Thanks Nigel for the comments. I still think "implement" is an appropriate word to use, but fully agree with you that the FOI is not new policy, merely interpretation of existing policy. However, it does require changes to the procedures and processes within IANA, and that to me fits within the concept of implementation - which in my mind is to "put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure". In terms of the ongoing reference to ICP-1 on the IANA website, I think we will see changes in the near future, dare I say it, as implementation proceeds. Regarding the Court case, I feel sorry for ICANN in persisting that ICP-1 (and the GAC Principles 2000) are current policies. Eventually they will need to admit they totally got this wrong. I think they hoped the initial Court case would be the end of the matter, but I can see this case being appealed throughout the US legislative process. But that is ICANN's problem, not mine! Cheers Keith On 24/09/2015 11:53 p.m., Nigel Roberts wrote:
Keith:
I must re-iterate, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, that the Framework is not new policy.
As such is does not need to be 'implemented' but since it was issued by us must simply now be used as the primary guide to the construction (i.e. interpretation) of ccTLD policy.
ICNAN has ALWAYS been bound to follow this policy, but simply didnt have the benefit previously of the 6 years of careful examination of the binding policies that we as a Supporting Organisaton undertook.
And it was because of exactly this risk of further procrastination, that was why I wanted to be part of the liasion with IANA, and with which request regretfully Council did not feel able to support.
ICANN as an organisation has some serious credibility issues as far as I'm concerned as a result of their machinations regarding ccTLD policies over years.
Woudl you believe that despite the ICANN Board agreeing the text of the FoI resolution, even TODAY it STILL appears to be maintaining CP-1 as the primary guide to ccTLD matters.
Heres what I see
(a) It remains on the ICANN/IANA website as the guide to redelegations.
(b) As recently as the beginnning of this month, ICANN repeated it submission to in a Federal Appeal Court case that is likely to affect the rights of ccTLD managers very significantly.
I find this continued 'cocking a snook' at the ccTLD community quite unacceptable. After 13 years of objections, and misleading emails that 'the Board only adopted a numbering scheme not the content of ICP-1' can this be anything other than deliberate prevarication??
ICANN were firmly and unambiguosly put on notice in in the period 1999-2002 that ICP-1 had no status, and was never part of any multistakeholder process.
So why, 13 years later must I write such emails??
“What's the world's greatest lie?... It's this: that at a certain point in our lives, we lose control of what's happening to us, and our lives become controlled by fate.” (PAUL COELHO)
Nigel Roberts
PS: the unintelligibly ambiguous soap opera term 'Sponsoring' which was never agreed by ccTLD managers STILL appears to exist in the public facing representation of the ccTLD WHOIS. How many more times will we put up with fairy tales about THAT going being changed? How much long must we wait.? Another 15 years?