Post on 27-Sep-2020
FinalReport
Obtaininganddocumenting“consent”forccTLDdelegationandre‐delegationrequests
ccNSOFrameworkofInterpretationWorkingGroup(FOIWG)
February2011
FinalReportversion1,February2012 3
ContentsExecutiveSummary page3A.Introduction page5 B.Approach page6C.IdentificationofIssuesandAnalysis page7
• BackgroundandIntroduction• Objectives• ApplicablePolicyStatements• RelevantProcedures• AnalysisofIANAReportsonre‐delegations• IssuesarisingfromtheanalysisofIANAreports
onre‐delegation.D.Recommendations page13E.BackgroundandProcess page15AnnexA:Classificationofconsentforre‐delegationrequests page18
4
ExecutiveSummary
TheFrameworkofInterpretationWorkingGroup(FOIWG)ispresentingitsrecommendationsonthefirsttopicithasaddressed:obtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandre‐delegationrequests.
TheFinalReportoftheDelegationRedelegationandRetirementWorkingGroup(DRDWG)identifiedthefollowingissueswiththetopicof“consent”:
“TheInterpretationofconsent(communicationthatthetransferisagreed),byIANA’s1ownadmission,ishighlyvariabledependingonanumberoffactorsincludingcultureandtheimmediatephysicalsecurityoftheccTLDmanager.ThisincludesinterpretingafailuretoreplytoanIANAemailasconsentincertaincasesofre‐delegationswherethecurrentmanagerhasstatedhedoesnotsupporttherequest.”
TheDRDWG’sFullReportonthe“re‐delegationofccTLDswheretheincumbentoperatordoesnotconsent”includedthefollowingnoteinitsIntroduction:“Consentmeansthattheincumbentoperatorappearedtogivetheiragreement,byprovidingaformalandclearlypositivereply,totherequestedchangetotheIANAdatabase.TheWGbelievesthattheconceptsofconsent(voluntary,involuntaryandinformed)needtobefurtherexploredandclarifiedduringthedevelopmentofthe“FrameworkofInterpretation”.
AsafirststeptheFOIWGidentifiedtheapplicablepolicesandprocedurestatementsandanalysedallpastcasesofccTLDre‐delegationsresearchingthestatedconsentineachinstance.BasedonthisanalysistheFOIWGidentifiedtheissuesinthecontextoftheapplicablepolicies.Theseissueswerefurtheranalysedtoidentifyanyissuesarisingfromthisanalysis.
BasedonthisanalysistheWGdevelopeddraftrecommendationswhichwereincludedintheFOIWGInterimreportonobtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandredelegationrequests.TheInterimreportwaspublishedforpublicconsultation2.TheFOIWGreceivedadirectcommunicationfromtheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)on31January2012.AftercarefulconsiderationoftheGACcomments,theFOIWGisoftheviewthattheanalysesandrecommendationscontainedintheInterimReportonobtaininganddocumentingdonotneedtochange.
InaccordancewithitsCharter,theFinalReportonobtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandredelegationrequestswillbeconveyedtotheChairsoftheccNSOandtheGACtoseekendorsementfromboththeccNSOandGACforthe
1 InthisdocumentthetermIANAisusedtorefertotheIANAfunctionmanager2 AcompletedescriptionofthepublicconsultationprocessisincludedintheFinalsectionEofthe
report
FinalReportversion1,February2012 5
recommendationscontainedintheReport,whichinsummary3are:
1.IANAshouldundertakethestepsnecessarytoimplementthefollowingguidelines:
‐ Onlyseekconsentforare‐delegationrequestfromtheincumbentmanagerandtheproposedmanager.
‐ ThecommunicationfromIANArequestingaparty’sconsentshouldclearlystate(a)whatthepartyisbeingaskedtoagreetoand(b)whatstepsIANAwillormaytakeinresponsetotheparty’s(i)affirmativeconsent,(ii)affirmativerefusaltoconsent,or(iii)failuretorespondtothecommunicationrequestingconsent.
‐ Toestablishandpublishaprocedurehowitwillrequestaparty'sconsentanddocumentandrecordtheresponsesonsucharequest.
‐ Adoptspecificcriteriawhenevaluatingtheconsentofanincumbentorproposedmanagerforare‐delegationrequestorfromaproposedmanagerforadelegationrequest
‐ Inordertobeeffectiveincommunicatingrelevantinformation,IANAreportsonre‐delegationsshouldbeconsistentandincludeadocumentedminimumlevelofinformation.
2.IANAshouldreporttotheGACandccNSOateachICANNmeetingonthisplanandprogresstodateinimplementingtheserecommendedguidelines.
3.ShouldIANAchoosenottocomplywiththeFOIWGrecommendedguidelinesforanyspecificre‐delegation,itshouldprovidetherationalefordoingsoinapublicreport.
4.AnychangestotheFOIWGrecommendedguidelinesshouldbethesubjectofaformalpublicconsultationasperICANNstandardprocedures.
