[AfrICANN-discuss] Delegation- Re- delegation of ccTLDs: Framework of Interpretation Working Group – Interim Report

[Anne-Rachel Inné]

Framework of Interpretation Working Group – Interim Report  Comment Period
Deadlines (*) Important Information Links  Public Comment
Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/foiwg-interim-report-12oct11-en.htm>
*Open Date:* 12 October 2011 To Submit Your Comments
(Forum)<foiwg-interim-report at icann.org>
*Close Date:* 1 December 2011 *Time (UTC):* 23:59 View Comments
Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/foiwg-interim-report/>
*Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose*

The Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) is seeking public
comment on Interim Report on the first topic it has addressed: obtaining and
documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests.

The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group
(DRDWG) identified the following issues with the topic of "consent":

*"The Interpretation of consent (communication that the transfer is agreed),
by IANA's own admission, is highly variable depending on a number of factors
including culture and the immediate physical security of the ccTLD manager.
This includes interpreting a failure to reply to an IANA email as consent in
certain cases of re-delegations where the current manager has stated he does
not support the request."*

The FOIWG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and
analysed all past cases of ccTLD re-delegations researching the stated
consent in each instance. Based on this analysis the FOIWG identified the
issues in the context of the applicable policies. These issues were further
analysed to identify any issues arising from this analysis. Based on this
analysis the FOIWG developed draft recommendations.

To be most helpful input and feed-back from the community is sought with
respect to the following questions:

   1. Is the approach used by the FOIWG satisfactory?
   2. Is the documentation that was analyzed to identify issues
   comprehensive?
   3. Do the issues identified by the FOIWG for this topic capture the major
   problems associated with the topic? If not, what is missing?
   4. Are the proposed guidelines effective solutions to the issues that
   were identified?
   5. Are the recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in
   the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic?

  *Section II: Background*

The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of
the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG):

*Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs*

*The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes
the development of a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and
re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA
and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines
and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.*

*The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be
formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined
period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of
Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN
decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation
and re-delegation of ccTLDs.*

The charter of the FOIWG was adopted by the ccNSO Council at its meeting on
16 March 2011 and appointed as its chair Keith Davidson of .NZ (former Chair
of the DRDWG). In June 2011 the charter was updated to reflect the
participation of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The charter and
the list of participants of the working group can be found at
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm).

The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of
Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This
framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on
interpretation of the current policies and guidelines pertaining to the
delegation and redelegation of ccTLD’s. The scope of the FOIWG also clearly
specifies that:

   - Any proposal to amend, update or change the Policy Statements is
   outside the scope of the FOIWG.
   - The IANA functions contract between the US Government and ICANN,
   including any contract implementation issues or procedures relating to it,
   are outside the scope of the FOIWG.

 *Section III: Document and Resource Links*

*Documents posted for comment*:

The Interim Report is posted here:
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/interim-report-consent-final-12oct11-en.pdf[PDF,
1.63 MB]

*Additional Resources*:

Further information on the work of the Framework of Interpretation Working
Group is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm.
 *Section IV: Additional Information*

The Interim Report addresses the first of the following topics the FOIWG
identified which will be considered individually and in the order presented:

   - Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation
   requests
   - Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation
   requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as
   Local Internet Community or LIC).
   - Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations
   - Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the
   delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.
   - Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and
   re-delegation.

 *Staff Contact:* Bart Boswinkel *Email:*
bart.boswinkel at icann.org<bart.boswinkel at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Framework%20of%20Interpretation%20Working%20Group%20%E2%80%93%20Interim%20Report%20public%20comment%20period>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20111012/fe5d2a8d/attachment-0001.htm