Dear all, Please find included the first substantial topic on the agenda. Please the alternatives under decision 1 B ( review mechanism first or retirement first) Kind ergards, Bart Agenda item 11- ccNSO Resolutions on ccPDP 3 ccNSO Policy Development Process on introduction of a Review Mechanism and Retirement of country code Top Level Domains Background At its meeting on 10 December 2015 the ccNSO Council discussed the launch of the formal ccNSO Policy Development Processes to address the lack of policy with respect to retirement of ccTLDs and Review Mechanism on issues of delegation, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. To increase the predictability and legitimacy of decision pertaining to the retirement of ccTLDs and in accordance with the recommendations of the ccNSO Delegation and Redelegation working group (DRDWG) in 2011[1], the void or lack of policy relating to the retirement of ccTLDs needs to filled by a policy developed by the ccNSO. However, at the time the DRDWG also recommended that such a ccNSO PDP should be launched following the development of a Framework of Interpretation of RFC 1591. Assuming the IANA Stewardship Transition will be successful, a Review Mechanism should be in place rather sooner than later to ensure a redress mechanism for ccTLDs with respect to the most critical decisions pertaining to ccTLDs: delegation, revocation, transfer and retirement of a ccTLD. Until such time a policy this has been developed and is implemented, such a mechanism remains unavailable, whilst comparable decisions or similar decisions affecting gTLDs are subject to review and redress. Following the initial discussions of Council, input and feed-back was sought from the community at the Marrakesh and Helsinki meetings. The community present was of the view that the initial focus needs to be on developing a Review Mechanism, which is considered the highest priority, in particular in light of the IANA Stewardship transition. Only then the focus should on retirement, and, if needed, revisit the Review Mechanism to include decisions relating to the retirement of ccTLDs. At its meeting in Helsinki (ICANN 56) the ccNSO Council ccNSO Council requests an Issue Report, which should address the following topics: * Recommend whether the ccNSO should initiate the ccNSO Policy Development Process on the retirement of ccTLDs and review mechanism for decision pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. * Advice whether or not to initiate a ccPDP to develop a policy on Review Mechanism first and defer the decision on the Retirement to a later stage, and if so, when the decision should be taken. * Advise whether to convene a Taskforce or use other method * If recommended to initiate to a ccNSO Policy Development Process a proposed time line for conducting each of the stages of PDP outlined herein (PDP Time Line) Following the discussion with the community present at the Hyderabad meeting on the topics to be dealt with through a ccPDP, and at the request of the Issue Manager, the ccNSO Council called for one or two drafting teams which would develop charters of the working groups to: * Develop the review mechanism of decision pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs and * Develop recommendations for a policy on the retirement of ccTLDs. The draft charters should be included in the Issue Report. On 9 March 2017, the Issue Manager submitted the Final Issue Report to Council. Following the discussions within the Council, feed-back and input from the community and the drafting team, the Issue Manager recommended: 1. The ccNSO Council initiates a ccNSO Policy Development Process to develop policies for a Review Mechanism and on the retirement of ccTLDs. 2. To initiate one (1) ccNSO Policy Development Process. It is further recommended that the initial focus needs to be on developing a Review Mechanism, which is considered the highest priority, in particular in light of the IANA Stewardship transition. Only then the focus should be on retirement, and, if needed, revisit the Review Mechanism to include decisions relating to the retirement of ccTLDs. 3. To appoint two working groups each with its own charter, working method and schedule. However, at the meeting in Copenhagen community members suggested to change the order in which the topics need to be addressed. Analyses shows that such an alternative order safe at least 3 months and simplify the process. Effectively this means that by reversing the order, so first retirement and then review mechanism, the potential review mechanism would be available sooner to the community. Finally, as already noted in 2011 the retirement of ccTLDs has been and is undertaking with no policy in place. As the ccNSO will embark on the development of a policy for the retirement of ccTLDs, and pending the outcome of this process, new decisions in this area could impact the development of such a policy and are taken with the knowledge that a policy is being developed. Draft Decisions 1. In accordance with Annex B section 3and 4 of the ICANN Bylaws, the ccNSO Council decides that: 1. Based on a review of the issues, considering that the Threshold Criteria are met, and taking into account General Counsel’s opinion, the Issues Manager recommendation to initiate one (1) ccNSO Policy Development Process to develop policies for a Review Mechanism and on the retirement of ccTLDs. 1. Alternative 1: The initial focus needs to be on developing a Review Mechanism, which is considered the highest priority, in particular in light of the IANA Stewardship transition. Only then the focus should be on retirement, and, if needed, revisit the Review Mechanism to include decisions relating to the retirement of ccTLDs. Alternative 2: The initial focus needs to be on developing a policy for Retirement of ccTLDs, and only after the substantive work has been concluded the focus should be on developing a recommendations pertaining to the Review Mechanism pertaining to decisions on delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs. 1. To appoint two working groups each with its own charter, working method and schedule. 1. The secretariat is requested to send out a call for volunteers for the first WG, and invite other stakeholders listed in the relevant charter, to participate in the WG in the manner most suited to them. 1. As required under Annex B, the Chair of the ccNSO is requested to formally inform the Chair of the GAC and ask the GAC to advise or provide an opinion. 1. The chair of the ccNSO is requested to recommend the ICANN Board of Directors to defer any decisions pertaining to the retirement of a ccTLD until such a time the policy for the retirement of the ccTLD has been developed following this ccNSO PDP 3 and adopted and implemented by ICANN. 1. The secretariat is requested is publish this resolution as soon as possible and upon publication it becomes effective. ________________________________ [1] See DRD WG Final Report, page 19, http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/drd-wg-final-report-07mar11-en.pdf and Council Decision 16 March 2011, http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-16mar11-en.pdf