zh

Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Interim Report on Support Significantly Interested Parties for ccTLD Delegation or Redelegation Requests

Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links
Comment Open: 3 February 2012
Comment Close: 30 March 2012
Close Time (UTC): 23.59 UTC Public Comment Announcement
Reply Open: 31 March 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum Closed)
Reply Close: 20 April 2012 View Comments Submitted
Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG)
Categories/Tags:
  • Top-Level Domains
  • Policy Processes
  • Transparency/Accountability
Purpose (Brief):

The ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI) seeks public comment on its recommendations on obtaining and documenting support from "Significantly Interested Parties" (formerly known as Local Internet Community or LIC) for requests for delegation and re-delegation of a ccTLD. The recommendations contained in the report are proposed interpretation of existing policy and guidelines.

Current Status:

Seeking public comment on its Interim Report is part of the process for developing recommendations as defined in the charter of the FoiWG.

Next Steps:

The WG will closely review all submitted comments to determine at may at its reasonable discretion modify its report. According to its charter the WG is not obligated to include all comments made during the comment period, nor is it obligated to include all comments submitted by any one individual or organization.

The Working expects to formally publish its Final Report prior to the next ICANN meeting in Prague, Czech Republic (June 2012)

Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel Email: bart.boswinkel@icann.org
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The FOI WG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and analysed all past cases of re-delegations with regard to "Interested Parties". Based on an extensive analysis the WG identified issues pertaining to the interpretation and in the context of the applicable policies and procedures. To address these issues the FOIWG developed draft recommendations, which in summary are:

    1. IANA should undertake the steps necessary to implement the following interpretations of policies:
      1. Definition of Significantly Interested Parties- Significantly Interested Parties include, but are not limited to: a) the government or territorial authority for the country or territory associated with the ccTLD and b) any other individuals, organizations, companies, associations, educational institutions or others that have a direct, material, substantial, legitimate and demonstrable interest in the operation of the ccTLD(s) including the incumbent manager.
        1. This interpretation should not be taken as implying the elimination or replacement of any of the requirements relating to consent of the proposed and current managers (where applicable).
        2. To be considered a Significantly Interested Party, any party other than the government or territorial authority for the country or territory associated with the ccTLD must demonstrate that it is has a direct, material, legitimate and demonstrable interest in the operation of the ccTLD(s).
      2. Applicants should be encouraged to provide documentation of the support of stakeholders for the delegation, re-delegation, or revocation request(s), but IANA should also provide an opportunity for Stakeholders to comment on the request via a public process.
        1. These requirements do not modify or eliminate the rights, if any, of a delegated manager existing prior to the adoption of RFC 1591.
        2. "Stakeholders" is used here to encompass Significantly Interested Parties, "interested parties" and "other parties" referenced in RFC 1591.
        3. Classification of input – IANA should develop, publish, and document its compliance with procedures for consideration of input from Stakeholders, taking into account the nature of the commenting party’s interest in the delegation, transfer (uncontested re-delegation), revocation, and operation of the ccTLD and the relevance, substance and weight of such input. This classification should be based on these FOIWG interpretation of Significantly Interested Parties. This classification must also take into account that:
          1. In the case of a delegation, Significantly Interested Parties should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party and that other Stakeholders have some voice in selecting the manager.
          2. In the case of a transfer, Stakeholder input should be considered and taken into account.
      3. IANA reports on delegations, transfers and revocations should reflect consistent application of these FOIWG recommended guidelines and should include the detailed results of IANA’s evaluation of Stakeholder input regarding the requested action.
    2. The IANA functions manager is requested to inform the GAC and ccNSO at each ICANN meeting on the plan and progress to date in implementing these FOIWG recommended guidelines.
    3. Should the IANA functions manager choose not to comply with these FOIWG recommended guidelines in connection with any specific delegation, transfer, or revocation, it should provide the rationale for doing so in a public report.
    4. Any changes to these FOIWG recommended guidelines should be the subject of a formal public consultation as per ICANN standard procedures.

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 Final Report of the Delegation, Re-delegation and Retirement Working group has identified the following issues with the topic of support for delegation and redelegation requests from "Interested Parties":

"An analysis of all approved delegation and re-delegation requests published by ICANN indicates a significant degree of inconsistency in applying the "Interested Parties" requirement. This includes the approval of a number delegation and re-delegation requests which have no documentation indicating any support by Interested Parties".

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 functions manager and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current Policy Statements.

Section III: Document and Resource Links

The Interim Report can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg-interim-report-03feb12-en.pdf [PDF, 989 KB]

Additional Resources:

Further information on the work of the FoI WG is available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm

Section IV: Additional Information

The Interim Report addresses the second of the following topics and 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.

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.