[Ccpdp-rm] On RFC1591 and "binding"

[Sean Copeland]

Hi,

While I appreciate Patricio’s perspective entirely, I believe the unintended consequence would be more severe to see the IDNB section of 1591 as dead. 

Moreover, a quick review shows any number of RFC’s Jon Postel penned in whole or in part have been obsoleted by subsequent RFC’s by different authors. 

There is an argument here that 1591 itself needs to be updated and made obsolete, though it’s well beyond the scope of this working group.  FoI could have made this recommendation but did not. 

I do have to agree with Dr E on this.

Regards,

Sean


> On Apr 21, 2021, at 9:00 AM, el--- via Ccpdp-rm <ccpdp-rm at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> […]
> _______________________________________________
> Ccpdp-rm mailing list
> Ccpdp-rm at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccpdp-rm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccpdp-rm/attachments/20210421/73ba6a08/attachment.html>