[CRISP-TEAM] [Text version] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
Izumi Okutani
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 9 17:48:53 CET 2015
Dear Colleagues,
Base on a suggestion on this list to provide text version of the second
draft, please find the text version of our proposal below.
The contents are identical to PDF version we are calling for comments.
<http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft>
Regards,
Izumi Okutani
CRSIP Team
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals
on IANA from the RIR community
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Proposal type
Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission proposes
to address:
[ ] Names
[ ✔] Numbers
[ ] Protocol Parameters
I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA
This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services or
activities your community relies on. For each IANA service or activity
on which your community relies, please provide the following:
• A description of the service or activity.
• A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.
• What registries are involved in providing the service or
activity.
• A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer
communities
----
I.A. A description of the service or activity.
The IANA activities relevant to the number resource communities are the
maintenance of the global Internet number resource registries, including
the allocation of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System
Numbers (“ASNs”) to the Regional Internet Registries (“RIRs”) as well as
the delegation of subdomains below the “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA”
domains in accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
----
I.B. A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.
The RIRs manage the registration and distribution of Internet number
resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and ASNs) to members within their
service regions. The five RIRs in operation at this point in time are:
AFRINIC Serving Africa Founded in 2005
APNIC Serving the Asia Pacific region Founded in 1993
ARIN Serving North America Founded in 1997
LACNIC Serving South America and the Caribbean Founded in 2001
RIPE NCC Serving Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East Founded in 1992
The five RIRs manage the distribution and registration of Internet
number resources at the regional level, having received blocks of unused
resources from the global pools managed by the IANA operator. The RIRs
also facilitate the policy development processes of their respective
communities, providing secretariat roles.
The five RIRs have a long-standing and straightforward operational
relationship with IANA. IANA maintains the global pools of Internet
number resources from which the RIRs receive allocations to distribute
to their communities. The RIRs also coordinate with IANA to correctly
register any resources that are returned to the global pools.
Collectively, the system for administering Internet number resources is
referred to as the "Internet Number Registry System" and is described in
detail in RFC 7020.
----
I.C. What registries are involved in providing the service or activity.
The most relevant IANA registries are the IPv4 address registry, the
IPv6 address registry, and the ASN registry. Provision of reverse DNS
services in “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains may also require
interaction with the .ARPA zone registry.
----
I.D. A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer communities.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) is responsible for policy
relating to the entire IP address space and AS number space. Through
the IANA protocol parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP
address ("IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and "IPv6 Global Unicast
Allocations Registry") and AS number space (“ASN Registry) to the RIR
system [RFC7020]. These registries are generally accessed via references
based on the iana.org domain name. Note that within each IANA registry,
there are also reserved values or ranges, and special-purpose
registries, which are outside the Internet Numbers Registry System and
instead administered under the direction of the IETF. The delineation of
the specific ranges delegated to the Internet Number Registry system is
provided in RFC 7249. It is expected that the boundary between
IETF-managed and Internet Number Registry-managed parts of the number
spaces may change from time to time, with agreement between the IETF and
the RIRs. Potential reasons for changes include the possibility that
the IETF may release some previously reserved space for general use, or
may reserve some previously unused space for a special purpose.
The global Internet community also depends upon the IANA operator for
administration of the special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS
zones which are associated with IPv4 and IPv6 number resources
respectively. These zones are delegated to IANA by the Internet
Architecture Board (“IAB”) and “[s]ub-delegations within this hierarchy
are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address allocation
practices” (RFC3172). The IANA operator administers these zones as
“agreed technical work items” per the IETF- Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) IANA MoU. It is important to note
that this work is outside the scope of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (“NTIA”) contract.
The RIR communities also make use of the term “IANA” in the description
of their processes, policies and public database records.
Relevant links:
IETF-ICANN MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority:
https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en
“The Internet Numbers Registry System”, RFC 7020:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020
“Internet Numbers Registries”, RFC 7249: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7249
II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements
This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements
work, prior to the transition.
II.A. Policy Sources
This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which must
be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the
services or activities described above. If there are distinct sources
of policy or policy development for different IANA activities, then
please describe these separately. For each source of policy or policy
development, please provide the following:
• Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
affected.
• A description of how policy is developed and established and
who is involved in policy development and establishment.
• A description of how disputes about policy are resolved.
• References to documentation of policy development and dispute
resolution processes.
----
II.A.1. Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
affected.
The Internet number resource registries.
It is important to note that allocations of Internet number resources
from IANA to the RIRs and its registrations in IANA registries, as well
as delegations of “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains, described in
Section I, are conducted between IANA and the RIRs without involvement
by the NTIA.
----
II.A.2. A description of how policy is developed and established and
who is involved in policy development and establishment.
The policies under which the IANA operator manages the global pools of
Internet number resources (excluding those address ranges reserved by
the IETF for specific technical purposes) are developed and agreed by
the five RIR communities via open, transparent and bottom-up policy
development processes. Each RIR community engages in its own regional
policy development process; these processes are open to all stakeholders
regardless of specific background or interest. Links to each of the five
regional Policy Development Processes (“PDPs”) are included under in the
RIR Governance Matrix published on the Number Resource Organization
(“NRO”) website [www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix].
Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must
ratify an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive
Council (“NRO EC”) then refers the coordinated proposal to the Address
Supporting Organization (“ASO”) Address Council (“ASO AC”), which
reviews the process by which the proposal was developed and, under the
terms of the ASO Memorandum of Understanding (“ASO MoU”), passes it to
the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification as a global policy.
There are currently three global policies relating to management of the
global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers
[https://www.nro.net/policies]:
(a) IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet
Registries;
(b) IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet
Registries; and
(c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the
IANA.
There is a fourth global policy agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2,
"Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries".
