[Ccpdp-rm] On RFC1591 and "binding"

[Patricio Poblete]

Hello,

Reading the material for tomorrow's meeting, and in particular

ccPDP-RM Topic Cluster 1 summary paper v1

I came across these sentences:

"RFC said that decision should be binding"
"RFC 1591 said that decision should be binding"

These sentences clearly refer to the decisions of the IDNB (Internet DNS
Names Review Board).

I do not feel comfortable taking that part of RFC1591 as authoritative nor
including them as a basis for our work. That section is what we call in
Spanish "letra muerta" (I don't know if "dead letter" conveys the same
meaning), i.e. a law that is still in the books, but that has lost its
power by not being applied. That part of RFC1591 was never implemented. The
IDNB never existed.

When in the FoI we stated that a manager should have the right to appeal a
decision of the IANA, I think that we took section  3.4 of RFC1591 as
inspiration, rather than as an affirmation of existing policy. Lacking
that, we would still have said the same on the basis of "the duty to act
fairly".

Patricio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210421/86a79082/attachment.html>