http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm Framework of Interpretation Working Group – Interim Report Comment Period Deadlines^(*) Important Information Links Public Comment Box <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/foiwg-interim-report-12oct11-en.htm> *Open Date:* 12 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <mailto:foiwg-interim-report@icann.org> *Close Date:* 1 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments Submitted <http://forum.icann.org/lists/foiwg-interim-report/> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose* The Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) is seeking public comment on Interim Report on the first topic it has addressed: obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group (DRDWG) identified the following issues with the topic of "consent": /"The Interpretation of consent (communication that the transfer is agreed), by IANA's own admission, is highly variable depending on a number of factors including culture and the immediate physical security of the ccTLD manager. This includes interpreting a failure to reply to an IANA email as consent in certain cases of re-delegations where the current manager has stated he does not support the request."/ The FOIWG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and analysed all past cases of ccTLD re-delegations researching the stated consent in each instance. Based on this analysis the FOIWG identified the issues in the context of the applicable policies. These issues were further analysed to identify any issues arising from this analysis. Based on this analysis the FOIWG developed draft recommendations. To be most helpful input and feed-back from the community is sought with respect to the following questions: 1. Is the approach used by the FOIWG satisfactory? 2. Is the documentation that was analyzed to identify issues comprehensive? 3. Do the issues identified by the FOIWG for this topic capture the major problems associated with the topic? If not, what is missing? 4. Are the proposed guidelines effective solutions to the issues that were identified? 5. Are the recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic? *Section II: Background* The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG): */Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs/* /The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs./ /The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs./ The charter of the FOIWG was adopted by the ccNSO Council at its meeting on 16 March 2011 and appointed as its chair Keith Davidson of .NZ (former Chair of the DRDWG). In June 2011 the charter was updated to reflect the participation of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The charter and the list of participants of the working group can be found athttp://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm). The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current policies and guidelines pertaining to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLD’s. The scope of the FOIWG also clearly specifies that: * Any proposal to amend, update or change the Policy Statements is outside the scope of the FOIWG. * The IANA functions contract between the US Government and ICANN, including any contract implementation issues or procedures relating to it, are outside the scope of the FOIWG. *Section III: Document and Resource Links* _Documents posted for comment_: The Interim Report is posted here:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/interim-report-consent-final-12oct11-en.pdf[PDF, 1.63 MB] _Additional Resources_: Further information on the work of the Framework of Interpretation Working Group is available at:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm. *Section IV: Additional Information* The Interim Report addresses the first of the following topics the FOIWG identified which will be considered individually and in the order presented: * Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests * Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as Local Internet Community or LIC). * Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations * Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. * Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and re-delegation. *Staff Contact:* Bart Boswinkel *Email:* bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Framework%20of%20Interpretation%20Working%20Group%20%E2%80%93%20Interim%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> -- Kind Regards, Benedetta Rossi BC Secretariat www.bizconst.org bc-secretariat@icann.org