[CRISP-TEAM] HTML and text versions
Alan Barrett
apb at cequrux.com
Fri Jan 9 18:42:02 CET 2015
Dear Secretariat,
Please could you publish the six attached files on the CRISP web
page <https://nro.net/crisp-team>. Please make it easy for people
looking for the CRISP Team's draft proposals to get the PDF, HTML,
or TXT, versions of any of the three published proposals.
Feel free to rename the files to match the file names used for the
PDF versions of the first draft published on 10 Dec 204, edited
version on 24 Dec 2014, and second draft on 8 Jan 2015.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
----- Forwarded message from Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> -----
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 18:02:33 +0200
From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
To: crisp at nro.net
Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] HTML and text versions
I have converted all three drafts to both HTML and plain text.
My method was:
1. Load the .docx file in LibreOffice
2. Edit the metadata under the File -> Properties menu, to give
the document title as "CRISP Team Draft Proposal".
3. Export as HTML.
4. Close LibreOffice, without saving changes.
5. From the unix command line, run
"links -dump ${filename}.html | unix2dos >${filename}.txt"
to convert the HTML file to text with <CR><LF> line endings.
(I fould that exporting as text from LibreOffice gave much worse results
than going via HTML.)
I attach the results. If these look acceptable to others, then I
suggest that we should publish them on the CRISP web page.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
-------------- next part --------------
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on
IANA from the RIR community
0. 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
The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) manage the registration and
distribution of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and
Autonomous System Numbers) 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 Regional Internet Registries (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.
The specific registries that are administered by the IANA per the
authority delegated to the Internet Number Registry System are "Autonomous
System (AS) Numbers", "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry", and "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Assignments". Note that within each IANA registry, there
are also special-purpose values, and those special-purpose values 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.
The five open regional RIR communities develop the global policies under
which allocations from the IANA-managed pools are made. The RIRs
facilitate the open, transparent and bottom-up processes via which the
communities develop and agree these policies. There are currently three
global policies relating to management of the global pools of IPv4
addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers. There is a fourth global policy
agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2, "Criteria for Establishment of New
Regional Internet Registries".
The global Internet community also depends upon the IANA operator for
administration of the special-purpose "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IPv6.ARPA" DNS
zones which is associated with IPv4 and IPv6 number resources
respectively. It is the understanding of the Regional Internet Registry
community that the IANA operator administers these zones per request of
the Internet Architecture Board ("IAB")3 as "agreed technical work items"
per the IETF- ICANN IANA MOU.
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.
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.
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.
A global policy relating to the operation of the IANA function must be
discussed in all five regions, with consensus agreement on the same policy
text in all five communities. Each regional community has a distinct
Policy Development Process (PDP), and a global policy proposal must
progress through each of these regional PDPs to reach consensus. Links to
each of the five regional PDPs are included under in the RIR Governance
Matrix published on the NRO website.
The global Policy Development Process (gPDP) is formally described in
"Attachment A" of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of
Understanding (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, as the IANA functions
operator; 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 Number Resource Organization MoU (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 Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number
Council, a group comprising three community members selected by each of
the five 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 Number Council also acts in the role of the ICANN Address
Supporting Organization Address Council, 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 Address Council a 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 Address Council 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 ICC rules in the
jurisdiction of Bermuda or such other location as is agreed between the
RIRs and ICANN. It is also worth noting that the Regional Internet
Registries 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.
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
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.
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.
1. ICANN
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.
Administration consists predominantly of processing of requests from the
Regional Internet Registries for issuance of additional number resources.
The five Regional Internet Registries 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. 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".
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 Regional Internet
Registries, which are member-based based organizations with elected
governance boards.
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; IANA services for the Internet number
registries are provided by ICANN since its formation as a result of the
NTIA IANA Functions contract and hence IANA services for the Internet
number registries are presently subject to change per that agreement.
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). Jurisdiction for this current
mechanism is in the United States of America under applicable Federal
government contracting laws and regulations.
2. The Regional Internet Registries
The five Regional Internet Registries (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.
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 specific
funding or operational resolutions.
At the same time, an RIR's registration and allocation practices are
directed by policies developed by its community. Each RIR community's
Policy Development Process defines how these policies are developed,
agreed and accepted for operational implementation.
The corporate governance documents and Policy Development Processes of
each RIR and its community are accessible via the RIR Governance Matrix,
published on the NRO website.
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.
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 or the ongoing community processes for development of policies
relating to those services. However, it would remove a significant element
of oversight from the current system.
