 UTC 2013
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)
>
More information about the APAC-Discuss
mailing list