[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [cooperation-wg] Third document from SSAC on IANA Stewardship Transition Published
robachevsky at isoc.org
Tue Dec 16 13:44:48 CET 2014
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [cooperation-wg] Third document from SSAC on IANA Stewardship
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:24:13 +0100
From: Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se>
To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
SSAC has just made the third document of three on IANA Stewardship
Transition available. The three documents are:
SAC-067 : Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014)
SAC-068 : SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014)
SAC-069 : SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the
IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014)
The first two (SAC-067 and SAC-068) are documents trying to objectively
present The IANA Function and The Contract between ICANN and NTIA
respectively. The third is an SSAC evaluation of the current situation,
or as we (SSAC) say ourselves:
> In this Advisory, the SSAC considers issues that may affect the security and stability of the DNS both during and after the transition of the NTIA’s stewardship role for the IANA Functions
We in this document make the following recommendations:
> Recommendation 1: The operational communities (protocol parameters, names, and numbers) that have been invited to submit proposals should determine 1) whether or not the requirements and deliverables defined in the IANA Functions Contract should be retained, and if so which ones; 2) whether or not additional external controls are necessary for requirements that should be retained; and 3) if additional external controls are necessary, how and by whom they should be administered.
> Recommendation 2a: Each of the communities should determine whether or not existing mechanisms outside of the IANA Functions Contract are sufficiently robust to hold the IANA Functions Operator accountable to the affected communities for the proper performance of the IANA Functions after the IANA Functions Contract expires; and if they are not, the communities should determine what additional accountability mechanisms will be needed.
> Recommendation 2b: Each of the communities should review and (if necessary) enhance its policy development process to ensure that all of the instructions that it provides to the IANA Functions Operator are clear and implementable.
> Recommendation 3: Each of the communities should investigate and clarify the process for handling the possibility of governmental sanctions and restrictions (e.g., the protocol for obtaining OFAC2 licenses where U.S. sanctions might interfere with the ability to execute proper instructions to IANA) following the stewardship transition.
> Recommendation 4: As part of the transition process, each of the affected communities should consider the extent to which the importance of transparency and freedom from
> improper influence in the performance of the IANA Functions might require additional mechanisms or other safeguards.
> Recommendation 5: Noting the stability and efficiency of existing structures, processes, and mechanisms for the management of the root zone, the SSAC recommends that any proposal to replace NTIA’s final authorization of root zone changes with an alternative be at least as reliable, resilient, and efficient as the current process.
> Recommendation 6: Effective arrangements should be made for the reliable and timely performance of all aspects of the root zone management process post-transition, including inter-organization coordination if the post-transition RZM process involves more than one root zone management partner.
> Recommendation 7: NTIA should clarify the processes and legal framework associated with the role of the Root Zone Maintainer after transition.
Regards, Patrik Fältström
More information about the CRISP