Hello Nigel, Thanks for the background.
The Framework of Interpretation (a guid to the construction of applicable ccTLD policy) was eventually formally adopted by the ICANN Board earlier this year.
Yes - I did vote for this resolution. Here is the text: " Whereas, the ccNSO Council established the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) in March 2011 with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to develop guidance to ICANN on how to implement existing policies and guidelines applicable to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. Whereas, in accordance with the charter, and after a long and intense consultation process of the FOIWG, community and others, the Framework of Interpretation recommendations were finalized in June 2014 at the London ICANN Public Meeting and submitted to the ccNSO and GAC to seek their acceptance of the recommendations. Whereas, the ccNSO Council approved the Framework of Interpretation at its meeting on 11 February 2015. Whereas, while the GAC has not formally approved the document, it considered the FOIWG's efforts as demonstrated in its 11 February 2015 Communiqué, and has not identified any recommendations that it does not support. Whereas, implementation of the recommendations will benefit from community input, including the ccNSO as well as consultation on an implementation plan. Resolved (2015.06.25.07), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to develop an implementation plan for the recommendations for community consideration through a public comment, and to implement the plan when finalized. Resolved (2015.06.25.08), the Board requests the ccNSO to appoint as soon as possible a small advisory team of subject matter experts to remain available to assist ICANN staff on implementation questions that arise during the development of the implementation plan, and inform ICANN of the appointments." I also note in the rationale: " In addition the ccNSO Council recommended the ICANN Board that certain documents including the GAC Principles 2000 (which the GAC superseded in 2005), ICANN's ICP1 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en) and News Memo 1 (http://www.iana.org/reports/1997/cctld-news-oct1997.html) should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff"
Yet, only in the last couple of weeks, ICANN, the Corporation chooses to continue to put ICP-1 before the Appeal Court as having some status.
You raise a good point here. I will try to get an answer back on by the end of the week.
And THAT is the major question of accountability right there.
Got it. If the Board passes a resolution and agrees with the work put forward by the ccNSO - we do indeed need to make sure that we follow through on that commitment. I will follow this up now that I understand the issue that was initially raised by Eberhard. Regards, Bruce Tonkin