The global Policy Development Process (“gPDP”) described in “Global Policy
Development Process Document”
[https://www.nro.net/documents/global-policy-development-process] is
used for all of the number-related IANA activities described in Section
I, but the policy that “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains must be
delegated following IPv4 and IPv6 address allocations is specified by
the IETF (most recently in RFC 3172).
----
II.A.3. A description of how disputes about policy are resolved.
The gPDP is formally described in "Attachment A" of the ASO MoU, signed
by ICANN and the RIRs in 2004 (and signed by AFRINIC when it was
established as the fifth RIR in 2005). This MoU includes provisions for
resolving disputes between ICANN and the RIRs or their communities. It
is important to note that while the gPDP allows for the ICANN Board to
dispute the outcome of a consensus community decision (escalating to
mediation between ICANN and the RIRs), it does not include any role for
the IANA contract holder (currently the NTIA). The ASO MoU is an
agreement between the RIR communities and ICANN; NTIA has no oversight
role in policy-making as regards management of the global Internet
number resource pools, and its transition out of its current role would
have minimal effect on the policy-making framework.
A separate MoU, the NRO MoU, establishes the NRO as "a coordinating
mechanism of the RIRs to act collectively on matters relating to the
interests of the RIRs", and includes provisions for dispute resolutions
between RIRs on issues relating to global policy development or
implementation.
It is the responsibility of the NRO Number Council (“NRO NC”), a group
comprising three community members selected by each of the five RIR
communities, to confirm that the documented RIR PDPs have been followed
in the development and approval of a new policy or policy change.
Further, this group reviews the policy followed by each of the RIR
communities to assure itself that the significant viewpoints of
interested parties were adequately considered, and only after this
confirmation does it then consider forwarding global policy proposals to
the ICANN Board for ratification.
The NRO NC also acts in the role of the ICANN ASO AC, and as such,
presents the agreed global policy proposal to the ICANN Board for
ratification and operational implementation.
The ICANN Board reviews the received global number resource policy
proposals and may ask questions and otherwise consult with the ASO
Address Council and/or the individual RIRs acting collectively through
the NRO. The ICANN Board may also consult with other parties as the
Board considers appropriate. If the ICANN Board rejects the proposed
policy, it delivers to the ASO ACa statement of its concerns with the
proposed policy, including in particular an explanation of the
significant viewpoints that were not adequately considered during the
regular RIR processes. By agreement of all RIRs, the ASO AC may forward
a new proposed policy (either reaffirming the previous proposal or a
modified proposal) to the ICANN Board. If the resubmitted proposed
policy is rejected for a second time by ICANN, then the RIRs or ICANN
shall refer the matter to mediation.
In case of disputes where mediation has failed to resolve the dispute,
the ICANN ASO MoU agreement provides for arbitration via International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration in the jurisdiction of
Bermuda or such other location as is agreed between the RIRs and ICANN.
It is also worth noting that the RIRs have been participating (as the
ASO) in the periodic independent review processes for Accountability and
Transparency (ATRT) that is called for per ICANN’s Bylaws.
----
II.A.4. References to documentation of policy development and dispute
resolution processes.
Relevant links:
ICANN ASO MoU:
https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou
NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding
About the NRO Number Council:
https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/the-nro-number-council
RIR Governance Matrix:
https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix
Global Policies: https://www.nro.net/policies
II.B. Oversight and Accountability
This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is
conducted over IANA’s provision of the services and activities listed in
Section I and all the ways in which IANA is currently held accountable
for the provision of those services. For each oversight or
accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the following as are
applicable:
• Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
affected.
• If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected,
identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
• A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight
or perform accountability functions, including how individuals
are selected or removed from participation in those entities.
• A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting
scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a
description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator
not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the
extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and
the terms under which the mechanism may change.
• Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal
basis on which the mechanism rests.
----
II.B.1. Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
affected.
The Internet number resource registries.
----
II.B.2. If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected,
identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.
A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
functions, and therefore its
contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not
have any significant impact on the continuity of Internet number-related
IANA services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a
significant element of oversight from the current system.
There is no contractual obligation directly to the Internet number
resource community for the IANA operator to provide IANA registry
services for the Internet number registries. ICANN has historically
provided IANA services for the Internet number registries under the
terms of the NTIA IANA Functions contract and therefore IANA services
for the Internet number registries are presently subject to change per
that agreement.
----
II.B.3. A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight
or perform accountability
functions, including how individuals are selected or removed from
participation in those entities.
All institutional actors with a role in management of Internet number
resources are accountable to the open communities that make and agree on
the policies under which those resources are distributed and registered.
The mechanisms used to ensure and enforce this accountability differ for
each of these actors.
----
II.B.3.i. NTIA
ICANN, as the current operator of the IANA functions, is obligated by
the NTIA agreement to carry out management of the global IP address and
AS Number pools according to policies developed by the communities.
While the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public
in nature, the Internet number community is primarily represented in
oversight of the IANA operator performance by the RIRs, which are
member-based based organizations with elected governance boards.
Currently, the NTIA does not have an oversight role in this regard.
The ultimate consequence of failing to meet the performance standards or
reporting requirements is understood to be a decision by the contracting
party (the NTIA) to terminate or not renew the IANA functions agreement
with the current contractor (ICANN).
----
II.B.3.ii. The Regional Internet Registries
Administration by the IANA operator consists predominantly of processing
of requests from the RIRs for issuance of additional number resources.
The five RIRs are intimately familiar with global number resource
policies under which the requests are made and maintain communications
with the IANA operations team throughout the request process.
The RIRs are not-for-profit membership associations, and as such are
accountable to their members by law. The specific governance processes
for each RIR differ depending on where they have been established and
the decisions made by their membership, but in all RIRs, members have
the right to vote individuals onto the governing Board and to vote on
matters related to the respective RIR.
