CcNSO Policy Development Process - Retirement: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
In response to a triggering event, the IANA Naming Functions Operator (IFO) sends a Notice of Removal to the ccTLD manager, stating that the ccTLD will be removed from the root in five years' time. The ccTLD manager may submit a Retirement Plan that extends the retirement timeframe to up to ten years. In the case of triggering event #2, above, the manager may also appeal the decision to retire the TLD.<ref name="final" /> A ccTLD manager may also appeal an IFO decision to not grant an extension of the five-year timeline for retirement. No appeal is allowed for ccTLD managers whose country code is removed from the ISO 3166-1 list (triggering event #1).<ref name="final" /> | In response to a triggering event, the IANA Naming Functions Operator (IFO) sends a Notice of Removal to the ccTLD manager, stating that the ccTLD will be removed from the root in five years' time. The ccTLD manager may submit a Retirement Plan that extends the retirement timeframe to up to ten years. In the case of triggering event #2, above, the manager may also appeal the decision to retire the TLD.<ref name="final" /> A ccTLD manager may also appeal an IFO decision to not grant an extension of the five-year timeline for retirement. No appeal is allowed for ccTLD managers whose country code is removed from the ISO 3166-1 list (triggering event #1).<ref name="final" /> | ||
===Submission and Board Action=== | |||
The ICANN Board received the ccNSO's policy report in September 2021.<ref name="74session">[https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/jboc23nMv7ewMYjMX ICANN 74 Archive - ccNSO Council Meeting], June 16, 2022 (Presentation of Patricio Poblete beginning at 56:00)</ref> [[Patricio Poblete]] presented an update to the ccNSO Council on the board's process at [[ICANN 74]].<ref name="74session" /> He noted that the relative lack of ccNSO policy activity caused a need to develop some procedures for processing the policy recommendations on an ad hoc basis. He noted specific provisions of the [[ICANN Bylaws]] that required certain steps upon receipt of a policy proposal that would "substantially affect the operation of the Internet:"<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article3 ICANN Bylaws, Article 3.6], as amended June 2, 2022</ref> | |||
# A public comment period on the proposed policy is required; | |||
# The opinion of the [[GAC]] must be requested; and | |||
# Where practically feasible and consistent with the policy development process, a public forum should be held.<ref name="74session" /> | |||
Poblete stated in his presentation that, to his surprise, the public comment periods that occurred during the policy development process were not sufficient to satisfy the "notice and comment" requirement. As a result, upon receipt of the policy, a number of actions were taken. At its October 2021 board workshop, the board created an ad hoc group to shepherd the policy assessment process. The ad hoc group was comprised of [[Avri Doria]], [[Becky Burr]], [[Katrina Sataki]], with Poblete chairing the group. The group first established a charter to organize and frame its work, and began meeting in March 2022. In addition to addressing the retirement policy, the group charter also called for more formal procedures to receive and process ccNSO policy recommendations.<ref name="74session" /> | |||
As the group was working through the preliminaries, the retirement policy was published for public comment<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/ccnso-proposed-policy-on-the-retirement-of-cctlds-22-11-2021 ICANN Public Comment Archive - ccNSO Proposed Policy on the Retirement of ccTLDs], initiated November 22, 2021</ref> and the GAC was invited to evaluate and provide advice on the policy.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-06dec21-en.pdf ICANN Correspondence Archive - Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail], December 6, 2021</ref> There were only four responses to the public comment process, largely positive regarding the policy. The GAC responded in January, noting that they had paid close attention during the PDP and had no objections or concerns.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-botterman-31jan22-en.pdf ICANN Correspondence Archive - Manal Ismail to Maarten Botterman], January 31, 2022</ref> | |||
==Implications for Open Use ccTLDs== | ==Implications for Open Use ccTLDs== | ||