Public Comment Period FoI WG Interim Report
Dear all, The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is now open for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011. The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs. This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent". Kind regards, Gabi
Bernie, Keith, I recall that the .us ccTLD was re-delegated round about the same time as the .mw ccTLD somewhere around 2002. However, I see that its case does not seem to show up in the tables on the FOIWG reports from pages 21 onwards. Can you confirm if this was a deliberate omission and if there are definite reasons for leaving it out? Would the FOIWG not be concerned if such a question arose? If there are no documents on it then it may be a case for a new category of ND (not documented). Are there other ND cases like it? Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 13 Oct 2011 at 1:13, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
Dear all,
The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is now open for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm
Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011.
The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent".
Kind regards,
Gabi
The .us case was analyzed by the DRD WG and classified as "significantly interesting": http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drd-progress-report-03jun10-en.pdf(page 8) Therefore, its absence would be a significant omission :-) Patricio On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>wrote:
Bernie, Keith,
I recall that the .us ccTLD was re-delegated round about the same time as the .mw ccTLD somewhere around 2002. However, I see that its case does not seem to show up in the tables on the FOIWG reports from pages 21 onwards.
Can you confirm if this was a deliberate omission and if there are definite reasons for leaving it out?
Would the FOIWG not be concerned if such a question arose?
If there are no documents on it then it may be a case for a new category of ND (not documented). Are there other ND cases like it?
Regards,
Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw
On 13 Oct 2011 at 1:13, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
Dear all,
The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is
now
open for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm
Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011.
The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent".
Kind regards,
Gabi
_______________________________________________ ccnso-foiwg mailing list ccnso-foiwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-foiwg
And it is documented: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm Patricio On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Patricio Poblete <ppoblete@nic.cl> wrote:
The .us case was analyzed by the DRD WG and classified as "significantly interesting":
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drd-progress-report-03jun10-en.pdf(page 8)
Therefore, its absence would be a significant omission :-)
Patricio
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>wrote:
Bernie, Keith,
I recall that the .us ccTLD was re-delegated round about the same time as the .mw ccTLD somewhere around 2002. However, I see that its case does not seem to show up in the tables on the FOIWG reports from pages 21 onwards.
Can you confirm if this was a deliberate omission and if there are definite reasons for leaving it out?
Would the FOIWG not be concerned if such a question arose?
If there are no documents on it then it may be a case for a new category of ND (not documented). Are there other ND cases like it?
Regards,
Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw
On 13 Oct 2011 at 1:13, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
Dear all,
The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is
now
open for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm
Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011.
The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent".
Kind regards,
Gabi
_______________________________________________ ccnso-foiwg mailing list ccnso-foiwg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-foiwg
Hi all, I am not sure why the question from Paulos was copied to the ccNSO Council list, as well as the FOIWG list, but Bernie has responded to the FOIWG list and is obviously unable to post to the Council list. I've copied Bernies response below, in case any Council members are interested in this question. Cheers Keith On 19/10/2011 2:37 a.m., Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All correct.
To my understanding the FOIWG is to interpret existing (ICANN) policy and GAC Principles for application by IANA and ICANN (the FOIWG has limited this to RFC1591 and the GAC Principles 2005).
To do this we have analyzed IANA Reports of delegation and re-del to see how they agreed, or not, with the policies and GAC Principles.
The .US re-delegation, as pointed out, was not approved by the ICANN Board prior to being carried out, was not analysed or documented by > IANA (no IANA Report) and as such not based on existing policy or GAC Principles.
Based on this the .US re-delegation seemed clearly out of scope, as a USG decision, and therefore not applicable to our work!?
This is why it was not included.
Even if it was included it is unclear, to my mind, what it would change in the work we have completed to date.
As usual I will be glad to take direction from the wg on this.
Cheers and see you in Dakar.
B.
On 19/10/2011 12:12 a.m., Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote:
Bernie, Keith,
I recall that the .us ccTLD was re-delegated round about the same time as the .mw ccTLD somewhere around 2002. However, I see that its case does not seem to show up in the tables on the FOIWG reports from pages 21 onwards.
Can you confirm if this was a deliberate omission and if there are definite reasons for leaving it out?
Would the FOIWG not be concerned if such a question arose?
If there are no documents on it then it may be a case for a new category of ND (not documented). Are there other ND cases like it?
Regards,
Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW& .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw
On 13 Oct 2011 at 1:13, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
Dear all,
The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is now open for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm
Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011.
The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent".
Kind regards,
Gabi
On 19 Oct 2011 at 15:58, Keith Davidson wrote:
Hi all,
I am not sure why the question from Paulos was copied to the ccNSO Council list, as well as the FOIWG list,
Keith, as you can see, I simply did a reply to the message from Gabi and as it happened this was the one that went to the council and not the ccnso-members or any other distribution lists. Should I proceed to copy to the other lists?
but Bernie has responded to the FOIWG list and is obviously unable to post to the Council list. I've copied Bernies response below, in case any Council members are interested in this question.
My worry is that the omission appears to diminish the integrity of the report as a comprehensive study producing a comprehensive report covering the period concerned and appears to limit the interpretation achieved so far. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw
Cheers
Keith
On 19/10/2011 2:37 a.m., Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All correct.
To my understanding the FOIWG is to interpret existing (ICANN) policy and GAC Principles for application by IANA and ICANN (the FOIWG has limited this to RFC1591 and the GAC Principles 2005).
To do this we have analyzed IANA Reports of delegation and re-del to see how they agreed, or not, with the policies and GAC Principles.
The .US re-delegation, as pointed out, was not approved by the ICANN Board prior to being carried out, was not analysed or documented by > IANA (no IANA Report) and as such not based on existing policy or GAC Principles.
Based on this the .US re-delegation seemed clearly out of scope, as a USG decision, and therefore not applicable to our work!?
This is why it was not included.
Even if it was included it is unclear, to my mind, what it would change in the work we have completed to date.
As usual I will be glad to take direction from the wg on this.
Cheers and see you in Dakar.
B.
On 19/10/2011 12:12 a.m., Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote:
Bernie, Keith,
I recall that the .us ccTLD was re-delegated round about the same time as the .mw
ccTLD
somewhere around 2002. However, I see that its case does not seem to show up in the tables on the FOIWG reports from pages 21 onwards.
Can you confirm if this was a deliberate omission and if there are definite reasons for leaving it out?
Would the FOIWG not be concerned if such a question arose?
If there are no documents on it then it may be a case for a new category of ND (not documented). Are there other ND cases like it?
Regards,
Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW& .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw
On 13 Oct 2011 at 1:13, Gabriella Schittek wrote:
Dear all,
The Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group Interim Report is now open for public comments: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12oct11-en.htm
Public comments are welcome until 1 December 2011.
The FoI Working Group is developing a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework is meant to guide IANA and the ICANN Board on how to interpret the current policies and guidelines on the delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.
This public comment period is especially seeking your input on the Working Groups's methods on their analysis of "consent".
Kind regards,
Gabi
participants (4)
-
Dr Paulos Nyirenda -
Gabriella Schittek -
Keith Davidson -
Patricio Poblete