At the same time, an RIR's registration and allocation practices are
directed by policies developed by its community. Each RIR community's
PDP defines how these policies are developed, agreed and accepted for
operational implementation.
The corporate governance documents and PDPs of each RIR and its
community are accessible via the RIR Governance Matrix, published on the
NRO website.
----
II.B.4. A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting
scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the
consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the standards
established by the mechanism, the extent to which the output of the
mechanism is transparent and the terms under which the mechanism may change.
The NTIA IANA Agreement currently defines obligations of the IANA
operator for Internet number resources.
This obligation is specifically noted in section C.2.9.3 of the NTIA
agreement:
C.2.9.3 Allocate Internet Numbering Resources --The Contractor shall
have responsibility for allocated and unallocated IPv4 and IPv6 address
space and Autonomous System Number (ASN) space based on established
guidelines and policies as developed by interested and affected parties
as enumerated in Section C.1.3.
The NTIA agreement also lays out specific deliverables for the IANA
operator (ICANN) to produce as a condition of the agreement (see
"Section F – Deliveries and Performance"), including performance
standards developed in cooperation with the affected parties (in the
case of the Internet number resource pools, the affected parties include
the RIRs and their communities), customer complaint procedures and
regular performance reporting.
These deliverables are met by ICANN via monthly reporting on their
performance in processing requests for the allocation of Internet number
resources; these reports include IANA operator performance against key
metrics of accuracy, timeliness, and transparency, as well as the
performance metrics for individual requests. The IANA operations team
also provides escalation procedures for use in resolving any issues with
requests, as per the "IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process".
----
II.B.5. Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal
basis on which the mechanism rests.
Jurisdiction for this current mechanism is the United States of America
under applicable Federal government contracting laws and regulations.
Relevant links:
NTIA IANA Agreement:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order
ICANN ASO MoU:
https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou
NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding
IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process:
http://www.iana.org/help/escalation-procedure
IANA Performance Standards Metrics Report:
http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics
RIR Governance Matrix:
https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix
III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
Arrangements
This section should describe what changes your community is proposing to
the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the transition. If
your community is proposing to replace one or more existing arrangements
with new arrangements, that replacement should be explained and all of
the elements listed in Section II.B should be described for the new
arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and
justification for the new arrangements.
If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface
between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in
Section II.A, those implications should be described here.
If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in
Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be
provided here.
----
III.A. The elements of this proposal are as follows:
(1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
resources;
(2) Intellectual property rights (IPR) related to the provision of
the IANA services stay with the community;
(3) Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on
number resources; and
(4) Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from
each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA
functions operator’s performance and meeting of identified
service levels.
----
III.A.1. ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
resources
To maintain stability and continuity in operations of the Internet
number-related IANA services, very minimal changes to the arrangements
listed in Section II.B are proposed, including the identification of the
proposed initial IANA functions operator. As noted in numerous NRO
communications over the past decade, the RIRs have been very satisfied
with the performance of ICANN in the role of IANA functions operator.
Taking this into account, and considering the strong desires expressed
in the five RIR communities' IANA stewardship discussions for stability
and a minimum of operational change, the Internet numbering community
believes that ICANN should remain in the role of IANA functions operator
for at least the initial term of the new contract.
A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the
continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided
by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight
from the current system.
While there are no concrete needs or plans at this point, the NRO EC may
in the future determine that the IANA functions related to number
resources should be transferred to a different contractor. In such a
case, selection of a new contractor shall be conducted in a fair, open
and transparent process, in line with applicable industry best practices
and standards.
----
III.A.2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services stay with
the community
There are several intellectual properties related to the provision of
the IANA services whose status should be clarified as part of the
transition. Namely, the "IANA" trademark, the "IANA.ORG" domain name,
and public databases related to the performance of the IANA function.
It is important that through the stewardship transition the IPR status
of the registries is clear and ensures free unlimited access to the
public registry data. It is the expectation of the RIR communities that
the public number resource registries are in the public domain.
It is also the expectation of the RIR communities that non-public
information related to the IANA number resource registries and
corresponding services, including the provision of reverse DNS
delegation in IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, is managed by the IANA operator
and will be transferred to its successor(s) along with relevant rights.
It is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant parties
acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.
With regards to the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain it is the
expectation of the RIR communities that both are associated with the
IANA function and not with a particular IANA functions operator.
Identifying an organisation, not associated with an IANA operator, that
holds these assets permanently will facilitate a smooth transition
should another operator (or operators) be selected at some point in the
future. It is the preference of the RIR communities that the IANA
trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity
independent of the IANA functions operator that will ensure these assets
are used purposefully in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of
all operational communities. From the RIR communities' perspective, the
IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
The transfer of the IANA trademark and iana.org domain to the IETF Trust
will require additional coordination with the other affected communities
of the IANA functions, namely protocol parameters and names.
----
III.A.3. Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on
number resources
This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e. the numbers
community, the protocol parameters community and the names community)
will have independent arrangements with the IANA operator relating to
maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible.
At the same time, the Internet numbers community wishes to emphasize the
importance of communication and coordination between these communities
to ensure the stability of IANA functions operation. Such communication
and coordination would be especially vital should the three communities
reach different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA functions
operator going forward. Efforts to facilitate this communication and
coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via
processes separate to this stewardship transition process.
The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement
with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA
functions operator's accountability to the open, bottom-up numbers
community. The proposal attempts to ensure the continuity of processes
and mechanisms that have proved successful and with which the community
is satisfied.
