Announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccpdp3-1-retirement-cctlds-2021-03-03-... Brief Overview Purpose: The Initial Report is published to seek community response and input on the following two (2) questions: 1. To expedite the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) decision-making on the proposed recommended policy for the Retirement of country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs), it is proposed to separate Part 1 (on the Retirement of ccTLDs) from Part 2 (on Review Mechanism). Are there any concerns separating the two policy development efforts: Retirement of ccTLDs (Part 1) and Review Mechanism (Part 2)? 2. Related, are there any major concerns with respect to the proposed recommendation for the retirement policy, which have not been raised before or are inadequately addressed in the final paper? Current Status: In February 2021 the ccNSO Working Group on the Retirement of country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) concluded its work by unanimously supporting the policy recommendations pertaining to the retirement of ccTLDs. This policy development effort is part of the third ccNSO Policy Development Process, which was initiated in 2017 to develop policy recommendations on the Retirement of ccTLDs (Part 1) and to develop policy recommendations for a Review Mechanism for decisions pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs (Part 2). Next Steps: If there are no major concerns, neither regarding the separation of Part 1 and Part 2 nor regarding the recommended Retirement Policy itself, the policy recommendations contained in this report will be taken to the ccNSO Council and ccNSO Membership for their consideration. Your Comment: Your submission, including your information, will be published in the Public Comment archive on the https://www.icann.org/ website. If you have any questions regarding Public Comment, please contact public-comment@icann.org<mailto:public-comment@icann.org>. Section I: Description and Explanation In February 2021 the ccNSO Working Group on the Retirement of country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) concluded its work by unanimously supporting the policy recommendations pertaining to the retirement of ccTLDs. This policy development effort is part of the third ccNSO Policy Development Process, which was initiated in 2017 to develop policy recommendations on the Retirement of ccTLDs (Part 1) and to develop policy recommendations for a Review Mechanism for decisions pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs (Part 2). Now (March 2021), four (4) years after the ccNSO Policy Development Process 3 was initiated, the envisioned advantages of combining the two topics into one (1) ccNSO Policy Development Process have become obsolete. In the view of both the Retirement and Review Working Groups, the dependency between the retirement process as developed and a Review Mechanism is limited; the only dependency – decisions in the retirement process that should be subject to the Review Mechanism once this becomes effective – has been identified and addressed. In addition, given the expected duration of the process to develop the Review Mechanism (at least until November 2021) the anticipated decrease in the duration of the overall process, has been overtaken and will not be achieved anymore. The efforts and decision-making procedures to develop the Review Mechanism are not dependent anymore on the efforts and decision-making relating to the policy recommendations for the Retirement of ccTLDs, which was originally thought to be the case. Effectively, deferring the ccNSO Council and membership decision-making on the proposed retirement policy, may have an adverse effect. Waiting on completion of the proposals of the review mechanism may risk that both ccNSO Council and membership lose track of the proposals. In addition, some members may lose interest in the effort, with the risk of losing the required engagement in the decision-making process. The purpose of this Initial Report is to seek community response and input on the following two (2) questions: 1. To expedite the ccNSO decision-making on the proposed recommended policy for the Retirement of ccTLDs, it is proposed to separate Part 1 (on the Retirement of ccTLDs) from Part 2 (on Review Mechanism). Are there any concerns separating the two policy development efforts: Retirement of ccTLDs (Part 1) and Review Mechanism (Part 2)? 2. Related, are there any major concerns with respect to the proposed recommendation for the retirement policy, which have not been raised before or are inadequately addressed in the final paper? Section II: Background In December 2015, the ccNSO Council discussed the launch of a formal ccNSO Policy Development Processes to address the lack of policy with respect to retirement of ccTLDs and to introduce a Review Mechanism on issues pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. This discussion was grounded in the need to ensure the predictability and legitimacy of decisions with respect to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. In March 2017, and in accordance with Annex B section 3 and 4 of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council decided – among others – to initiate ccNSO Policy Development Process 3 with the initial focus on developing a policy for Retirement of ccTLDs (Part 1), and only after the substantive work on that topic would have been concluded, focus on the development of policy recommendations for a Review Mechanism pertaining to decisions on delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs (Part 2). In accordance with its 2017 Charter, the Chair of the WG conveyed the Final Paper of the Working Group to the Issue Manager of the ccPDP to be included in the Initial Report of the ccPDP. As required under section 8.d of Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws, the Issue Manager is tasked to publish the Initial Report to seek comments from ccTLD managers, other Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, and from the public. According to the ccPDP3 Issue Report, in which the scope of the third ccNSO Policy Development Process is defined, the Initial Report should be published when both Part 1 and Part 2 are completed. However, as stated above, both the Retirement and Review Working Groups believe the two efforts could follow their own course. Section III: Relevant Resources The Initial Report is available at: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccpdp3-1-retirement-cctlds-03mar... Section IV: Additional Information The Final Paper of the ccPDP Retirement WG can be found at the webpage of the Retirement Working Group: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/pdp-retirement.htm On this webpage you may also find other relevant documents and presentations by the Working Group. Additional background material the Working Group has used: · Revised PDP Issue Report (includes Council resolution and revised timeline): https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10apr17-en.htm · 15 March 2017 Council Resolution to initiate the ccPDP: https://ccnso.icann.org/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2017 · Delegation and Redelegation Working Group (DRDWG) Final Report on the Retirement of ccTLDs March 2011: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drd-wg-retirement-report-07mar11-en.pd... · Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) Final Report: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf · RFC 1591: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt · ISO 3166 Online Browsing Platform: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search · ISO 3166 Country codes https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html Section V: Reports