[APAC-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Re: ccTLD Revocation
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 06:27:06 UTC 2013
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.
>
More information about the APAC-Discuss
mailing list