<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">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, <i>as interpreted by the FoI</i>".</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>Of course, the most obvious part that clearly is not relevant anymore is where it says</div><div><br></div><div><pre style="font-size:13.3333px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0)">It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created</pre></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Patricio</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:01 PM el--- via Ccpdp-rm <<a href="mailto:ccpdp-rm@icann.org">ccpdp-rm@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div dir="auto">Patricio,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
greetings, el<br></div>
</div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br>
<div dir="auto">—
<div dir="auto">Sent from Dr Lisse’s iPhone</div>
</div>
</div>
<div name="messageReplySection">
<div dir="auto">On 21 Apr 2021, 17:34 +0200, Patricio Poblete via Ccpdp-rm <<a href="mailto:ccpdp-rm@icann.org" target="_blank">ccpdp-rm@icann.org</a>>, wrote:</div>
<blockquote style="border-left:thin solid rgb(26,188,156);margin:5px;padding-left:10px">Hello,<br>
<br>
Reading the material for tomorrow's meeting, and in particular<br>
<br>
ccPDP-RM Topic Cluster 1 summary paper v1<br>
<br>
I came across these sentences:<br>
<br>
"<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">RFC said that decision should be binding"</span><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">"</span><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px">RFC 1591 said that decision should be binding"</span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px">These sentences clearly refer to the decisions of the IDNB (Internet DNS Names Review Board).</span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px">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.</span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px">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".</span><br>
<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px">Patricio</span></blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px">[…]</span></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ccpdp-rm mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccpdp-rm@icann.org" target="_blank">Ccpdp-rm@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccpdp-rm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccpdp-rm</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></div></div>