• The services provided by the IANA functions operator in
relation to the Internet number-related functions remain
unchanged
• The oversight and accountability mechanisms detailed in Section
II.B remain unchanged
• The policy sources identified in Section II.A are unaffected
• The entities that provide oversight or perform accountability
functions (the RIRs) remain the same
• The consequence for failure to meet performance standards
remains termination or decision not to renew the IANA functions
agreement with the then-current contractor
The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be
established between the IANA functions operator and the five RIRs. The
contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate
the IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating
to the global Internet number pools according to policies developed by
the regional communities via the gPDP as well as management of the
delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement
would include specific requirements for performance and reporting
commensurate with current mechanisms, and would specify consequences
should the contractor fail to meet those requirements, the means for the
resolution of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal or
termination of the contract. IANA operations should be reliable and
consistent, with any registry changes made in an open and transparent
manner to the global community. The agreement should also require the
IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of
IANA-related registry services.
It is expected that RIR staff will draft the specific language of this
agreement, and that the drafting process will be guided by the
principles listed below. References to relevant sections of the current
NTIA agreement are also noted, as it is expected the new agreement will
share many of the same contractual goals and mechanisms.
IANA Agreement Principles
i. Applicability of ASO MoU - Separation of Policy Development and
Operational Roles
Principle:
The IANA Operator will merely execute the global policies adopted
according to the global Policy Development Process defined in the ASO MoU.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
C.2.4, C.2.5
ii. Description of Serviced Provided by the IANA Operator to RIRs
Principle:
The IANA Operator will maintain the global Internet number resource
registries. The IANA Operator will distribute Internet number Resources
to the RIRs in accordance with the specific processes and timelines
described in this section of the agreement. The IANA Operator will
delegate subdomains below the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains in
accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
C.2.9.3
iii. Obligation to Issue Reports on Transparency and Accountability
Principle:
The IANA Operator will commit to certain obligations so as to perform
the function as expected by the community and will be obliged to
periodically issue reports illustrating its compliance with the
community’s expectations.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
C.2.6, C.2.7, C.2.8
iv. Security Requirements – Performance Metric Requirements – Audit
Requirements
Principle:
The IANA Operator will commit to specific security standards, metric
requirements and audit requirements and will be obliged to periodically
issue reports illustrating its compliance with them.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
C.3, C.4, C.5
v. Review of the IANA Operations
Principle:
The RIRs will perform reviews to assess whether the IANA Operator
complies with all requirements described in the agreement whenever they
deem appropriate. The IANA Operator will be obliged to facilitate this
review.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
N/A
vi. Failure to Perform
Principle:
If the IANA Operator fails to perform as agreed in this agreement, there
will be specific consequences. One of these consequences may be
termination of the contract.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
E.2, I.67
vii. Term and Termination
Principle:
RIRs will be able to periodically review the agreement and evaluate
whether they want to renew the agreement.
Either party may terminate the agreement with reasonable prior notice.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
Page 2 of Award/Contract, I.51, I.52, I.53
viii. Continuity of Operations
Principle:
If, at the end of the contract term, the RIRs decide to sign an
agreement for operation of the number-related IANA functions with a
different party, the previous IANA Operator will be obliged to ensure an
orderly transition of the function while maintaining continuity and
security of operations.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
C.7.3 and I.61
ix. Intellectual Property Rights and Rights Over Data
Principle:
Both parties acknowledge that the data of the public number resource
registries remain in the public domain. The RIRs will have unlimited
rights in all other data delivered under this agreement and in all other
data first produced in the performance of this agreement.
If the IANA operator becomes the owner of intellectual property rights
through the performance of this agreement, these rights will be
transferred to the public domain or to the RIRs. In case the legislation
does not allow such transfer, the IANA operator must grant appropriate
licenses for ongoing use of the relevant intellectual property.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
H.4, H.5
x. Resolution of Disputes
Principle:
Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved through
arbitration.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
N/A
----
III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee
To ensure the service level defined in the proposed contract is
maintained and provided by the IANA functions operator, the NRO EC will
conduct periodic reviews of the service level of the IANA number
resource functions that serves each RIR and their respective communities.
The NRO EC shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and
assist the NRO EC in its periodic review. The Review Committee will, as
needed, undertake a review of the level of service received from the
IANA functions operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding
the performance of the IANA functions operator, including especially any
observed failure or near-failure by the IANA functions operator to meet
its contractual obligations under the proposed contract. Any such
Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely to
oversee the performance of the IANA number resource functions and the
Review Committee’s advice and comment will be limited to the processes
followed in the IANA functions operator’s performance under the proposed
contract. Activities of the Review Committee shall be conducted in an
open and transparent manner. Reports from the Review Committee shall be
published.
The Review Committee should be a team composed of suitably qualified
representatives from each RIR region.
III.B. If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the
interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements
described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here.
This proposal carries no implication for the interface between IANA
functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A.
The text in "Attachment A" of the ICANN ASO MoU meets the current and
anticipated requirements for a community-driven global policy
development process.
As an additional measure of security and stability, the RIRs have
documented their individual accountability and governance mechanisms,
and asked the community-based Number Resource Organization Number
Council (NRO NC) to undertake a review of these mechanisms and make
recommendations for improvements that may be warranted given the nature
of the stewardship transition for Internet number resources.
IV. Transition Implications
This section should describe what your community views as the
implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These
implications may include some or all of the following, or other
implications specific to your community:
• Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity
of service and possible new service integration throughout the
transition.
• Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed.
• Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence
of the NTIA contract.
• Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability
of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this
document and how they compare to established arrangements.
----
IV.A. Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of
service and possible new service integration throughout the transition.
• Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed.
The intent of the proposal described above is to:
1. Minimize risks to operational continuity of the management of
the Internet number-related IANA functions, and;
2. Retain the existing framework for making those policies that
describe the management of the global Internet number resource
pools, as this framework is already structured to ensure open,
bottom-up development of such policies.
