[APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Fwd: Re: Re: ccTLD Revocation
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Thu Dec 5 02:35:15 UTC 2013
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
>
More information about the APAC-Discuss
mailing list