PLEASE NOTE Webinar relating to this matter => Listen to Recording => "To give a better idea of the progress made to date and an opportunity to answer questions from community members, there will be a webinar: The recordings of the Framework of Interpretation Webinar on Revocation today 12 November. Mp3 (audio recording) Adobe Connect Recording (visual recording including slides)=
Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20.12.2013 | ccNSO FoI WG's Interim Report on "Revocation" | Adopted 14Y, 0N, 0A | Rinalia Abdul Rahim (APRALO) | 08.11.2013 | 10.12.2013 | 12.12.2013 | 12.12.2013 | 18.12.2013 | 19.12.2013 | 20.12.2013 | Bart Boswinkel bart.boswinkel@icann.org | AL-ALAC-ST-1213-02-00-EN |
Comment / Reply Periods (*)
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
The ALAC congratulates the ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) on the outcome of its work to clarify the parameters governing the revocation of ccTLD delegation by the IANA Operator.
The ALAC strongly believes that clarity on revocation parameters as well as a clear and transparent process on the part of the IANA Operator are crucial to ensure that any act of revocation is carried out with accountability, transparency, sensitivity and care, and does not in any way disrupt the continued name resolution for Internet users.
The ALAC agrees with the Working Group’s interpretation of RFC 1591, which provides for revocation as one of three mechanisms available to the IANA Operator. We generally support the selected limits of revocation to cases where there are “persistent problems with the operations of the domain” and where there continues to be “substantial misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite the IANA Operator’s best efforts to stop the misconduct. We are also satisfied that the Working Group has defined what constitutes “persistent problems” and “substantial misbehavior” clearly to support appropriate action by the IANA Operator.
The Working Group indicated that it had considered whether the GAC Principles and accompanying guidelines are consistent with the RFC 1591 and whether they provide an aid to the Working Group’s interpretation (Section 2.2.2). We do not see any conclusion to these considerations. We note that section 4.3.7.2 appears to factor the GAC Principles in specifying that “If the IANA Operator revokes a delegation it should attempt, in collaboration with the significantly interested parties to ensure the ccTLD will continue to resolve names until a suitable replacement can take over.” As a form of good practice, we strongly recommend that the IANA Operator consult with the local government before taking action to revoke any ccTLD operator.
We further suggest the following to strengthen the interpretation work:
With regard to the questions posed by the FOIWG to the community, our responses are as follows:
The ALAC congratulates the ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) on its work to clarify the parameters governing the revocation of ccTLD delegation by the IANA Operator.
Clarity on the revocation parameters and process is crucial to ensure that any act of revocation on the part of the IANA operator is carried out with sensitivity and care, as a last resort, and does not in any way disrupt the continued name resolution for Internet users.
The ALAC agrees with the Working Group’s interpretation of RFC 1591, which provides for revocation as one of three mechanisms available to the IANA Operator. We support the selected limits of revocation to cases where there are “persistent problems with the operations of the domain” and where there continues to be “substantial misbehavior” on the part of ccTLD managers despite the IANA Operator’s best efforts to stop the misconduct. We are also satisfied that the Working Group has defined what constitutes “persistent problems” and “substantial misbehavior” clearly to support appropriate action by the IANA Operator.
In section 2.2.2 of its report, the Working Group indicated that it had considered whether the GAC Principles and accompanying guidelines are consistent with the RFC 1591 and whether they provide an aid to the Working Group’s interpretation. We do not see any conclusion to these considerations. However, we do note that section 4.3.7.2 appears to factor the GAC Principles in specifying that “If the IANA Operator revokes a delegation it should attempt, in collaboration with the significantly interested parties to ensure the ccTLD will continue to resolve names until a suitable replacement can take over.”
We further suggest the following to strengthen the interpretation work:
With regard to the questions posed by the FOIWG to the community, our responses are as follows:
Yes.
Largely yes. See the ALAC’s comment in the section above for gaps.
Yes.
Yes.