Under current arrangements, the NTIA is responsible for extending or
renewing the IANA functions agreement, and setting the terms of that
contract. A new contract with the five RIRs and the IANA functions
operator as signatories would shift the responsibility for renewing,
setting terms or terminating the contract to the RIRs, who would
coordinate their decisions via the NRO EC (made up of the RIR Directors
and Chief Executives). Decisions made regarding the contract would be
based on operational circumstances, past performance and input from
open, regional communities.
The shift from the existing contractual arrangement to another
contractual arrangement (perhaps relying on a set of distinct contracts)
covering the IANA functions operator’s ongoing management of all the
IANA functions should result in no operational change for management of
the global Internet number resource pools. This will help minimize any
operational or continuity risks associated with stewardship transition.
By building on the existing Internet registry system (which is open to
participation from all interested parties) and its structures, the
proposal reduces the risk associated with creating new organizations
whose accountability is unproven.
The necessary agreement proposed for IANA operation services for the
Internet number registries can be established well before the NTIA
target date for transition (September 2015), as there are no changes to
existing service levels or reporting that are being proposed, only a
change in contracting party to align with the delegated policy authority.
----
IV.B. Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence
of the NTIA contract.
The necessary legal framework in the absence of the NTIA contract will
be fulfilled by the proposed agreement between the IANA functions
operator and the five RIRs. As stated in Section III above, the
contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate
the IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating
to the global Internet number pools according to policies developed by
the regional communities via the gPDP as well as management of the
delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement
would include specific requirements for performance and reporting
commensurate with current mechanisms, and would specify consequences
should the contractor fail to meet those requirements, the means for the
resolution of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal or
termination of the contract. IANA operations should be reliable and
consistent, with any registry changes made in an open and transparent
manner to the global community. The agreement should also require the
IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of
IANA-related registry services. The contract would also provide for
jurisdiction and governing law regarding the new arrangement.
----
IV.C. Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability
of any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document
and how they compare to established arrangements.
• Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed.
This proposal does not propose any new technical or operational methods.
There is inclusion of a proposed Review Committee to be established by
the five RIRs acting cooperatively and coordinating through the NRO EC;
however, this does not carry any new operational method as the IANA
functions operator would remain accountable to the party with whom it is
contracting, in this case, the five RIRs in place of the NTIA. The
proposed Review Committee is a tool for the five RIRs to, together with
their respective communities collectively, evaluate and review
performance of the IANA functions provided.
V. NTIA Requirements
Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must
meet the following five requirements:
• Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
• Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
Internet DNS;
• Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services;
• Maintain the openness of the Internet.
• The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a
government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.
This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these
requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA
functions.
This proposal addresses each of the NTIA's requirements:
----
V.A. Support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model;
The RIRs are not-for-profit membership organisations accountable to
their membership and communities. The processes developed by these
communities over time are open, bottom-up and inclusive of all
stakeholders, ensuring the opportunity for anyone with an interest in
management of Internet number resources to participate in policy-making.
Shifting stewardship of the IANA functions to the RIRs and their
communities is an important step in acknowledging the maturity and
stability of the multi-stakeholder governance model, and in recognizing
the success and de facto authority of that model under the current
arrangement.
----
V.B. Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security,
stability, and resiliency of the DNS.
This proposal is chiefly concerned with Internet number resources, which
also need security, stability, and resiliency. The existing operational
and policy-making structures relating to management of the global
Internet number resource pools have served the Internet community well
over time, and the RIR communities have strongly expressed a desire for
stability and operational continuity of this critical element of the
Internet infrastructure. Accordingly, this proposal suggests minimal
changes to existing processes.
----
V.C. Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services;
The RIRs and their communities are the primary global customers for the
Internet number resource-related IANA functions. As such, they have on
numerous occasions expressed their satisfaction with the current
management of the IANA functions, which has ensured the effective
implementation of policies developed by the community and the efficient
distribution of number resources to the RIRs. This proposal has been
developed by the RIR communities, as customers of the IANA
number-related functions, and meets their need for continuity and
stability in the operation of the number-related IANA functions. It does
this by solidifying the IANA functions operator's accountability to the
RIRs and their communities in relation to the number-related IANA functions.
----
V.D. Maintain the openness of the Internet.
An "open" Internet relies on the effective implementation of policies
developed via open, inclusive, bottom-up processes, ensuring the
transparent and coordinated distribution and registration of Internet
number resources. The Internet numbers community has a longstanding
history of bottom-up, inclusive, open and transparent policy-making and
operational processes (including the transparent publication of all
registration information). By building on the structures developed by
the Internet numbers community, this proposal ensures that in this
regard, the openness of the Internet is maintained.
In addition, the proposed community Review Committee will ensure
bottom-up community involvement in the open and transparent evaluation
of the IANA functions operation.
----
V.E. The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led
or an inter-governmental organization solution.
This proposal does not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an
inter-governmental organization solution. This proposal will place the
RIRs in the role currently occupied by the NTIA. The RIRs are
not-for-profit organisations, accountable to their memberships and their
communities. Those communities are open to anyone that wishes to
contribute and they include participants from all Internet stakeholder
groups, including operators, civil society, business, the technical
community and governments. Open, community-driven and consensus-based
policy development processes mean that no single stakeholder group has a
dominant role in policy-making.
----
VI. Community Process
This section should describe the process your community used for
developing this proposal, including:
• The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to
determine consensus.
• Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations
and meeting proceedings.
• An assessment of the level of consensus behind your
community’s proposal, including a description of areas of
contention or disagreement.