3 Thecompletesetofrecommendationsrelatingtoobtaininganddocumentingconsentfor
delegationandre‐delegationrequestsareincludedinsectionDofthisreport,.
6
A.Introduction
InMarch2011thecharteroftheccNSOFrameworkofInterpretationWorkingGroup(FOIWG)wasadoptedbytheccNSOCouncil.AccordingtoitschartertheFOIWGistodevelopandproposea"FrameworkofInterpretation"forthedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.ThisframeworkshouldprovideaclearguidetoIANAandtheICANNBoardoninterpretationsofthePolicyStatements,whicharedefinedinthecharteroftheWGasthefollowingdocuments:
• RFC1591
• GACPrinciples2005
ThescopeoftheFOIWGalsoclearlyspecifiesthat:
• Anyproposaltoamend,updateorchangethePolicyStatementsisoutsidethescopeoftheFOIWG.
• TheIANAfunctionscontractbetweentheUSGovernmentandICANN,includinganycontractimplementationissuesorproceduresrelatingtoit,areoutsidethescopeoftheFOIWG.
TheFOIWGidentifiedthefollowingtopicswhichwillbeconsideredindividuallyandintheorderpresented:
• Obtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandre‐delegationrequests
• Obtaininganddocumentingsupportfordelegationandre‐delegationrequestsfromSignificantlyInterestedParties(sometimesreferredtoasLocalInternetCommunityorLIC).
• Developingrecommendationsforun‐consentedre‐delegations
• Developingacomprehensiveglossaryofthetermsusedforthedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.
• DevelopingrecommendationsforIANAreportsondelegationandre‐delegation.
FinalReportversion1,February2012 7
B.Approach
AsafirststeptheFOIWGidentifiedtheapplicablepolicesandprocedurestatementsandanalysedallpastcasesofre‐delegationswithregardtoconsent.BasedonthisanalysistheWGidentifiedtheissuesinthecontextoftheapplicablepoliciesandprocedures.Theseissueswerefurtheranalysedincludinganidentificationoftheissuesarisingoutofthisanalysis.
8
C.IdentificationofIssuesandAnalysis
1. BackgroundandIntroduction
1.1. TheFinalReportoftheDRDWGidentifiedthefollowingissueswiththistopic:
1.1.1. Interpretationofconsent(communicationthatthetransferisagreed),byIANA’sownadmission,ishighlyvariabledependingonanumberoffactorsincludingcultureandtheimmediatephysicalsecurityoftheccTLDmanager.
1.1.2. ThisincludesinterpretingafailuretoreplytoanIANAemailasconsentincertaincasesofre‐delegationswherethecurrentmanagerhasstatedhedoesnotsupporttherequest.
1.2. TheDRDWGReportonthere‐delegationofccTLDswheretheincumbentoperatordoesnotconsentincludedthefollowingnoteinitsIntroduction:
1.2.1. “Consentmeansthattheincumbentoperatorappearedtogivetheiragreement,byprovidingaformalandclearlypositivereply,totherequestedchangetotheIANAdatabase.TheWGbelievesthattheconceptsofconsent(voluntary,involuntaryandinformed)needtobefurtherexploredandclarifiedduringthedevelopmentofthe“FrameworkofInterpretation”.
1.3. Applicability
1.3.1. Delegation
1.3.1.1. TherewerenoissuesraisedbytheDRDWGwithrespecttoproposedoperatorapprovingthedelegationofaccTLD.Theprocessesandproceduressurroundingdelegationseemadequateasfarasconsentisconcerned.
1.3.2. Re‐delegation
1.3.2.1. ThereweresignificantissuesraisedbytheDRDWGwithrespecttoIANAreportsdocumentinganoperatorapprovingthere‐delegationofitsccTLD.
1.3.3. Retirement
1.3.3.1. AlthoughthereisnopolicystatementdealingwiththeretirementofccTLDs(ISO3166‐1orIDN)therecommendationsoftheFOIWGonthetopicofconsentforre‐delegationcouldalsoapplytotheretirementofccTLDs.
2. Objectives
FinalReportversion1,February2012 9
2.1. Identifyapplicablepolicesandprocedurestatements.
2.2. Analyzeallpastcasesofre‐delegationsvs.consentandidentifyissuesvsapplicablepoliciesandprocedures.
2.3. Identifyandanalyseanyissuesarising.
2.4. Developrecommendationsandguidelinesasappropriate.
3. ApplicablePolicyStatements
3.1. RFC1591
3.1.1. Section3“TheAdministrationofDelegatedDomains”subsection6states:“Foranytransferofthedesignatedmanagertrusteeshipfromoneorganizationtoanother,thehigher‐leveldomainmanager(theIANAinthecaseoftop‐leveldomains)mustreceivecommunicationsfromboththeoldorganizationandtheneworganizationthatassuretheIANAthatthetransferinmutuallyagreed,andthattheneworganizationunderstandsitsresponsibilities.ItisalsoveryhelpfulfortheIANAtoreceivecommunicationsfromotherpartiesthatmaybeconcernedoraffectedbythetransfer.”
