[CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs

[Desiree Miloshevic]

On 2 Dec 2014, at 17:00, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> Desiree:
> So, according to you, the lawyer (counsel) who authorizes delegations/redelegations would be provided by the ccNSO? Or from some other “group of ccTLDs”?

I don't think that there is so much form or detail necessary right now, as long as there is a foreseen mechanism that can be used. 
> what if the ccNSO lawyer had one opinion and the lawyer provided by another group had a different opinion? Not criticizing, just trying to understand what is being proposed.

Right.

+1 to Becky and Paul. As long as there is a way for a ccTLD ( be it part or not part of the ccNSO group or not) to challenge the process or the decision, that is all that is required.  {who knows, nonccNSO ccTLDs may all join the ccNSO in the foreseable future}

hope this helps


Desiree
--
>  
> Erick:
> My opinion of the legal status of a ccTLD is not relevant to answering those questions. I repeat:  I am not criticizing the proposal, I am just trying to understand what is being proposed.
>  
>  
> From: Desiree Miloshevic [mailto:dmiloshevic at afilias.info] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 10:51 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: CWG Stewardship
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] authorization function for ccTLDs
>  
> Milton
>  
> Before you respond to Erick - I'll just say add that, for example, the ccNSO FOIWG worked on interpretation of RFC 1591 and other IANA related policy guidelines.
> http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf
>  
> My understanding is that bodies like the ccNSO or group of ccTLDs are there to develop policies regarding the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
> It's my personal view that it could potentially form such a council in future and give opinions. (independent of ICANN board).
>  
> Desiree
> --
>  
> On 2 Dec 2014, at 15:30, Erick Iriarte <eiriarte at iriartelaw.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Milton
> to understand better your message and position: for you exactly what is the legal status of a cctld ?
> Erick
> 
> 
> El 2/12/2014, a las 10:16, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> escribió:
> 
> I have some questions regarding this: 
> 
> "The CWG is considering replacing the authorization role, at least with regard to ccTLDs, with a written opinion from counsel (independent of ICANN) that each delegation and re-delegation request meets the policy requirements cited in the publicly posted reports." 
> 
> Where would this counsel come from? 
> Whose counsel is it if it is independent of ICANN and ICANN is supplying the IANA service? 
> Since most of the policy requirements related to ccTLD delegation/redelegation are not laws, but things like RFC 1591, on what basis is the counsel's opinion made? Precedent? 
> 
> Milton L. Mueller
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141204/1f041c09/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141204/1f041c09/signature.asc>