Greetings, Jordan, Irina, et. al.
I will restrain myself here; my public record regarding my feelings about the Board’s continuing “creative inaction” on this policy proposal is well documented in the transcript of the ccNSO Council – ICANN Board meeting at the recently
concluded ICANN74 meeting.
Jordan, you are correct:
This all stems from RFC1491 (1984), section 3.
The ccTLD community insisted on a “carve out” of ccTLD related matters from what I call ICANN 3.0, the Bylaws adopted in October 2022 (if I recall correctly). You were heavily involved in these discussions, so I do not mean to educate
you on this. I suggest the opposite, as I was not as involved in the new Bylaws development, and would appreciate your remembrances…
Thus, the ccTLD Community left themselves with two tasks:
- How to task the IANA Function operator (IFO) with a policy regarding the retirement of a ccTLD two-letter code based on its retirement by the ISO-3166 Maintenance Agency
- How to task the IANA Function operator (IFO) with a policy regarding a “review mechanism” as described in RFC1591 Section 3.4.
The ccNSO Council established the PDP3 Working Group to address these topics. It was originally envisioned that the issue of the “review mechanism” would be the first priority of the working group, but it was quickly apparent that the
issue of “retirement” needed to be addressed first.
As I recall, this led to a formal revision of the WG’s issue report (not certain of the exact terminology here.) Note that I inherited the Chair of the WG about a year into its work.
The work regarding a retirement policy is complete. It has been complete since the fall of 2021. It has been blessed by the GAC. It was put out for (yet another) public comment period by the Board, without any significant comments.
Thus by year-end 2021/early 2022 the Board had everything it needed to make a decision on this policy proposal that was put forward in good faith (and after considerable Community effort) by a Supporting Organization.
And yet they have failed to act on it. It is my personal view that the Board is in clear violation of the ICAAN Bylaws by their continued inaction with respect to this matter (Annex B, Section 15(a) and 15(b)), but I will not litigate
that argument here.
So to return back to Jordan’s question, I think what we have here is a “nudge” to ICANN, based on their repudiation of the efforts of the PDS-3 WG to seek a binding reconciliation mechanism. I believe that we need to continue to strive
for exclusion of ccTLD matters from ICANN’s Reconsideration Process, as well as their Independent Review Process.
Thus, I support Alejandra’s proposed correspondence.
Best Regards
Stephen Deerhake
I think the letter is fine, but agree with Chris that we could perhaps suggest either that we are just writing to give Icann the view they asked for in Sam’s letter, or any actions. I think it’s just the first of those things essentially
- it’s like a courtesy heads up.
Irina, my understanding of why it’s excluded is because of the basis in RFC 1591 as well as the FOI work, that there would be a specific mechanism for dealing with appeals set out by the ccnso, not folded into icann’s general IRP.
I’d love it if any of the longer serving of the council could correct or confirm or add to this understanding?
Good point
I would expect Board to approve the retirement policy at its earliest convenience -))
From: Ccnso-council <>
On Behalf Of Chris Disspain via Ccnso-council
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 6:24 PM
To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
So, I’m fine with the letter BUT my question is, what do we want the board to actually do? I get we’ve answered the questions and summarised that in the ‘Conclusion’ section
but should we follow that with an ‘as a result, the ccNSO believes that the board should now take the following action in respect to the Retirement Policy recommendations…..’?
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
I am emailing you on behalf of Alejandra to seek your comments and input on the included draft letter to Samantha Eisner, ICANN legal. This letter is a response she raised to the
Council via the ccNSO PDP3 WG on review mechanism. The question is whether (future) decisions under the proposed retirement policy should be excluded from the ICANN Independent review process (like matters pertaining to delegation and “re-delegations”. Specifically
she asked:
As there is specific reference in the Retirement Policy Recommendations to the ccPDP-RM in relation to two retirement-related issues, does the
ccNSO (emphasis added) consider both retirement issues set out at 5.2 of the Retirement Policy Recommendations as matters relating to delegation and transfer sufficient to both be excluded from
the ICANN Independent Review Process?
As you will recall, Stephen, in his capacity of chair of the Review Mechanism WG, raised the issue of the question a few times on the
Council call and, as you also will recall, Patricio raised this issue during his presentation to the Council on (16 June 2022) on the progress with respect to the Board consideration of the proposed retirement policy.
The included draft intends to answer the direct question from Samantha, but will also provide some clarity from a ccNSO perspective
on related matters, such as carve-out from the IRP of revocation, need to update the language in the Bylaws to align with the Framework interpretation and extend carve=out of retirement to Reconsideration (section 4.2 of the Bylaws).
If you have any questions or comments please provide them on the list over the next week (preferably no later than
Monday 11 July 17.00 UTC. The document will then be updated, consolidating your comments, and re-circulated. Tomorrow (Tuesday) we will provide the draft also in Google doc format.
Goal is to approve the letter at the next council call ( 21 July 2022), however if feasible Alejandra suggests to take an on-line decision
before the meeting.
Thank you on behalf of Alejandra,
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)
and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
