[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues

[Jordan Carter]

Dear all, dear Kavouss

Thank you for your email.

The PDP I am referring to is that set out in the ICANN bylaws for the
ccNSO: <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexB>

I have tried to be as clear as I can be on the process question.  The
policy regarding delegations of ccTLD managers is in RFCs and has most
recently been understood through the lens of Framework of Interpretation, a
joint effort between the ccNSO and the GAC (see
https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-and-redelegations
for 2015 Board adoption of the report).

Arising from that work the ccNSO has commenced a PDP dealing with the first
of two issues, that being how to deal with the retirement of a ccTLD.

There is another PDP to come, on how to resolve disputes regarding the
delegation, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs.

It seems to me that the example you raise below is one that would give rise
to a dispute, and it is the mechanism to resolve such disputes that is not
clear today. That's why the ccNSO will conduct a PDP to make it clear.

My interventions have aimed only to remind everyone in this group that the
CCWG can't make policy on this subject. It has no authority or scope to do
so, because policy on these ccTLD subjects is the responsibility of the
ccNSO.

My purpose in offering that reminder is so that all of the participants in
the group can choose where to focus their discussion. There might be other
matters where  the group can make recommendations with more impact. The
group might think that offering views on those is more important. Or, it
might think that offering views for the ccNSO to consider is more
important. I haven't got a view either way - the ccNSO's sole
responsibility for making policy on ccTLD matters isn't in doubt.

I just want to make sure that everyone is clear about what this group can
do, and on the specific point of ccTLD policy, what it cannot do. I have no
view about the GNSO. I am not suggesting this group or the CCWG "consult"
the ccNSO per se. Even if the ccNSO could respond with an opinion about
jurisdiction matters, that would still be of no use to the CCWG in making
recommendations. Any recommendations that dealt with ccTLD policy would
lead to the CCWG's recommendations on the subject being unable to be
adopted by the ICANN Board.

Since this is only one very narrow matter in the wide range of
jurisdiction-related topics, I am sure there is no need to close this group
or deny Greg the right to keep doing the hard work he is doing to be the
rapporteur in this interesting and vital area.

All best regards,

Jordan


On 18 September 2017 at 02:47, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Jordan
> I am not sure what type of PDP you suggest for unilateral decision of
> American court for delegation or transfer of .ir to third party .
> We wish to limit such type of order as well as the potential influence of
> US government or any other government to interfere with the ccTLD of any
> other country based on founded or non founded claims
> If neither ICANN not any other entity is authorised to intervene or
> interfere with ccTLD of any country or any geographic territory that
> equally applies to US government, US court and say other government and its
> court
> Fortunately New Zealand or U.K. ccTLD were not yet subject to such
> interference
> Pls kindly clarify your position . In other word are you supporting such
> interference or opposing to that
> Reply to Milton
> If you believe that the sub group should consult GNSO and Jordan and Nigel
> believe that the subgroup should consult ccNSO to address such disturbing
> unilateral influence of US government  and its court and any other
> government and its court then we need to close the shop of Grec and stop
> all discussions
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 15 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any
> such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to
> consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to
> conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters
> can be made.
>
>
>
> That’s fine. The same is true of the GNSO and the ASO for that matter.
> This subgroup identifies problems and recommends solutions.
> It’s up to others to develop policies to implement the solutions.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
> <image002.jpg> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>


-- 

*Jordan Carter*

Chief Executive

InternetNZ

Office: +64 4 495 2118 <04-495%202118> | Mobile: +64 21 442 649
<021%20442%20649> | Skype: jordancarter

Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz


<https://2017.nethui.nz/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170918/4fb60f9e/attachment.html>