View source for Framework of Interpretation

The '''Framework of Interpretation''' was developed by a [[ccNSO]] [[Working Group]] to provide interpretive guidance and establish a common understanding of the meaning and intent of [[RFC 1591]].<ref name="foihome">[https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/foiwg.htm ccNSO - Framework of Interpretation Archive]</ref> The group was chartered in the lead-up to the [[IANA Stewardship Transition]], and the group's final report provides a basis for policy making regarding IANA functions as they pertain to [[ccTLD]]s.<ref name="finalrep">[https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foi-final-07oct14-en.pdf FOI-WG Final Report], October 2014</ref> The group was not empowered to make policy, nor was the interpretive framework meant to supplant or overwrite existing policies.<ref name="finalrep" />

==Recommendations==
Based on its interpretation of RFC 1591, the working group had three key recommendations:
#The IANA Operator (IFO) should adopt and implement RFC 1591 as interpreted by the working group;
#The ccNSO should consider collaborating with IANA to educate its membership and the broader ccTLD constituency about the interpretive framework and its implications for management of ccTLDs; and 
#The IFO should continue to issue reports regarding each ccTLD delegation, transfer, and revocation it completes, using the interpretive framework as a template for explaining its rationales for decision-making.<ref name="finalrep" />

==Interpretation==
The final report synthesizes existing IANA policies with the spirit and intent of RFC 1591, so that policy-making can be grounded in what occurred prior to the development of the interpretive framework, and move forward with a common understanding and expectation of the IANA functions for ccTLDs.<ref name="finalrep" /> The report defines key terms and the basis from which the IFO could act to transfer (in common usage, "redelegate") or revoke ("unconsented redelegation") the management of a ccTLD. <ref name="finalrep" /> 

In deference to the diverse circumstances of ccTLD managers, the report errs on the side of local solutions to technical, ethical, and other issues that do not threaten the security or stability of the root.<ref name="finalrep" /> The report also stresses that clear expectations and transparent decision-making are at the heart of RFC 1591's guidance regarding management of the DNS.<ref name="finalrep" />

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Frameworks]]