<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Eberhard,<div><br></div><div>The FoI did not speak of a review in the context of Delegations, which is where the RFC1591 mentions the IDNB. It does mention the right of appeal in the context of revocation.</div><div><br></div><div>Why does it matter to me? Because I think that the binding or not binding nature of a review should be discussed on its own merits, not because some old piece of scripture that was never implemented said so. I think that we will make a stronger case that way.</div><div><br></div><div>Patricio</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:53 PM Dr Eberhard W Lisse 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">Patricio,<br>
<br>
where is this coming from? And, now?<br>
<br>
The FoI clearly stated that it is appropriate to have a review. And<br>
this means binding. Whether the IDNB has ever existed, how it was<br>
composed, if at all, and whether it actually decided a case or two is<br>
hardly relevant.<br>
<br>
Never mind that there are very old statutes on book in many places. And<br>
remain in force unless specifically revoked. Whether the concept of<br>
"letra muerta" exists in some jurisdictions or not, I don't agree that<br>
statutes expire by themselves.<br>
<br>
el<br>
<br>
On 2021-04-21 22:38 , Patricio Poblete wrote:<br>
> Perhaps we can't mix and match, but when writing the FoI Report we did<br>
> pick and choose. Which was OK, because we were aware that not<br>
> everything in RFC1591 was still relevant, and much of what was<br>
> relevant needed interpretation. That is why I believe the correct way<br>
> to cite RFC1591 now is as "RFC1591, /as interpreted by the FoI/".<br>
><br>
> Of course, the most obvious part that clearly is not relevant anymore<br>
> is where it says<br>
><br>
> It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created<br>
><br>
><br>
> but if we restrict ourselves to what has to do with ccTLDs, I believe<br>
> the IDNB is one such part. In fact, when we addressed the matter of<br>
> Delegations in the FoI, we copied from RFC1591 the requirement that<br>
> that Significantly Interested Parties should agree that the designated<br>
> manager is the appropriate party and that other Stakeholders should<br>
> have some voice in selecting the manager, but we ignored completely<br>
> the IDNB and the possibility that it could be brought back to life<br>
> (brought to life, actually) to review cases where contending parties<br>
> could not agree among themselves.<br>
><br>
> I think that for the review mechanism that we are tasked to design<br>
> this point does not make much difference. But it does make us look<br>
> detached from reality when we speak of the IDNB as something somehow<br>
> real, when it has been "letra muerta" for decades.<br>
><br>
> Patricio<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:01 PM el--- via Ccpdp-rm <<a href="mailto:ccpdp-rm@icann.org" target="_blank">ccpdp-rm@icann.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ccpdp-rm@icann.org" target="_blank">ccpdp-rm@icann.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Patricio,<br>
><br>
> we can’t mix and match, either we stand by RFC1591/FoI or we<br>
> 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<br>
> to have been called a few times. But then a lot of what St. Jon<br>
> did was ad hoc.<br>
><br>
> greetings, el<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist<br>
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)<br>
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP<br>
10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply<br>
_______________________________________________<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>