[Ccpdp-rm] On RFC1591 and "binding"

[Patricio Poblete]

Perhaps we can't mix and match, but when writing the FoI Report we did pick
and choose. Which was OK, because we were aware that not everything in
RFC1591 was still relevant, and much of what was relevant needed
interpretation. That is why I believe the correct way to cite RFC1591 now
is as "RFC1591, *as interpreted by the FoI*".

Of course, the most obvious part that clearly is not relevant anymore is
where it says

It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created


but if we restrict ourselves to what has to do with ccTLDs, I believe the
IDNB is one such part. In fact, when we addressed the matter of Delegations
in the FoI, we copied from RFC1591 the requirement that that Significantly
Interested Parties should agree that the designated manager is the
appropriate party and that other Stakeholders should have some voice in
selecting the manager, but we ignored completely the IDNB and the
possibility that it could be brought back to life (brought to life,
actually) to review cases where contending parties could not agree among
themselves.

I think that for the review mechanism that we are tasked to design this
point does not make much difference. But it does make us look detached from
reality when we speak of the IDNB as something somehow real, when it has
been "letra muerta" for decades.

Patricio


On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:01 PM 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/20210421/7e38cd98/attachment.html>