----
The Internet numbers community process is "bottom-up", transparent and
inclusive, with the initial discussions and proposal elements agreed on
a regional basis in each RIR region community. The consensus output of
these five community discussions has been consolidated in a single
global proposal by representatives from each RIR region, however the
ensuring feedback to and from regional discussion forums has been a
priority for all of those representatives.
This process was deliberately modeled on the longstanding community
processes that the RIR communities have successfully employed for
policy-making at the regional and global levels. It reflects the strong
commitment emerging from all community discussions to employing proven
structures and mechanisms in this process.
The proposal development can therefore be seen as two distinct phases,
first at the RIR community level and then at the global level. It is
important to emphasize that neither of these phases occurred in
isolation – throughout the first phase, there was communication between
the five communities, and during the second phase, regional communities
were kept informed of progress and provided feedback on successive
iterations of the global proposal.
----
VI.A. Regional Processes
The number resources communities based their process for developing an
IANA stewardship proposal primarily on the regional RIR community
structures, which are the existing forums for number resources
stakeholders to discuss policies and other issues relevant to the
numbers resources. The RIR communities have for many years fostered the
active, bottom-up participation of a broad range of stakeholders.
Existing mechanisms and communication channels could therefore be used
for the IANA stewardship transition discussions, eliminating the need
for the creation of distinct new processes, communication channels or
bodies. All RIRs have worked actively over the years to engage the full
range of stakeholders via outreach activities within their regions as
part of their commitment to openness, inclusiveness and transparency.
Building on these outreach activities, the RIRs and the CRISP team have
ensured that this proposal has been the product of input and feedback
from the full range of stakeholders with an interest in Internet number
resources.
Each of the RIR communities operates according to open, bottom-up,
transparent and consensus based processes, allowing anyone with an
interest to contribute to the discussions. Grounding the IANA
stewardship discussion in these communities has ensured broad
participation across the global communities and facilitated examination
of the issues raised in the context of local and regional circumstances.
The very active engagement by the community, particularly in their
regional discussions, shows not only the positive commitment of the
numbering community to this process, but is evidence of the RIR
community’s mature and well-functioning decision-making processes.
Each of the five RIR communities discussed the IANA stewardship issues
via mailing lists, at their RIR public meetings and in other community
forums(many of which included facilities for remote participation).
While the discussions have been uniformly open and transparent, with all
discussions archived on mailing lists and meeting records, each
community has adopted a specific process suitable to their particular
local needs and culture to reach an agreed community output.
Links to specific output documents and archives of all the RIR community
discussions are available at:
https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process
----
VI. B. AFRINIC regional process:
The AFRINIC community held a consultative meeting on 25 May to 6 June
2014 during the Africa Internet Summit (AIS'2014) in Djibouti in the
"IANA oversight transition" workshop. As a follow up to the meeting,
AFRINIC set up a mailing list to provide a platform for the African
Internet community to discuss the IANA Oversight Transition process. The
mailing list was announced on July 4, 2014 to develop a community
position. The list and its archives can be found at:
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ianaoversight
A dedicated web portal was setup for sharing information on the IANA
stewardship transition with the AFRINIC community and is also available
at http://afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition
AFRINIC also conducted a survey seeking community input on the IANA
Stewardship Transition. The results of the survey are published at:
http://afrinic.net/images/stories/Initiatives/%20survey%20on%20the%20iana%20stewardship%20transition.pdf
The last face-to-face meeting at which IANA oversight transition
consultations were held with the community was during the AFRINIC-21
meeting in Mauritius, 22-28 November 2014. The recordings of the session
are available at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/vod
Discussions continued on the ianaoversight at afrinic.net mailing list,
until the closure of the comments from the number resources communities
set by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team on
12th Jan 2015.
The AFRINIC region CRISP team was selected/appointed by the AFRINIC
Board of Directors. Key highlights/milestones of the
selection/appointment process follow below:
27 Oct 2014: Public Call for nominations - The call was sent by the
AFRINIC CEO to major community mailing lists, indicating intent of the
Board to make appointments by 12 Nov 2014.
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/announce/2014/001326.html
8 Nov 2014: The AFRINIC CEO announced the 5 nominated candidates:
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/ianaoversight/2014-November/000099.html
13 Nov 2014: The AFRINIC Board Chair announced the three CRISP team
members selected to the community.
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2014/004381.html
The AFRINIC IANA oversight transition info page can be found at:
http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition
----
VI.C. APNIC regional process:
APNIC, as the secretariat for the APNIC community, set up a public
mailing list (announced on 1 Apr 2014) to develop a community position,
and have discussions about the proposal from the region on IANA
stewardship transition: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/IANAxfer
A website, dedicated to sharing up-to-date information on the IANA
stewardship transition was set up for the APNIC community members and
wider community members interested in this issue:
http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition
A draft proposal was discussed at the dedicated session at the APNIC 38
Meeting in September 2014, which saw the general community consensus.
The meeting provided remote participation tools to enable wider
participation from communities across Asia Pacific and beyond, with live
webcasts as well as Adobe Connect virtual conference room.
https://conference.apnic.net/38/program#iana
The discussions continued on the "ianaxfer at apnic.net." mailing list,
until the closure of the comments from the number resources communities
set by the CRISP Team as 12th Jan 2015.
On 23 October 2014, through a post to the APNIC IANAxfer mailing list,
APNIC sought volunteers from the Asia Pacific community to nominate to
join the CRISP team. The nominees were asked to provide information
about their qualifications and interest to the APNIC Executive Council
for its consideration. The nomination period was open for two weeks. On
12 November 2014, the APNIC Executive Council appointed Izumi Okutani
and Dr Govind as its CRISP community members, and Craig Ng as its
non-voting staff member to the CRISP team.