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 Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be
established between the IANA functions operator and the five Regional
Internet Registries (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 global
Policy Development Process (gPDP). 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.
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.
The processes for developing, agreeing and implementing policy relating to
management of the global Internet number resource pools would require no
change to accommodate this new arrangement. The text in "Attachment A" of
the ICANN ASO MoU meets the current and anticipated requirements for a
community-driven global policy development process. Ensuring the stability
and continuity of the current global Policy Development Process is a
further argument for retaining ICANN in its current role as the IANA
functions operator for the immediate future.
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.
The intent of the proposal described above is to:
1. Minimise 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.
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 minimise any operational or
continuity risks associated with stewardship transition.
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 Executive Council (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.
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.
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.
The proposal for the IANA stewardship transition for the Internet number
registries builds upon the existing, successful framework used by the
Internet number community today. The major characteristics of this
approach include:
1. 1.Global number policy development which is open and transparent to
any and all participants
2. 2.Continuance of existing IANA service levels, escalation processes,
and reporting mechanisms
3. 3.Maintenance of independent review and ratification for developed
global Internet number resource policy
4. 4.Continued use of periodic third-party independent reviews of
accountability and transparency of processes
5. 5.No change of the existing IANA operator for maximum stability and
security of operational processes and systems
6. 6.Accountable, member-based, globally-distributed Regional Internet
Registry organizations providing routine IANA operational oversight
for the Internet number registries
As a result of the approach taken (and its characteristics as outlined
above), it is clear that the proposal from the Internet number community
meets the stated NTIA requirements.
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.
Steps and timeline for proposal development and links to announcements,
mailing lists, and proceedings -
https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process
Assessment of consensus level - TBD
Each of the five RIR communities is discussing the IANA stewardship issues
via mailing lists, at their RIR meetings and in other community forums.
While these discussions have been uniformly open and transparent, with all
discussions archived on mailing lists and meeting records, each community
has adopted a specific process of their own choosing to reach an agreed
community output.
AFRINIC:
APNIC:
ARIN:
LACNIC:
RIPE:
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 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. Summaries of these discussions were posted to
the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list and on the RIPE website:
https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions
Between September and November 2014, RIPE community discussion centered
around developing a set of principles reflecting the communities primary
concerns in the development of an alternative IANA stewardship
arrangement. 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 general community
consensus on the principles discussed on the mailing list, and support
expressed for the three community members selected to join the
Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (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/
On 16 October 2014, the NRO Executive Council proposed the formation of a
Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team to develop a
single Internet numbering community proposal to the IANA Stewardship
Coordination Group (ICG). Each RIR community selected three members (two
community members and one RIR staff) to participate in the team. The
participants selected were:
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
Andres 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150109/c5cb71f8/CRISPIANAPROPOSALDraft120141210.html>
-------------- next part --------------
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
. A description of the service or activity.
The relevant IANA activities to the number resource communities are the
allocation of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System
Numbers ("ASNs") to the Regional Internet Registries ("RIRs") as well as
the delegation of the "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA" DNS trees in
accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
. 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.
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.
. 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. Delegation of "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and
"IP6.ARPA" domain names also requires interaction with the .ARPA zone
registry.
. 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]. 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.
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.
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.
. 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.
. 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).
. 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 ICC rules 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.
. 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
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.
. Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
affected.
The Internet number resource registries.
. 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; IANA
services for the Internet number registries are provided by ICANN
since its formation as a result of the NTIA IANA Functions
contract and hence IANA services for the Internet number
registries are presently subject to change per that agreement.
. 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.
1. 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).
2. 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 specific
funding or operational resolutions.
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.
. 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".
. 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.
The elements of this proposal are as follows:
1. (1)ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
resources;
2. (2)Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on number
resources; and
3. (3)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.
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.
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. Other than the replacement of the NTIA with the five RIRs as
the party(ies) with whom the IANA functions operator would contract for
provision of Internet number-related IANA services, the overall
arrangements in Section II.B would remain with no change. The proposed
arrangement involves the same IANA service or activity, 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, and jurisdiction will be dependent on the chosen
IANA functions operator.
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.
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. Any such Review Committee should be a team
composed of representatives from each RIR region that 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 any
observed 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.
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.
. 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.
. 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.
. 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 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.
