Name: Byron Holland

Organization: Country Code Names Supporting Organisation Council (ccNSO Council)

Submission ID: 49

7 September 2015
The ccNSO Council welcomes the opportunity to review the Proposal to Transition theStewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S.
Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community.
Please see attached for the comments of the ccNSO council focus on sections 1027 and1036 of the ICG’s Proposal.
This submission was adopted by the ccNSO Council unanimously by email vote on 7
September 2015.
On behalf of the ccNSO Council

Byron Holland,ccNSO ChairFramework of Interpretation (Section 1027)
The Council wishes to bring to your attention that certain statements set out in section
1027 of the consolidated IANA stewardship Transition proposal are rendered obsolete..
From the Proposal (s.1027)“The ccNSO formally endorsed the FOIWG’s Final Report in February 2015 andtransmitted it to the ICANN Board of Directors. It is currently pending review andadoption by the ICANN Board.”
The Framework of Interpretation (FOI) is no longer pending.
At its meeting on 25 June 2015 ICANN’s Board of Directors adopted and endorsed theFramework of Interpretation without reservation.
The Board of ICANN directed that “the CEO & President or his designee to develop animplementation plan for the recommendations for community consideration through apublic comment, and to implement the plan when finalized.”1
We understand the difficulty to reflect the current state-of affairs of the matters
documented in the proposal. However, in order given the paramount importance of theFramework of Interpretation in the context of delegation and re-delegations of ccTLDs,
it is also important that there be a defined and current baseline documentation
available post-transition.
Accordingly, we recommend the ICG, to consider the Proposal a 'living instrument' andupdate it from time-to-time to accurately reflect the actual and current state of affairs
regarding the Framework of Interpretation. We suggest it is updated by the ICG up anduntil the submission of the Transition Proposal to the ICANN Board of Directors.
The ccNSO Council undertakes to inform the ICG on future relevant matters relating tothe Framework of Interpretation, if any, to assist the ICG in keeping the Proposal up todate with respect to all matters pertaining to ccTLDs.

1

https://features.icann.org/adoption-framework-interpretation-cctld-delegations-andredelegations

References to documentation of policy development and dispute resolution processes(ccTLDs) (Section 1036)
The ccNSO Council notes that the list of reference documentation of policy development
and dispute resolution process (ccTLDs), section 1036, includes a reference to ICP-1,
carrying the implication that ICP-1 is policy.
The ccNSO Council regrets this, and believes that this reference creates unnecessary
ambiguity and uncertainty now and, more importantly, for the post-transition
landscape.
The ccNSO Council further regrets that the inclusion of such a reference has
unnecessarily re-opened a debate on the proposal as a whole, and as a result has had aadverse effect on the support for the Stewardship Proposal by the ccTLD community.
Inclusion of a reference to ICP-1 in this way is incorrect. It is not a document of policy
development and dispute resolution processes as implied by the heading of this section.
As noted in section 1027 of the Proposal, the ccTLD community and the ccNSO havevery longstanding and formal objections to ICP-1 on the grounds of both content andprocedure.
Further, as noted above, section 1025 of the Proposal, following formal submision of theFramework of Interpretation, the ICANN board has agreed to our recommendation thatICANN is to archive ICP-1, News Memo – 1 and also the GAC Principles 2000
(superseded by the GAC Principles 20052). Also, the Framework of Interpretation,
accepted unanimously by ccTLD members of the ccNSO, articulates that RFC1591 andthe 2005 GAC Principles are they only applicable policies and guidelines for delegations
and redelegations of ccTLDs.
Finally, we observe that referencing ICP-1 alone in this section is inconsistent. Either, allobsolete and non-policy documentation should be included, or only actual and current
documentation. In the first case News Memo – 1 and the GAC Principles 2000 along withseveral early RFCs should be included as well (marking them as obsolete and their statusof archived), or none of them should be referenced at all.
The ccNSO Council therefore recommends and requests appropriate editorial changes,
which can be achieved by removing the reference to ICP-1 in section 1036 altogether,and including a footnote referencing the removal clearly indicating the non-status of2In 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 andconsidered no longer used by ICANN staff. See Board resolution 25 June 2015.

ICP-1 as well as News Memo 1 and GAC Principles from 2000 (the latter having beenformally superseded by the GAC).
The ccNSO Council therefore: Recommends the removal of the reference to ICP-1 from section 1036.
 Suggests inclusion of a footnote referencing the removal of reference to ICP-1,
clearly indicating that ICP-1 has never been an accepted policy by ccTLDs.
 Further suggests such a footnote may also reference that News Memo 1 also wasnever accepted as a policy by ccTLDs.
 Further suggests that the footnote also notes that the GA Principles 2000 are nolonger applicable, as they were superseded by the 2005 GAC Principles ondelegation and redelegation of ccTLDs.