Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us... From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart
Dear all, Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter, Kind regards, Bart From: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us... From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart
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…..’? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk +44 7880 642456
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all, Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter, Kind regards, Bart
From: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...>
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all, 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).
Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
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…..’? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk <mailto:chris@disspain.uk> +44 7880 642456 On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > wrote: Dear all, Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter, Kind regards, Bart From: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org <mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> >, "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> " <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...> &ouid=101111448672284939009&rtpof=true&sd=true From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org> > Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> " <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> > Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto: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.
Dear colleagues, 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? Cheers Jordan On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk
+44 7880 642456
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
*From: *Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
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).
Next steps.
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,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand +64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz
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: 1. 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 2. 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 From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan@jordantcarter.nz> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 17:43 Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear colleagues, 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? Cheers Jordan On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto: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…..’? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk<mailto:chris@disspain.uk> +44 7880 642456 [cid:181da9a9755ad7999131] On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter, Kind regards, Bart From: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org<mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, "ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us... From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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. -- Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand +64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz<mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz>
Dear All Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I see your point on being more explicit with the outcome that we expect after sending this letter. Bart and I will work on a proposed text to be added on Monday. If you think of some phrasing before then, please feel free to add your suggestion on the Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit> 🙂 Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:13 AM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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:
1. 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 2. 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
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Jordan Carter <jordan@jordantcarter.nz> *Date: *Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 17:43 *Cc: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear colleagues,
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?
Cheers
Jordan
On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk
+44 7880 642456
[image: cid:181da9a9755ad7999131]
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
*From: *Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
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).
Next steps.
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,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi AJ I made some changes to the letter and did not realize I was in update vs suggest mode. Please validate the changes if you see them on your side. Me
On Jul 8, 2022, at 09:32, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I see your point on being more explicit with the outcome that we expect after sending this letter. Bart and I will work on a proposed text to be added on Monday. If you think of some phrasing before then, please feel free to add your suggestion on the Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit> 🙂
Best regards, Alejandra
--
Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt <mailto:alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt <http://www.gt/>
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:13 AM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote: 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
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan@jordantcarter.nz <mailto:jordan@jordantcarter.nz>> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 17:43 Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear colleagues,
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?
Cheers
Jordan
On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk <mailto:chris@disspain.uk>
+44 7880 642456
<image001.png>
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
From: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org <mailto:kimberly.carlson@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>>, "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...>
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org <mailto:bart.boswinkel@icann.org>> Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>" <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
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).
Next steps.
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,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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 <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
--
Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz <mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz>
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Aha! 😉 No worries Sean. Google docs keeps a history of changes made to the document, so it can be seen what was edited. [image: Screenshot_20220708_110454.png] Your edits were editorial, which are ok. I just changed the sharing mode so that suggestion is the default now 😉 Best, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:37 AM Sean Copeland <sean.copeland@nic.vi> wrote:
Hi AJ
I made some changes to the letter and did not realize I was in update vs suggest mode. Please validate the changes if you see them on your side.
Me
On Jul 8, 2022, at 09:32, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I see your point on being more explicit with the outcome that we expect after sending this letter. Bart and I will work on a proposed text to be added on Monday. If you think of some phrasing before then, please feel free to add your suggestion on the Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit> 🙂
Best regards, Alejandra
--
[image: Photograph]
*Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:13 AM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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:
1. 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 2. 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
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Jordan Carter <jordan@jordantcarter.nz> *Date: *Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 17:43 *Cc: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear colleagues,
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?
Cheers
Jordan
On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk
+44 7880 642456
<image001.png>
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
*From: *Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
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).
Next steps.
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,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Everyone Please have a look <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit> at the last page for the proposed text regarding being more explicit on what we expect the Board to do. Don't hesitate to add any comments or suggestions you may have. Note that there is a question on which word is better for the sentence (request vs. recommend) so let me know what you think (especially English native speakers 😉). Best regards, Alejandra -- [image: Photograph] *Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:08 AM Alejandra Reynoso < alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> wrote:
Aha! 😉 No worries Sean. Google docs keeps a history of changes made to the document, so it can be seen what was edited. [image: Screenshot_20220708_110454.png]
Your edits were editorial, which are ok. I just changed the sharing mode so that suggestion is the default now 😉
Best, Alejandra
--
[image: Photograph]
*Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:37 AM Sean Copeland <sean.copeland@nic.vi> wrote:
Hi AJ
I made some changes to the letter and did not realize I was in update vs suggest mode. Please validate the changes if you see them on your side.
