Dear all, Please find included the response from the GCA on the formal request of to provide Opinion or Advice on the Isuue report pertaining to PDP 3. This message wil lbe forwrded to the PDP WG retirement and, in future, to the WG Review mechanism as well. Please note that the GAC did receive the invite to particpate. Council is requested to overlook that sentence. Kind regards, Bart From: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org> Date: Tuesday 6 June 2017 at 14:54 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, 'Thomas Schneider' <thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: "gac-leadership@icann.org" <gac-leadership@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org>, "gac-staff@icann.org" <gac-staff@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] [Gac-staff] Formal request of GAC Opinion or Advice per Annex B Section 8 of the ICANN Bylaws Dear Katrina, On behalf of the GAC Chair, with thanks for the invitation to provide input, please find below comments from the GAC to the Issue Report for the ccPDP referenced in your email. Very best regards Olof --------------------------------------------------------------------- The GAC takes note of the ccNSO Issue Report regarding the decision of the ccNSO to launch a PDP to address the issues: 1. Policy for retirement of ccTLDs 2. Define mechanisms to ensure predictability and legitimacy of decision related to delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. The GAC recalls its opinion on the Framework of Interpretation WG report in the GAC Communiqué in February 2015 at the Singapore meeting: The GAC notes the work of the ccNSO FOIWG, and its efforts to provide interpretive clarity to RFC1591. The GAC welcomes the FOIWG’s recognition that, consistent with the GAC’s 2005 Principles, the ultimate authority on public policy issues relating to ccTLDs is the relevant government. As such, nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government. Other than the remarks above, the GAC has no further comments at this stage other than that we support the decision of the ccNSO to launch a PDP and the proposed priorities and mechanism to be used. The GAC will await the formal requests to be involved in the work of the working groups and to provide opinion or advice on the final reports of the working groups. From: gac-staff-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gac-staff-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 13:03 To: 'Thomas Schneider' <thomas.schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org; gac-staff@icann.org Subject: [Gac-staff] Formal request of GAC Opinion or Advice per Annex B Section 8 of the ICANN Bylaws Dear Thomas, As we have indicated during our joint meeting in Copenhagen, the ccNSO Council has initiated one (1) ccNSO Policy Development Process (ccPDP) to develop and recommend both a policy on the retirement of ccTLDs and on a review mechanism for decisions pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. The decision of the ccNSO Council is published and can be found at: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-ccnso-council-meeting-15mar17-en.pdf[ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_workinggroups_minutes-2Dccnso-2Dcouncil-2Dmeeting-2D15mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=2Uu6oG_QnKyz-esXfX-1xolRfGQhekXZrDvh_7mv4zY&m=ZkttmsP0rj3SpCn0KdqhqCz2cxjtuw2qjHGGzk7vV38&s=3iHGH8AcQLqbuOHaC45CiKBxEgYx___r3ccXPJoZf5w&e=> (Resolution 127-03 under agenda item 11). Please also find attached the Issue Report. After careful consideration of the Issue Report, the ccNSO Council decided to focus the attention first on the retirement of ccTLDs and then on the review mechanism. The work under the ccPDP will be organized through working groups. Their charters are included in the Issue Report. In a separate letter the members of the GAC will be invited to get involved in the effort in a way most convenient to them, with the understanding that participants from the GAC will not represent views of the GAC. As this Policy Development Process is organized through working groups and hence no Task Force, as foreseen in Annex B of the ICANN bylaws, is formed, I formally request you on behalf of the ccNSO Council, to offer opinion or advice on the Issue Report. At a later stage in the process, the ccNSO Council will invite the GAC to provide opinion or advice on the final report. On behalf of the ccNSO Council, Katrina Sataki