The proposal for the IANA stewardship transition for the Internet number
registries builds upon the existing, successful framework used by the
Internet number community today. The major characteristics of this
approach include:
1. 1.Global number policy development which is open and transparent to
any and all participants
2. 2.Continuance of existing IANA service levels, escalation processes,
and reporting mechanisms
3. 3.Maintenance of independent review and ratification for developed
global Internet number resource policy
4. 4.Continued use of periodic third-party independent reviews of
accountability and transparency of processes
5. 5.No change of the existing IANA operator for maximum stability and
security of operational processes and systems
6. 6.Accountable, member-based, globally-distributed RIR organizations
providing routine IANA operational oversight for the Internet number
registries
7. 7.No new organization is proposed. However, a new process within the
RIR structures is proposed, where a Review Committee is established to
advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review of the service
level provided by the IANA functions operator.
As a result of the approach taken (and its characteristics as outlined
above), it is clear that the proposal from the Internet number community
meets the stated NTIA requirements.
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.
1. Regional and global process
Each of the five RIR communities is discussing the IANA stewardship issues
via mailing lists, at their RIR meetings and in other community forums.
While these discussions have been uniformly open and transparent, with all
discussions archived on mailing lists and meeting records, each community
has adopted a specific process of their own choosing to reach an agreed
community output.
The results from the five regional processes fed a global process that
produced this document. More details about the regional and global
processes are given below, interspersed with links to relevant documents.
2. 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
setup 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 CRISP Team on 12th Jan 2015.
3. APNIC regional process:
APNIC, as the secretariat for the APNIC community has 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
Webpage, dedicated to sharing up-to-date information on the IANA
stewardship transition was set up, for the APNIC community members and
wider community members who are interested in this issue can be updated:
http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition
Draft proposal was discussed at the dedicated session at the APNIC 38
Meeting, 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 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 CRISP Team as 12th Jan 2015.
4. ARIN regional process:
<TBD>
5. LACNIC regional process:
<TBD>
6. 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 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. Summaries of these discussions were posted to
the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list and on the RIPE website:
https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions
Between September and November 2014, RIPE community discussion centered
around developing a set of principles reflecting the communities primary
concerns in the development of an alternative IANA stewardship
arrangement. 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 general community
consensus on the principles discussed on the mailing list, and support
expressed for the three community members selected to join the
Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (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/
7. Global process (CRISP Team)
On 16 October 2014, the NRO EC proposed the formation of a Consolidated
RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team to develop a single Internet
numbering community proposal to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group
(ICG). Each RIR community selected three members (two community members
and one RIR staff) to participate in the team. The participants selected
were:
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
Andres 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)
Steps and timeline for proposal development and links to announcements,
mailing lists, and proceedings -
https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process
8. Assessment of consensus level
<TBD>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150109/c5cb71f8/CRISPIANAPROPOSALDraft1.120141224.html>
-------------- next part --------------
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) rRules 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 are provided by ICANN since its formation
as a result of the NTIA IANA Functions contract and hence
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.
1II.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).
2II.B.3.ii. The Regional Internet Registries
Administration by the IANA operator 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 RIRspecific funding or operational resolutions.
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. (1)ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
resources;
2. (2)Intellectual property rights (IPR) related to the provision of the
IANA services stay with the community;
3. (3)SService level agreement with the IANA functions operator on number
resources; and
4. (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
* ****
Other than the replacement of the NTIA with the five RIRs as the
party(ies) with whom the IANA functions operator would contract for
provision of Internet number-related IANA services, Tthe overall oversight
and accountability mechanisms detailedarrangements in Section II.B would
remain with no unchanged
* ****The . The proposed arrangement involves the same IANA service or
activity, policy sources identified in Section II.A are unaffected
* ****, tThe entities that provide oversight or perform accountability
functions (the RIRs) remain the same
* ****, tThe consequence for failure to meet performance standards
remains termination or decision not to renew the IANA functions
agreement with the then-current contractor
* ****, and jurisdiction will be dependent on the chosen IANA functions
operator.
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.
Any such Review Committee should be a team composed of representatives
from each RIR region that 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 any observed 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.
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.
1. VI.A. Regional and global pProcesses
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 is discusseding 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 these 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 toof their
particular local needs and cultureown choosing 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
The results from the five regional processes fed a global process that
produced this document. More details about the regional and global
processes are given below, interspersed with links to relevant documents.
2. 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 Ddedicated 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
Andres 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.
Assessment of consensus level
<TBD>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150109/c5cb71f8/CRISPIANAPROPOSALDraft220150108.html>
More information about the CRISP
mailing list