[Ccpdp-rm] On RFC1591 and "binding"

[el at lisse.na]

Patricio,

we can’t mix and match, either we stand by RFC1591/FoI or we don’t. And This is on the level of dying in the ditch for me.

Never mind that while it may have been quite at hoc the IDNB seems to have been called a few times. But then a lot of what St. Jon did was ad hoc.

greetings, el

—
Sent from Dr Lisse’s iPhone
On 21 Apr 2021, 17:34 +0200, Patricio Poblete via Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm at icann.org>, wrote:
> 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/20210421/3a5692dd/attachment.html>