The information was also posted on APNIC's IANA oversight transition
website:
APNIC EC announces CRISP Team appointees
APNIC EC seeks nominations for CRISP Team
http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition
----
VI.D. ARIN regional process:
ARIN held a community consultation during the period 10/1 – 10/10/14. On
10/9/14 the ARIN community held a consultative meeting at ARIN 34 in
Baltimore, MD.
On 10/13/14 ARIN established a mailing list, iana-transition at arin.net to
facilitate the open community discussion in the region regarding the
IANA Stewardship Transition planning process. This mailing list will
remain open for comments and updates throughout the transition planning
process. The archives are open and available for all Internet community
members to view.
A community survey was conducted following ARIN 34 from October 13, 2014
–October 20, 2014. There were a total of 64 participants and the
Community Survey Summary Report can be viewed at
https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf
On October 25, 2014, ARIN put a call out for volunteers to serve on the
CRISP team as community representatives of the ARIN region. The call
for volunteers ended on October 31, 2014. The ARIN Board of Trustees
considered all the names that were submitted in response to the call for
volunteers. On November 8, 2014, the ARIN Board of Trustees announced
the appointment of its three ARIN region CRISP team members.
On November 21, 2014 the first ARIN draft proposal was shared on
iana-transition at arin.net and discussion followed.
http://teamarin.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ARIN_draft_proposal.pdf
ARIN has a dedicated web portal set up for sharing information and
keeping the ARIN region updated on the IANA Stewardship Transition
planning process.
http://teamarin.net/education/internet-governance/iana-transition/
----
VI.E. LACNIC regional process:
The LACNIC community developed a consultative process launched on August
15th 2014, with a public teleconference. In that opportunity LACNIC’s
CEO explained the methodology, the expected timeline and the
consultation scope. The public consultation process had as a primary
goal to obtain the regional community's input with a view to shaping the
multi-stakeholder debate on the transition of stewardship of the IANA
functions in Latin America and the Caribbean, taking into account
regional points of view, concerns, suggestions and/or recommendations
regarding this transition, specifically as it concerns IP address
assignment.
From that starting point, three representatives from the community
guided the regional debate:
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/transicion/representantes
Contributions were received on the internet-gov at lacnic.net mailing list.
Timeline for discussion:
During the thirty (30) day period (August 15 to September 15), open
discussion was held. Seven (7) days later, moderators prepared a first
draft, a preliminary Transition Document summarizing all contributions
and discussions.
The first Transition Document was presented on September 23. Another
thirty (30) day period started for the community to comment, ending on
October 24th.
Within the framework of the LACNIC22 meeting held on 27-31 October in
the city of Santiago, Chile, two (2) sessions were scheduled for
discussing the first preliminary version of the Transition Document.
After these two (2) sessions, a second version of the Transition
Document was drafted.
The consultative process included two panel sessions during the LACNIC
22 meeting in Santiago the Chile (October 28th 2014). The first panel
session was to share information about the global IANA’s oversight
transition process and the work done by communities involved (names,
numbers, and protocols) and the second was to discuss the main proposals
on the mailing list, in order to draft a LACNIC community proposal.
During the panels, with strong participation of the community, the
LACNIC community proposal was shaped.
After these panels, there was a seven (7) day period that lasted until
November 15th 2014 for the community to present additional comments.
Once this step was accomplished the proposal was filed to LACNIC’s Board
of Directors and after its approval, it was submitted to the CRISP Team.
Announcement of the appointment of the LACNIC region members of the
CRISP team can be found at
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-crisp-team
After the board appointed the CRISP Team members, there was continued
dialogue between the Community Leaders and the LACNIC CRISP team
representatives through email and teleconferences.
The final result of the Consultation at LACNIC Community:
http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/transicion/resultado-consulta-publica
The list internet-gov at lacnic.net is still open for regional discussions
until the closure of the comments set by the CRISP Team on 12th Jan 2015.
----
VI.F. RIPE regional process:
The RIPE community agreed at the RIPE 68 Meeting in May 2014 that the
development of a community position on IANA stewardship should take
place in the existing RIPE Cooperation Working Group, and via that
working group's public mailing list:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation
The RIPE NCC, as secretariat for the RIPE community, also facilitated
discussions on the IANA stewardship in national and regional forums
across the RIPE NCC service region from the period of May to November
2014. Some of these forums also included remote participation
facilities. Summaries of all discussions were posted to the RIPE
Cooperation Working Group mailing list and on the RIPE website:
https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions
While there were very active, and at times passionate, discussions in
the community throughout the consultation period, there was clearly
strong agreement on the needs of the numbering community and the general
principles that should underpin the transition of the IANA stewardship.
Between September and November 2014, RIPE community discussion converged
around developing a set of principles reflecting the community’s primary
concerns and needs in the development of an IANA stewardship transition
proposal.
These discussions are reflected in the discussions on the mailing list
from that time: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/
Discussions at the RIPE 69 Meeting in November 2014 saw the RIPE
community discuss a range of issues in relation to the IANA stewardship
transition and reach consensus on the principles discussed on the
mailing list. During the RIPE 69 Meeting, a general invitation for
community volunteers to the CRISP team was distributed via various RIPE
NCC membership and RIPE community mailing lists:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2014-November/000877.html
This announcement also noted the procedure whereby the RIPE Chair, in
consultation with the RIPE NCC Executive Board, would select two
community representatives (with the staff representative agreed by the
Executive Board). At the conclusion of RIPE 69, the community expressed
its support for the three RIPE representatives selected to join the
CRISP)team.
RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session:
https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/#session1
RIPE 69 Closing Plenary Session:
https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10112/
----
VI.G. Global Internet Numbers Community Process (CRISP Team)
Following the broad consultations and active discussion in the
respective five RIR communities, a mechanism was established to develop
a single proposal from the Internet numbers community, based on the
positions and issues noted in the five communities.