3.2. GACPrinciples2005
3.2.1. TheGACPrinciples2005donotdealwiththeconceptofconsentbythecurrentoperator.
4. RelevantProcedures
4.1. “UnderstandingtheccTLDDelegationandRedelegationProcedure”.Thefollowingsectionsarerelevanttothetopicofconsent:
4.1.1. “AfterIANAreceivestherequest”:“TherearetwopossibleresultsfromtheIANAreviewstep.First,IANAmayfindthattheyhavesufficientdocumentationtogoforwardwiththerequest.Inthiscase,IANAstaffbeginstheprocessofrequestingconfirmationoftheredelegationfromexistingcontacts.”
4.1.2. “Requestingconfirmationfromcontacts”:
4.1.2.1. “OnceIANAhascompleteditsverificationandanalysisofthematerialsuppliedintherequestitthenrequests,confirmationoftheredelegationfromthecurrentadministrativeandtechnicalcontacts(ifapplicable)aswellasthenewlyproposedadministrativeandtechnicalcontacts.
4.1.2.2. Ifconfirmationisimmediatefromallparties,IANAproceedswith
10
thenextstepintheprocess.Inthosecaseswhereconfirmationisnotreceivedfromoneormoreparties,furtherconsultationisnecessary.IANA’sexperiencehasbeenthatafailuretoreceiveconfirmationfromtheexistingorproposedcontactscansignificantlydelayandcomplicatetheprocess.
5. AnalysisofIANAReportsonre‐delegations
5.1. Systemforclassificationofconsent‐GiventhedocumentationofconsentbyeithertheincumbentManager,ACorTCvariesinIANAreportsonre‐delegationsitisnecessarytodefineasystemfortheclassificationofconsentfromthesepartiestosupportameaningfulanalysis.Theclassificationsystemdevelopedforthisisbasedonthefollowingdefinitions:
5.1.1. Documented–TheIANAreportincludessomereferenceastohowthecontactprovidedconsent.
5.1.2. Inferred–AlthoughthereisnoreportingofconsentthereissomeinformationintheIANAReportwhichcouldimplyconsentofthecontact.
5.1.3. NotAddressed–thereisnomentionofconsentintheIANAReport.
5.1.4. Noted–IANAsimplynotesorstatesthatthecontacthasprovidedconsentwithoutanyadditionaldocumentationfromthecontacttosupportthestatement.
5.1.5. Refused–TheIANAReportdocumentsthecontactrefusingtoconsenttothere‐delegation.
5.2. Casesofre‐delegation‐From2000toJanuary2011thereare50casesofRe‐delegationsdocumentedbyIANAReports.
5.3. ThefullanalysisandresultsareinAnnexA.
Consentforrequest clear ? Total % Documented 9 2 11 22%Inferred‐questionable 5 0 5 10%NotAddressed 9 0 9 18%Noted 21 2 23 46%Refused 2 0 2 4%
5.4. Analysisofresultsofconsentforrequest
5.4.1. "DocumentedandNoted"represent68%ofre‐delegationcaseswhere
FinalReportversion1,February2012 11
therearefewissueswithconsentfortherequestasdocumentedintheIANAreport.
6. IssuesarisingfromtheanalysisofIANAreportsonre‐delegation.
6.1. IANAreportsonre‐delegationvariouslyrefertoconsentfromeithertheincumbentmanager,ACorTC.ShouldIANAacceptconsentfromeithertheincumbentmanagerorboththeACandTCgivenRFC1591requiresconsentfromtheincumbentmanager?
6.1.1. RFC1591requiresthemanagertocommunicateitsconsenttoIANAforare‐delegation.
6.1.2. TheIANAprocedureforre‐delegationrequiresACandTCconsent.
6.1.2.1. ThisisnotrequiredbyRFC1591.
6.1.2.2. IANAhasnotreportedwhethertheACandTChaveprovidedconsentforare‐delegationrequestin52%ofcases.
6.1.3. Analysis
6.1.3.1. RFC1591requiresconsentfromthemanager.
6.1.3.2. IANAreportsonre‐delegationsdocumentmanagersprovidingconsentforre‐delegationsinover62%ofcases‐thisissignificantlymorethanthe48%ofcaseswheretheACandTChaveprovidedconsentaspertheIANAprocedureforre‐delegations.
6.1.3.3. Re‐delegationsareoneofthemostcriticaladministrativefunctionsIANAperformsforccTLDs.
6.1.3.4. Re‐delegationsareinfrequentwithanaverageof5requestsbeingcompletedperyear.
6.1.3.5. ThereisnodocumentationastowhatshouldhappenifthereisadisagreementbetweentheincumbentmanagerandtheACorTC.
6.2. Thereisnodocumentation(proceduresorIANAreportsonre‐delegation)astowhattheincumbentandproposedmanagersarebeingaskedtoconsenttoinare‐delegation.
6.3. ThereisnoclearinterpretationoftheRFC1591requirementthattheincumbentmanager‘communicateitsagreement’toIANA.TheIANAproceduresforre‐delegationdonotspecifyhowconsentshouldbecommunicatedtoIANAandtheIANAreportsonre‐delegationdonotdocumentaconsistentapproachtothis.
12
6.4. IANAhasnopublishedcriteriaforevaluatingtheconsent,asrequiredbyRFC1591,ofanincumbentorproposedmanagerforare‐delegationrequest.TheIANAreportsonre‐delegationdonotdocumentaconsistentapproachtothisasdemonstratedbytheanalysisofIANAreportsonre‐delegationintheprevioussection.
6.4.1. DefinitionofAgreed(LawDefinition‐http://law.yourdictionary.com/consent)
6.4.1.1. Agreed‐settledordeterminedbymutualconsent.
6.4.1.2. Itwouldthenbelogicaltointerpretthecurrentmanagerhaving“agreed”ashavinggivenconsent.
6.4.2. DefinitionofConsent
6.4.2.1. Consent(LawDefinition‐http://law.yourdictionary.com/consent)‐Toacquiesce,agree,approve,assent,tovoluntarilycomplyoryield,togivepermissiontosomeactorpurpose.
6.4.3. Expressconsent
6.4.3.1. Consentthatisclear,specific,unambiguous,andcommunicatedbyanaffirmativeact.
6.4.3.2. Thisisadesirableattributeinthecontextofanincumbentandproposedmanagerprovidingconsentforare‐delegation.ItisalsoconsistentwiththerequirementinRFC1591foracommunicationfromboththeoldmanagerandthenewmanagerreflectingmutualagreement.
6.4.4. Impliedconsent
6.4.4.1. Consentthatisnotaffirmativelyexpressed,butthatisinferredfromone’sconduct,includingone’sfailuretoact.
6.4.4.2. ThiswouldnotseemadesirableattributeforRe‐delegationsandisnotconsistentwiththelanguageinRFC1591.
6.4.5. Informedconsent
6.4.5.1. Consentgivenbaseduponaclearunderstandingofthefacts,implications,andconsequencesofacourseofaction.
6.4.5.2. Thisisadesirableattributeinthecontextofanincumbentandproposedmanagerprovidingconsentforare‐delegation.
6.4.6. Involuntary(legaldefinition)
FinalReportversion1,February2012 13
6.4.6.1. Anactis“involuntary”ifitisperformedagainstone’swill.
6.4.7. Voluntary(legaldefinition)
6.4.7.1. Anactis“voluntary”ifitisdonewithoutcompulsionorpersuasion.
6.4.7.2. Thisisadesirableattributeinthecontextofanincumbentandproposedmanagerprovidingconsentforare‐delegation.
6.5. IANAreportsonre‐delegationareinconsistentinhowtheydocumentconsentfromtheincumbentandproposedmanagers.
6.5.1. ThereisnopolicyorprocedurerequirementthatIANApublishIANAreportsondelegationsandre‐delegations.
6.5.2. IANAhaspublishedthesereportsforalldelegationsandre‐delegationssince2000whenICANNcameintobeing.
6.5.3. PublishingthesereportsisconsistentwiththeICANNbylawrequirementforaccountabilityandtransparency.
6.5.4. Thesereportsare,inmostcases,theonlypubliclyavailabledocumentationofdelegationsandre‐delegationsbeyondtheICANNBoardminuteswhichoftencontainverylimitedinformation.
6.5.5. Thereisnowanexpectation,atleastfromtheccTLDcommunity,thatIANApublishthesereportsforalldelegationsandre‐delegations.
6.6. Reminder–Theseissuesareonlybasedontheanalysisofpubliclyavailableinformation.AsnotedearliertherearenoformalrequirementsassociatedwithIANAreportingonre‐delegationsanditwouldbeimpractical,inefficientandinbreachofconfidentialityforIANAtopublishallmaterialsassociatedwithare‐delegation.
14
D.Recommendations
1. IANAundertakethestepsnecessarytoimplementthefollowingguidelines:
1.1. IANAshouldonlyseekconsentforare‐delegationrequestfromtheincumbentmanagerandtheproposedmanager.IANAshouldnotseekconsentfromtheAdministrativeorTechnicalcontacts[From5.1]
1.2. ThecommunicationfromIANArequestingaparty’sconsentshouldclearlystate(a)whatthepartyisbeingaskedtoagreetoand(b)whatstepsIANAwillormaytakeinresponsetotheparty’s(i)affirmativeconsent,(ii)affirmativerefusaltoconsent,or(iii)failuretorespondtothecommunicationrequestingconsent.ItshouldalsoadvisetheManagertoseeklegaladvicepriortograntingconsent.TherequirementtosecureinformedconsentdoesnotobligateICANN/IANAtoensurethatthepartyfromwhomconsentissoughtisinformedaboutconsequencesnotwithinICANN/IANA’scontrol[from5.2]
1.2.1. Forfurtherclarityofwhatapartyisbeingaskedtoagreetoinare‐delegation,IANAshouldclearlyindicatethatitwillundertakeallstepsnecessarytotransfertheincumbentmanager’sroleastrusteefortheccTLD(asthetermisusedinRFC1591)totheproposedmanager,including,withoutlimitation,changingtheentryintheIANAdatabase.
1.2.1.1. Note:InRFC1591,theterm“trustee”isusedtodescribethemanager’sdutytoservethecommunity,andnottodescribethespecificlegalrelationshipofthemanagertothedelegateddomain.
1.2.2. ForfurtherclarityofwhatstepsIANAwillormaytakeinresponsetothoseparties'affirmativeconsentIANAshouldincludethefollowing:
1.2.2.1. IANAwillundertakeallnecessaryverificationstoensurethattherequestsmeetsIANA`srequirements(theseshouldbeclearlydescribed).
1.2.2.2. IANAwillseekapprovalfortherequestfromtheICANNBoardifitmeetsitsrequirements.
1.2.2.3. IANAwillseekapprovalfromtheUSG‐DOCiftherequestisapprovedbytheICANNBoard.
1.3. IANAneedstoestablishandpublishaprocedurebywhichitwillrequestaparty'sconsent,theinformationthatwillbeprovidedbyIANAinconnectionwithsucharequest,andthemannerinwhichitwillreceiveanddocumenttheparty'sresponsetosucharequest.TheprocessusedbyIANAshouldcreateaformalrecordreflectingwhoprovidedtheconsentor
FinalReportversion1,February2012 15
otherresponse,thestatusofthepersonprovidingtheconsentorresponse,andshoulddemonstratethataparty'sconsenttoare‐delegationisclear,informed,unambiguous,affirmativelyexpressed,andfreelygiven,aseachofthosetermsaredefined[from5.3].
1.4. IANAshouldadoptthefollowingcriteriawhenevaluatingtheconsentofanincumbentorproposedmanagerforare‐delegationrequestorfromaproposedmanagerforadelegationrequest[from5.4]:
1.4.1. Consentmustbespecific,informed,unambiguous,affirmativelycommunicated,andfreelygiven.
1.4.2. Forfurtherclarityconsent,bydefinition,mustbevoluntary.Inpractice,however,IANAwillrarelybeinapositiontodeterminewhetherornotaparty’sconsentisvoluntary.IANAitselfmustbeperfectlyneutralandshouldnotattempttocompel,threaten,orpersuadethepartyitisaskingtoapprovearequest.ConsentmaybedeemedbyIANAinitsreasonablediscretiontobefreelygivenifitisspecific,informed,unambiguous,affirmativelycommunicatedandacquiredbyIANAwithoutthreatorcoercion.
1.5. IANAreportsonre‐delegationsshould,inordertobeeffectiveincommunicatingrelevantinformation,beconsistentandshouldincludethefollowinginformation[from5.5]:
1.5.1. Identificationoftheincumbentmanager
1.5.2. Identificationoftheproposedmanager
1.5.3. ClearconfirmationthatIANAobtainedconsent(consistentwithFOIWGguidelines).
1.5.4. DocumentationwhichsupportsthattheconsentthatwasprovidedmeetstheFOIWGguidelines.
2. IANAshouldreporttotheGACandccNSOateachICANNmeetingontheplanandprogresstodateinimplementingtheserecommendedguidelines.
3. ShouldICANN‐IANAchoosenotcomplywiththeFOIWGrecommendedguidelinesforanyspecificre‐delegation,itshouldprovidetherationalefordoingsoinapublicreport.
4. AnychangestotheFOIWGrecommendedguidelinesshouldbethesubjectofaformalpublicconsultationasperICANNstandardprocedures.
16
E.BackgroundandProcess
TheFOIWGwascreatedbytheccNSOCouncilfollowingtherecommendationsoftheDelegationandRe‐delegationWorkingGroup(DRDWG):
Recommendation2:Delegationandre‐delegationofccTLDsTheDRDWGrecommendsthat,asafirststep,theccNSOCouncilundertakesthedevelopmentofa“FrameworkofInterpretation”forthedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.ThisframeworkshouldprovideaclearguidetoIANAandtheICANNBoardoninterpretationsofthecurrentpolicies,guidelinesandproceduresrelatingtothedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.
TheresultsoftheuseofsuchaFrameworkofInterpretationshouldbeformallymonitoredandevaluatedbytheccNSOCouncilafterapre‐determinedperiod.IftheresultsofthisevaluationindicatethattheFrameworkofInterpretationfailedtoprovidelogicalandpredictableoutcomesinICANNdecisionmaking,theccNSOCouncilshouldthenlaunchPDPsonthedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.
ThecharteroftheFOIWGwasadoptedbytheccNSOCouncilatitsmeetingon16March2011andappointedasitschairKeithDavidsonof.NZ(formerChairoftheDRDWG).InJune2011thecharterwasupdatedtoreflecttheparticipationoftheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC).Thecharterandthelistofparticipantsoftheworkinggroupcanbefoundathttp://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm).
TheobjectiveoftheFOIWGistodevelopandproposea"FrameworkofInterpretation"forthedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.ThisframeworkshouldprovideaclearguidetoIANAandtheICANNBoardoninterpretationofthecurrentPolicyStatements.
ThescopeoftheFOIWGalsoclearlyspecifiesthat:
• Anyproposaltoamend,updateorchangethePolicyStatementsisoutsidethescopeoftheFOIWG.
• TheIANAfunctionscontractbetweentheUSGovernmentandICANN,includinganycontractimplementationissuesorproceduresrelatingtoit,areoutsidethescopeoftheFOIWG.
AspartofitsworkplantheFOIWGagreedthattheonlyappropriatedocumentedpoliciesandproceduresitwouldconsiderforinterpretationareRFC1591andtheGACPrinciples20054.TheFOIWGmayconsiderotherrelevantdocumentationsuch
4 According to DRDWG and charter of the FOIWG the Policy Statements
FinalReportversion1,February2012 17
asIANAReportsonDelegationandRe‐delegationorIANAprocessdocumentationtoassistitindeterminingifinterpretationforaspecifictopicisrequiredtoaddresstheconcernsraisedbytheDRDWGinitsfinalreport.
TheFOIWGidentifiedthefollowingtopicswhichwillbeconsideredindividuallyandintheorderpresented:
• Obtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandre‐delegationrequests
• Obtaininganddocumentingsupportfordelegationandre‐delegationrequestsfromSignificantlyInterestedParties(sometimesreferredtoasLocalInternetCommunityorLIC).
• Developingrecommendationsforun‐consentedre‐delegations
• Developingacomprehensiveglossaryofthetermsusedforthedelegationandre‐delegationofccTLDs.
• DevelopingrecommendationsforIANAreportsondelegationandre‐delegation.
TheFOIWGproduceditsinitialguidelinesonobtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandre‐delegationrequestsinSeptember2011.Peritscharter,theguidelineswerepublishedasInterimreportforInterpretationandinputandfeed‐backfromtheICANNcommunitywassoughtregardingtheproposedguidelinesandthemethodologyused.
includes ICP-1 and GAC 2000 Principles as well. As the GAC 2005 Principles replaced the GAC 2000 set, they are not considered by the FOIWG.
With regard to ICP-1 the DRDWG noted that, in 1994, IANA published RFC 1591 as its statement of current practice, in 1997 this was updated with ccTLD News Memo #1 and in 1999, ICP1 was published as its statement of current practice. Contrary to the statements contained in its header, ICP1 does contain significant changes in policies. These changes were never approved by resolution of the ICANN Board. The DRDWG analysis of RFC1591 versus ICP1 concluded that “This policy decision (implementing ICP1) failed to meet all of the requirements for policy development in effect at the time.
Further, in 2001 a majority of ccTLDs active in ccTLD management accepted RFC1591 and the principles it contained as appropriate policies, and these ccTLDs continue their support for these principles today (see www.wwtld.org and www.iatld.org web archives). Neither News Memo #1 nor ICP1 (which integrates News Memo #1) were ever officially endorsed by any significant group of ccTLDs.
As the DRDWG excluded ICP-1, the FOIWG in accordance with its charter excluded ICP-1 as well.
18
TheFOIWGconductedapubliccommentconsultation(from12Octoberuntil1December2011)anddidnotreceiveanycomments5.
DuringtheICANNDakarmeeting(23until28October2011),theFOIWGpresenteditsfindingsandrecommendationsattheccNSOmeetingandtheccNSO‐GACmeetingandnosubstantivecommentsweremade.
On31January2012theFOIWGreceivedcommentsfromtheGAConitsInterimReport6.
AftercarefulconsiderationoftheGACcommentsreceived,theFOIWGdecidedthattheissuesraisedbytheGACinitslettershouldnotbeaddressedintheFOIWGrecommendationsonobtaininganddocumentingconsent,butwillbeprovidedforinsubsequentsetsofrecommendationsandtheFinalReportoftheFOIWG7.TheanalysesandrecommendationsoftheFOIWGintheInterimReportonobtaininganddocumentingconsenthavethereforenotbeenchanged.
InaccordancewithitsCharter,theFinalReportonobtaininganddocumentingconsentfordelegationandredelegationrequestsisconveyedtotheChairsoftheccNSOandtheGACtoseekendorsementofboththeccNSOandGACfortherecommendationscontainedintheReport.
