final report obtaining and documenting “consent” for cctld ... · consent for delegation and...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
FinalReport
Obtaininganddocumenting“consent”forccTLDdelegationandre‐delegationrequests
ccNSOFrameworkofInterpretationWorkingGroup(FOIWG)
![Page 2: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
February2011
![Page 3: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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,.
![Page 6: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
FinalReportversion1,February2012 7
B.Approach
AsafirststeptheFOIWGidentifiedtheapplicablepolicesandprocedurestatementsandanalysedallpastcasesofre‐delegationswithregardtoconsent.BasedonthisanalysistheWGidentifiedtheissuesinthecontextoftheapplicablepoliciesandprocedures.Theseissueswerefurtheranalysedincludinganidentificationoftheissuesarisingoutofthisanalysis.
![Page 8: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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.
![Page 12: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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)
![Page 13: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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.
![Page 14: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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.
![Page 16: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FinalReportversion1,February2012 19
supplementalrecommendations.
![Page 20: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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
![Page 22: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
FinalReportversion1,February2012 25
.KE 200212 R R NA R R
![Page 26: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Final Report Obtaining and documenting “consent” for ccTLD ... · consent for delegation and re‐delegation requests. The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051809/60130196cda3b2102425b967/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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%