On 16 October 2014, the NRO EC proposed the formation of theCRISP team
to develop a single Internet numbering community proposal to the IANA
Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). Established around a model similar
to the community-based NRO Number Council, the CRISP team comprises
three community members from each of the RIR regions (two community
members and one RIR staff). The selection of the CRISP team members from
each region was facilitated via transparent but distinct processes in
each RIR community. Details of these selection processes are included in
the RIR community process descriptions above.
The CRISP team members are:
AFRINIC Region
Alan P. Barrett – Independent Consultant
Mwendwa Kivuva – Network Infrastructure Services, University of
Nairobi
Ernest Byaruhanga (Appointed RIR staff)
ARIN Region
Bill Woodcock – President and Research Director of Packet
Clearing House
John Sweeting – Sr. Director, Network Architecture &
Engineering at Time Warner Cable
Michael Abejuela (Appointed RIR staff)
APNIC Region
Dr Govind – CEO NIXI
Izumi Okutani – Policy Liaison JPNIC
Craig Ng (Appointed RIR staff)
LACNIC Region
Nico Scheper - Curacao IX
Esteban Lescano - Cabase Argentina
Andrés Piazza (Appointed RIR staff)
RIPE NCC Region
Nurani Nimpuno – Head of Outreach & Communications at Netnod
Andrei Robachevsky – Technology Programme Manager at the
Internet Society
Paul Rendek (Appointed RIR staff)
----
VI.H. CRISP Team Working Methods
The charter of the CRISP team describes its working methods, which are
established to ensure maximum transparency and openness of the process
for anyone with an interest. The charter is available on the NRO website:
https://www.nro.net/crisp-team
From that charter:
• The CRISP team shall meet entirely via teleconference for its
activities; these teleconferences will be open to the public
who wish to listen to the CRISP Team discussions, and will be
facilitated by the Regional Internet Registries.
• The CRISP team shall also work through a public mailing list
and the archive of such mailing list will be publicly
available. The name of the mailing list will be
<ianaxfer at nro.net>.
• The results of each CRISP team meeting shall be published on
the <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list and additionally by each
RIR to its respective community. The CRISP team members from
the region shall monitor and participate in the community
discussion in their region regarding CRISP Team outputs.
The CRISP team held its first teleconference on 9 December 2014. At that
meeting, Izumi Okutani (APNIC region) and Alan Barrett (AFRINIC region)
were selected as the Chair and Vice-Chair respectively. A timeline for
the process was defined, published and announced. All CRISP
teleconferences have been announced on the relevant regional mailing
lists as well as the global ianaxfer at nro.net list. As stipulated in the
charter, all CRISP teleconferences have been open to observers. Archives
of the audio, video and minutes of all CRISP teleconferences, as well as
several iterations of the proposal draft and a spreadsheet of issues
raised by community members and their current status, have been made
available online at:
https://www.nro.net/crisp-team
Additionally, the CRISP team decided that in the interests of
efficiency, an "internal" CRISP mailing list would be established – only
members of the CRISP team would be able to send mails to this list or
receive mail sent to the list, but the list content would be archived
publicly on the NRO website. This archive is available at:
https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/
Throughout the CRISP team process, CRISP team members have engaged with
their regional communities, ensuring that the communities are informed
and sharing information with other CRISP team members on key events and
discussions in their regional forums. They have also consulted the
discussion archives of their regional communities as necessary
throughout the process to ensure the fair and accurate representation of
their community’s views. CRISP team members have been active in
encouraging feedback from their regions, whether on the global
ianaxfer at nro.net mailing list or in the regional discussion forums.
----
VI.I. An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s
proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement.
Throughout CRISP team deliberations, consensus was determined when,
following discussions within the team, no further comments, concerns or
objections were observed. A 24-hour window was set for decisions made
during CRISP team teleconferences and shared on the CRISP team mailing
list to allow those who were not at the call to provide input.
A similar approach was taken for the <ianaxfer at nro.net> list. Consensus
was determined following discussions on the list around an issue raised
or a new suggestion when no further comments, concerns, objections were
observed.
Prior to submitting this proposal to the ICG, two drafts were published,
along with calls for feedback from the global community. These two
comment periods were important in ensuring that the community had a
chance to actively contribute to resolving issues identified during the
process.
In addition, the CRISP team has called for community feedback on this
current draft of the proposal. ICG members and other interested parties
can observe the level of support for the proposal in the archives of
<ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
In comparing output coming from each RIR region, many commonalities were
identified early in the process, and there was a clear consensus across
the five RIR communities on the basic principles for this proposal. The
RIR community tradition of openness, transparency and bottom-up
processes defined the discussions in all regions, and a solid trust in
the RIR system was consistently expressed throughout the process. While
all five regional inputs differed, there were no major conflicts or
irreconcilable points of contention identified.
Notable points of difference included the views on the format of the
agreement to be established between IANA operator and the RIRs, and on
the need for an oversight body to periodically review the agreement. The
current proposal reflects the consensus agreement reached on these
issues through discussion within the CRISP team and in public forums,
especially the <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
In the global discussions at <ianaxfer at nro.net>, several issues received
close attention and provoked significant discussion. These issues included:
• Composition of Review Committee
• Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
conditions
• Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks
associated with the IANA function
Comments mainly focused on clarification of details of these issues.
Support was expressed by several people on the ianaxfer at nro.net mailing
list on the final, agreed elements of the proposal listed in Section III.
There was clear agreement from the global community on positions
regarding each of these issues, as reflected in the content of the
current proposal. The CRISP team believes therefore that the current
proposal fully reflects the consensus of the global numbering community.
More information about the CRISP
mailing list