IntheeventtherecommendationscontainedinthisreportareendorsedbyboththeccNSOandGAC,therecommendationswillbesubmittedtotheICANNBoardofDirectors,togetherwiththewrittenconfirmationsoftheChairdoftheccNSOandtheGNSO.
IntheeventtheccNSOorGACdoesnotsupporttherecommendations,theFOIWG,atitsdiscretion,willreconsidertherecommendationsandsubmitare‐draftedsetof
5 http://forum.icann.org/lists/foiwg‐interim‐report/6 http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/draft‐gac‐comments‐foiwg‐interim‐report‐on‐consent‐
31jan12‐en.pdf7 TheFOIWGresponseispublishedat:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm
FinalReportversion1,February2012 19
supplementalrecommendations.
20
AnnexA–Classificationof“consent”forre‐delegationrequests
Systemforclassificationofconsent
1.1 GiventhedocumentationofconsentbyeithertheincumbentManager,ACorTCvariesinIANAreportsonre‐delegationsitisnecessarytodefineasystemfortheclassificationofconsentfromthesepartiestosupportameaningfulanalysis.Theclassificationsystemdevelopedforthisisbasedonthefollowingdefinitions:
1.1. Documented–TheIANAreportincludessomereferenceastohowthecontactprovidedconsent.
1.2. Inferred–AlthoughthereisnoreportingofconsentthereissomeinformationintheIANAReportwhichcouldimplyconsentofthecontact.
1.3. NotAddressed–thereisnomentionofconsentintheIANAReport.
1.4. Noted–IANAsimplynotesorstatesthatthecontacthasprovidedconsentwithoutanyadditionaldocumentationfromthecontacttosupportthestatement.
1.5. Refused–TheIANAReportdocumentsthecontactrefusingtoconsenttothere‐delegation.
2.1 Casesofre‐delegation
2.1. From2000toJanuary2011thereare50casesofRe‐delegationsdocumentedbyIANAReports.
3.1 Classificationofconsent
3.1. Classificationofconsentbycontacts
FinalReportversion1,February2012 21
FOIWG‐Consent‐AnalysisofconsentbyContacts Manager AC TCDocumented 22% 12% 4%Inferred 10% 6% 6%NotAddressed 24% 38% 42%Noted 40% 40% 46%Refused 4% 4% 2%
3.2. Classificationofconsentforrequests
3.2.1. GiventhevarietyofresponsesdocumentedbyIANAinreportsonre‐delegationitisnecessarytodevelopaclassificationschemeforrequests,vs.contacts.
3.2.2. RFC1591essentiallystatesthattheincumbentmanagermustcommunicateitsconsentforthere‐delegationtoIANA.
3.2.3. IANAProceduresonre‐delegationessentiallystatethattheACandTChavetocommunicatetheirconsentforthere‐delegationtoIANA.
3.2.4. Intryingtoworkwithbothoftheseitisnecessarytoorderthese.AssuchitisproposedthatRFC1591beoverridinginallcases.
3.2.5. ClassificationbasedonconsentbytheManager.
3.2.5.1. ManagerconsentisclassifiedasDocumentedimpliesconsentfortherequestshouldbeclassifiedasDocumented(regardlessoftheclassificationoftheACorTC).
3.2.5.2. ManagerconsentisclassifiedasNotedimpliesconsentfortherequestshouldbeclassifiedasNoted(regardlessoftheclassificationoftheACorTC).
3.2.5.3. ManagerconsentisclassifiedasRefusedimpliesconsentfortherequestshouldbeclassifiedasRefused(regardlessoftheclassificationoftheACorTC).
3.2.5.4. ManagerconsentisclassifiedasInferred‐Questionable.TherequestshouldbeclassifiedasthebestofInferred‐QuestionableortheresultoftheclassificationofconsentbytheACandTCas
22
thiswouldbeanindicationofconsent(theFOIWGwillhavetodecideonthevalidityofconsentinthesecases).
3.2.5.5. ManagerconsentisclassifiedasNotAddressed.TherequestshouldbeclassifiedastheresultoftheclassificationofconsentbytheACandTC(asdescribedinthenextsection).
3.2.6. ClassificationofconsentbytheACandTC
3.2.6.1. GiventheIANAprocedurerequirestheconsentofbothcontacts(ACandTC)andthatthesearenotalwaysclassifiedidenticallyitisnecessarytodevelopaschemetoaccountforthistoproduceauniqueresult.
3.2.6.2. Giventhereare5categoriesandtwocontactsthereare25possibilities.
3.2.6.3. Overallitisproposed,givenconsentisrequiredbyboth,thattheresultoftheclassificationofconsentofbothcontactsbetheweakestresultofeither.