Me
On Jul 8, 2022, at 09:32, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I see your point on being more explicit with the outcome that we expect after sending this letter. Bart and I will work on a proposed text to be added on Monday. If you think of some phrasing before then, please feel free to add your suggestion on the Google Doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit> 🙂
Best regards, Alejandra
--
[image: Photograph]
*Alejandra Reynoso*Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt *P:* +502 23688565 *E:* alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:13 AM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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:
1. 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 2. 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
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Jordan Carter <jordan@jordantcarter.nz> *Date: *Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 17:43 *Cc: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear colleagues,
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?
Cheers
Jordan
On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk
+44 7880 642456
<image001.png>
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
*From: *Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 *To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, " ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...
*From: *Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM *To: *"ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> *Subject: *[ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
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).
Next steps.
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,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz
_______________________________________________ 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.
Perfect! Cheers, Chris
On 11 Jul 2022, at 19:27, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Everyone
Please have a look at the last page for the proposed text regarding being more explicit on what we expect the Board to do. Don't hesitate to add any comments or suggestions you may have. Note that there is a question on which word is better for the sentence (request vs. recommend) so let me know what you think (especially English native speakers 😉).
Best regards, Alejandra
--
Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:08 AM Alejandra Reynoso <alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt> wrote: Aha! 😉 No worries Sean. Google docs keeps a history of changes made to the document, so it can be seen what was edited. <Screenshot_20220708_110454.png>
Your edits were editorial, which are ok. I just changed the sharing mode so that suggestion is the default now 😉
Best, Alejandra
--
Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 10:37 AM Sean Copeland <sean.copeland@nic.vi> wrote: Hi AJ
I made some changes to the letter and did not realize I was in update vs suggest mode. Please validate the changes if you see them on your side.
Me
On Jul 8, 2022, at 09:32, Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I see your point on being more explicit with the outcome that we expect after sending this letter. Bart and I will work on a proposed text to be added on Monday. If you think of some phrasing before then, please feel free to add your suggestion on the Google Doc 🙂
Best regards, Alejandra
--
Alejandra Reynoso Investigación & Desarrollo | Dominios .gt P: +502 23688565 E: alejandra.reynoso@cctld.gt 18 Ave. 11-95 Zona 15, V.H. III. (A-109) Guatemala, Guatemala www.gt
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 12:13 AM Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote: 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
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Jordan Carter <jordan@jordantcarter.nz> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 17:43 Cc: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear colleagues,
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?
Cheers
Jordan
On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 at 09:33, Irina Danelia via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
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…..’?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain chris@disspain.uk
+44 7880 642456
<image001.png>
On 7 Jul 2022, at 11:01, Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Friendly reminder to look at the proposed letter,
Kind regards,
Bart
From: Kimberly Carlson <kimberly.carlson@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:24 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
For those who wish to comment/make suggestions online, here is the link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lPnx9f9PKfeJRODZPSmX9zANwkKLUFDd/edit?us...
From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:35 AM To: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy
Dear all,
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).
Next steps.
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,
Kind regards,
Bart
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Jordan Carter Auckland Central, New Zealand
+64 21 442 649 | jordan@jordancarter.org.nz
_______________________________________________ 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.
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.
Dear all, I agree with the proposed text But I do not remember why it was decided that disputes relating ccTLD delegations and re-delegations should be excluded from ICANN’s Reconsideration Process as well as the Independent Review Process for Covered Actions. Where can I find any reference or explanation? I assume it was a part of ICANN ByLaws change during IANA transition Best regards, Irina From: Ccnso-council <> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart
Dear Irina, “Delegation. And redelegation” are excluded through the Bylaws, after an extensive discussion by the CWG IANA Transition and ccwg accountability ( WS1) and supported by the Council and ccTLD s oresent at the various metings when it was discussed in the 2014-2016 time frame. Hope this helps, Kind regards, Bart From: Irina Danelia <i.danelia@cctld.ru> Date: Thursday, 7 July 2022 at 10:47 To: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org>, "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, I agree with the proposed text But I do not remember why it was decided that disputes relating ccTLD delegations and re-delegations should be excluded from ICANN’s Reconsideration Process as well as the Independent Review Process for Covered Actions. Where can I find any reference or explanation? I assume it was a part of ICANN ByLaws change during IANA transition Best regards, Irina From: Ccnso-council <> On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 7:33 PM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] Draft responce questions carve-out IRP of proposed retirement policy Dear all, 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). Next steps. 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, Kind regards, Bart
participants (8)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
Bart Boswinkel -
Chris Disspain -
Irina Danelia -
Jordan Carter -
Kimberly Carlson -
Sean Copeland -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC