ICANN Resolutions » Adoption of the Framework of Interpretation for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations
Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.
Adoption of the Framework of Interpretation recommendations for ccTLD Delegations and Redelegations which was developed by Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) and reviewed by CCNSO and considered by the GAC
Whereas, the ccNSO Council established the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) in March 2011 with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to develop guidance to ICANN on how to implement existing policies and guidelines applicable to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.
Whereas, in accordance with the charter, and after a long and intense consultation process of the FOIWG, community and others, the Framework of Interpretation recommendations were finalized in June 2014 at the London ICANN Public Meeting and submitted to the ccNSO and GAC to seek their acceptance of the recommendations.
Whereas, the ccNSO Council approved the Framework of Interpretation at its meeting on 11 February 2015.
Whereas, while the GAC has not formally approved the document, it considered the FOIWG's efforts as demonstrated in its 11 February 2015 Communiqué, and has not identified any recommendations that it does not support.
Whereas, implementation of the recommendations will benefit from community input, including the ccNSO as well as consultation on an implementation plan.
Resolved (2015.06.25.07), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to develop an implementation plan for the recommendations for community consideration through a public comment, and to implement the plan when finalized.
Resolved (2015.06.25.08), the Board requests the ccNSO to appoint as soon as possible a small advisory team of subject matter experts to remain available to assist ICANN staff on implementation questions that arise during the development of the implementation plan, and inform ICANN of the appointments.
Why the Board is addressing the issue?
Based on its mandate the Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FOIWG) developed a framework of interpretation of current policy, to provide "a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board1" on how ICANN is expected to interpret the current policies in its day-to-day operations. The work of the FOIWG resulted in a set of recommendations determined by the working group to be needed to provide clarity to ICANN's processes. The Board is ratifying these recommendations now, following adoption of the recommendations by the ccNSO Council and non-objection from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and the formal communication of the recommendations to the Board in March 2015.
What is the proposal being considered?
The ccNSO recommended that the ICANN adopt the Framework of Interpretation and adopt the document as the specific guidance on the interpretation of the existing, applicable policies, in particular relating to areas such as obtaining and documenting consent, from significantly interested parties, and procedures for unconsented redelegations.2
In addition the ccNSO Council recommended the ICANN Board that certain documents including the GAC Principles 2000 (which the GAC superseded in 2005), ICANN's ICP1 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en) and News Memo 1 (http://www.iana.org/reports/1997/cctld-news-oct1997.html) should be archived and considered no longer used by ICANN staff.3
Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
The FOIWG developed its initial recommendations in December 2011. As required by its charter, this interim report and recommendations were published and subject to public comment from the ICANN community. The overview of publication of main documents and public consultations is included in the Final Report of the FOIWG (Annex F) [PDF, 3.44 MB].
In order to keep the community abreast of the progress made, the FOIWG regularly published progress reports4, and provided updates and presented its findings to the ccTLD community and GAC during successive ICANN meetings since March 2011.
Finally, according to the charter of the FOIWG, the ccNSO and GAC would be requested to endorse or support each of the Recommendations of Interpretations Reports (on Consent, Significantly Interested Parties, and Revocation). As such the Recommendations for Interpretations on "Consent" was submitted to the ICANN Board of Directors in March 2012. However, taking into account the duration of the process and the need to ensure consistency across the sets of Recommendations of Interpretations, the ccNSO and GAC reached an understanding that endorsement or support would only be sought for the full set of Recommendations (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-progress-report-02oct12-en.pdf [PDF, 63 KB]). In October 2014, the ccNSO Council expressed its interim support of the FOIWG work, until such time the GAC made its position clear. The chairs of the ccNSO and FOIWG were requested to work with the Chair of the GAC and interested GAC members, to actively seek GAC support for the FOI (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-adoption-final-20oct14-en.pdf [PDF, 65 KB]). In February 2015 the ccNSO and GAC had a final, constructive exchange of views on issues raised by the FOIWG and the GAC noted the work of the ccNSO FOIWG, and its efforts to provide interpretive clarity to RFC 1591 and did not express it did not support the recommendations. (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-11feb1... [PDF, 113 KB]) The ICANN Board of directors was informed accordingly.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed the following reports:
FOIWG Final Report: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf [PDF, 3.44 MB]
ccNSO Council Resolution 11 February 2015: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-resolutions-11feb15-en.pdf [PDF, 66 KB]
GAC Singapore Communiqué February 2015: https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC_SINGAPORE52_C... [PDF, 113 KB]
What factors did the Board find to be significant?
The Board noted that according to the IANA Functions Contract between the US Government and ICANN, contract implementation issues or procedures relating to the contract were outside the scope of the working group. It is further noted that the recommendations do not amend, update or change current policies.
Are there positive or negative community impacts?
The recommendations are expected to have a positive community impact through implementing desired clarifications to the relevant procedures as the result of thoughtful analysis by the working group. In particular, the recommendations provide specific detail on aspects of processing that are expected to provide clarity to those involved in delegation and redelegation processes.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
Implementing the Framework of Interpretation would be lead by ICANN's IANA Department. Initially it will require development of an implementation plan. Following agreement on the process, the implementation itself will require development of enhancements to existing systems, updated internal documentation, and the training and testing of that documentation and revised systems among the staff involved in processing such requests. It will also require staff resources to liaise with the community to clarify specific implementation details of the Framework of Interpretation recommendations; staff to develop enhanced software, tools, and programs for report generation; and support from the Communications department to assist in the communication plan. Aspects of the recommendations pertain to legal matters (such as obtaining valid consent that is properly documented) and therefore the IANA department will require dialogue with ICANN's legal team and possibly other experts to properly capture appropriate implementation details.
It is noted that some aspects of the recommendations may be informed by developments in the overall stewardship of the IANA functions. While the intention is to develop an implementation that suits the current oversight environment by the NTIA, the implementation may need reconsideration in light of changes beyond a transition of NTIA's stewardship role.