3.2.6.4. Classificationofthe25possibilities
AC TC Result D D DD N ND R RD IQ IQD NA NAN D NN N NN R RN IQ IQN NA NAR D RR N R
FinalReportversion1,February2012 23
R R RR IQ RR NA RIQ D IQIQ N IQIQ R RIQ IQ IQIQ NA NANA D NANA N NANA R RNA IQ NANA NA NA
3.2.7. Resultsofusingthisclassificationscheme
Consentforrequest clear ? Total % Documented 9 2 11 22%Inferred‐questionable 5 0 5 10%NotAddressed 9 0 9 18%Noted 21 2 23 46%Refused 2 0 2 4%
TheFullresultsatdetailedlevelare:FOIWG‐ClassificationofConsentforRequests‐sortedbyresult Re‐delegation Date Manager AC TC AC+TC
Consentfor
Consent Consent Consent Consent Request.PN 200002 D D R R D.JP 200202 D D D D D.MW 200208 D D N N D.SD 200211 D D D D D.FK 200508 D N N N D.FO 200508 D D N N D.YU 200709 D IQ NA NA D
24
.NG 200904 D NA NA NA D.SY 201101 D NA NA NA D.DM 200707 D? NA N NA D?.AE 200801 D? NA NA NA D?.BM 200710 IQ NA NA NA IQ.BB 200711 IQ NA NA NA IQ.BY 200902 IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ.CV 200908 IQ NA NA NA IQ.CA 200012 I‐Q I‐Q I‐Q IQ I‐Q.LA 200212 N N N N N.TW 200305 NA N N N N.PW 200306 N N N N N.HT 200401 NA N N N N.NG 200404 N N N N N.TF 200405 NA N N N N.PS 200406 NA N N N N.ES 200409 NA N N N N.KZ 200508 NA N N N N.ZA 200508 NA N N? N N.CX 200601 NA N N N N.TK 200601 NA N N N N.MA 200607 NA N N N N.GW 200704 NA N N N N.KN 200804 N NA NA NA N.MS 200808 N N IQ IQ N.CO 200912 N NA NA NA N.TZ 201004 N NA NA NA N.QA 201010 N NA NA NA N.BF 201101 N NA NA NA N.CD 201101 N NA NA NA N.AF 200301 N? N? N N N?.GS 200510 N?? N N N N??.BI 200111 NA? D NA? NA NA.UZ 200304 NA NA NA NA NA.KY 200306 NA NA NA NA NA.TJ 200306 NA N NA NA NA.MD 200310 NA NA NA NA NA.LY 200409 NA NA NA NA NA.IQ 200507 NA NA NA NA NA.GD 200607 NA NA N NA NA.SO 200902 NA NA NA NA NA.AU 200012 R R NA R R
FinalReportversion1,February2012 25
.KE 200212 R R NA R R
26
FOIWG‐ClassificationofConsentforRequests‐sortedbyccTLD Re‐delegation Date Manager AC TC AC+TC
Consentfor
Consent Consent Consent Consent Request.AE 200801 D? NA NA NA D?.AF 200301 N? N? N N N?.AU 200012 R R NA R R.BB 200711 IQ NA NA NA IQ.BF 201101 N NA NA NA N.BI 200111 NA? D NA? NA NA.BM 200710 IQ NA NA NA IQ.BY 200902 IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ.CA 200012 I‐Q I‐Q I‐Q IQ I‐Q.CD 201101 N NA NA NA N.CO 200912 N NA NA NA N.CV 200908 IQ NA NA NA IQ.CX 200601 NA N N N N.DM 200707 D? NA N NA D?.ES 200409 NA N N N N.FK 200508 D N N N D.FO 200508 D D N N D.GD 200607 NA NA N NA NA.GS 200510 N?? N N N N??.GW 200704 NA N N N N.HT 200401 NA N N N N.IQ 200507 NA NA NA NA NA.JP 200202 D D D D D.KE 200212 R R NA R R.KN 200804 N NA NA NA N.KY 200306 NA NA NA NA NA.KZ 200508 NA N N N N.LA 200212 N N N N N.LY 200409 NA NA NA NA NA.MA 200607 NA N N N N.MD 200310 NA NA NA NA NA.MS 200808 N N IQ IQ N.MW 200208 D D N N D
FinalReportversion1,February2012 27
.NG 200404 N N N N N
.NG 200904 D NA NA NA D
.PN 200002 D D R R D.PS 200406 NA N N N N.PW 200306 N N N N N.QA 201010 N NA NA NA N.SD 200211 D D D D D.SO 200902 NA NA NA NA NA.SY 201101 D NA NA NA D.TF 200405 NA N N N N.TJ 200306 NA N NA NA NA.TK 200601 NA N N N N.TW 200305 NA N N N N.TZ 201004 N NA NA NA N.UZ 200304 NA NA NA NA NA.YU 200709 D IQ NA NA D.ZA 200508 NA N N? N N
Consentforrequest clear ? Total % Documented 9 2 11 22%Inferred‐questionable 5 0 5 10%NotAddressed 9 0 9 18%Noted 21 2 23 46%Refused 2 0 2 4%