3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 56:
Line 70: − + + +
CcNSO Policy Development Process - Retirement (view source)
Revision as of 00:01, 22 June 2022
, 1 year ago→ccNSO Reactions
#for ccTLDs whose codes are on the ISO-3166-1 list, when that code is removed from the list by ISO;
#for ccTLDs whose codes are on the ISO-3166-1 list, when that code is removed from the list by ISO;
#for ccTLDs whose codes do not appear on the ISO-3166-1 list, when the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency makes any change to that code; and
#for ccTLDs whose codes do not appear on the ISO-3166-1 list, when the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency makes any change to that code; and
#for IDN ccTLDs, the triggering event will be separately established by the [[CcNSO Policy Development Process - Deselection of IDN ccTLDs|PDP on selection and deselection of IDN ccTLDs]] (launched May 2020).<ref name="final" />
#for IDN ccTLDs, the triggering event will be separately established by the [[CcNSO Policy Development Process - IDN Strings|PDP on selection and deselection of IDN ccTLDs]] (launched May 2020).<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" />
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 worked with the [[Board Governance Committee]] to draft a charter for the group's work, and after BGC approval of the charter,<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-bgc-2022-02-15-en Minutes of the Meeting of the Board Governance Committee], February 15, 2022</ref> the ad hoc group 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>
====ccNSO Reactions====
Poblete's presentation was met with varying degrees of disappointment by the assembled council members. [[Chris Disspain]] requested more information regarding the delay between receipt of the policy and action on the policy. Poblete agreed that the the timeframe for establishing the charter was longer than he anticipated. [[Nick Wenban-Smith]] wondered if "it is just that ICANN is rubbish at everything, and five years is a reasonable time to do something quite simple..." Poblete agreed again, noting that he was part of the PDP process, and was surprised that "yet another" public comment period was needed. [[Stephen Deerhake]] asked Poblete not to take his comments personally, and then commented that
<blockquote>This grade of inaction, I think, is not only inexcusable, I think it's insulting to the volunteer community as Nick pointed out, has worked a long, long time on this policy. I don't understand why it appears the board got caught flat-footed when this policy was delivered to them. We've been working on it for years. The board's known that - the working group has been the butt of jokes within the board for taking so long, if I understand correctly. So it should not have been a surprise when this policy picked up...pitched up...It would be nice to have some semblance of communication from the board to the working group of any concerns or questions you might have. We've heard nothing.<ref name="74session" /></blockquote>
==Implications for Open Use ccTLDs==
==Implications for Open Use ccTLDs==
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Policy Development Process]]
[[Category:PDPs]]