[CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks Paul.  I have learned a lot about ccTLDs in this CWG process.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul M Kane - CWG [mailto:paul.kane-cwg at icb.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 9:00 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Martin Boyle; Chris Disspain; cwg-stewardship at icann.org; elise.gerich at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] A few additional comments for … Two additional webinars on 6-7 May

Morning Chuck
 
I think we need to be very clear with regard to the roles and responsibilities of ICANN/IANA/gTLD/ccTLD Registry/National Framework... 
as outlined in my email dated 26/10/2014 @ 09:15 UTC - and nothing we propose should change that status.

The ccTLD community falls into three groups.  Those who have historically instructed IANA based on local consensus (see 1591 below), those that have contracts with ICANN that lay out the roles of each parties, and those who want ICANN to make decisions and hold the liability for that decision.

> RFC-1591 is very specific on (re)delegations:
>     6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one
>        organization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA
>        in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from
>        both the old organization and the new organization that assure the
>        IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new
>        organization understands its responsibilities.
> 
>        It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive communications
>        from other parties that may be concerned or affected by the
>        transfer.

For the "independent" ccTLD operators (non-ccNSO Registry members), the incumbent and the new operator facilitate the transfer in accordance with the laws in which the Registry is incorporated - and advise IANA that technical stability can be assured.  So the "liability" rests with the operators.

There are some ccTLDs that are under contract with ICANN and they indemnify ICANN should they have agreed that ICANN should make a decision and ICANN informs IANA of their decision that the process has been followed.

There are other operators without a contract invite ICANN (using policies that the ccNSO have developed) to make a decision with regard to redelegation and inform IANA as to the compliance with that Policy - and in so doing pass the liability for any stability issues to ICANN. 

Best

Paul

Quoting "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>:

> I just received the clarification I needed on this from Bernie and 
> Bart.  The IANA do the due diligence to ensure that the local 
> laws/community issues are satisfied for ccTLDs.  I had mistakenly 
> thought that that was done by ICANN staff and reported to the IANA 
> team.  For gTLDs I do not believe that the IANA team needs to do any 
> policy checking but just need the confirmation from the GDD team that policy is in order.
> 
> I am fine with this.  I see no problem at all that it is handled 
> differently for gTLDs and ccTLDs.  Also, if the ccTLD registries are 
> fine with this, that is what matters.
>