[CRISP-TEAM] Some Follow up Items
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Jan 21 05:59:55 CET 2015
There are a couple of work items I would like to follow up after the
submission of our proposal to the ICG.
This is just listing work items which we still to work on, and no need
to have your responses unless there is anything you would like to
comment in particular.
For 1.,4. and 7 I will create a seperate thread to consult the CRISP Team.
5.and 6 are related to the NRO secretariat (and 7 also once fixed).
I assume they are under work and would be helpful to hear a rough target
1. Comment from Richard Hill at "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org"
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:08:31 +0100
Paul Wilson, one of the ICG members brought this to my attention.
Richard Hill is repeating the same arguement as in the IANAXFER.
Note "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org" is not a proper channel to submit
comments and not a part of the formal process. I will create a
seperate thread on this.
2. Issue status list
I will update the list and share today.
3. Presentation at ICANN52
There will be a session at ICANN52 to share reponses to the ICG RFP.
The ICG is planning to invite presentation from the Numbers
community at the session - more details to be shared from the ICG
Responses to the ICG RFP regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition
Monday, 9 February (1015 - 1300)
I will share with the CRISP Team once I confirm details.
4. Communicate to the IANAXFER about next steps?
We updated the IANAXFER list about our submission to the ICG and our
update stops there.
I feel we should share what the next steps are, especially the next
point the community is exected to give feedback on the integrated
proposal, the session at ICANN52 and how the CRISP Team will be/will
not be involved in future steps.
I don't know if this is better from the CRISP Team to do this or the
ICG members to do it but let's confirm about this point as well. I
will create a seperate thread.
5. Notes of CRISP Teleconferences
- We need to post notes from 9th, 12th, 13th and 14th meetings
Would NRO secretariat share us the progress?
(Please also remind me if I missed to check any of the notes which
has been circulated)
6. Post html and text versions
- Re-attached are html and text versions to be posted on the NRO
CRISP Team website
7. NRO CRISP Team website
Since we have already submitted the proposal, I observe two
changes are needed to reflect this.
I will create a seperate thread to hear comments from CRISP Team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for
Proposals on the IANA from the Internet Number Community
This document is a response from the Internet Number Community to the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals made
on September 8, 2014. This document was prepared by the CRISP Team, which
was established by the Internet Number Community through the Regional
Internet Registries specifically for the purpose of producing this
Please note that an appendix, including uncommon acronyms and defined
terms, is included at the end of this document.
Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission proposes to
[ ] Names [X] Numbers [ ] Protocol Parameters
I. The Community's Use of the 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 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. The service or activity
The IANA activities relevant to the Internet Number Community are:
* the allocation of blocks of Internet Number Resources (namely IPv4
addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System Numbers, AS Numbers,
or ASNs) to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs);
* the registration of such allocations in the corresponding IANA
* other related registry management tasks including the management of
returned IP address space, and general registry maintenance; and
* the administration of the special-purpose "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and
"IP6.ARPA" DNS zones, in accordance with IPv4 and IPv6 allocations,
These activities are referred to in this document, collectively, as "IANA
I.B. The customer of the service or activity
The RIRs, the not-for-profit membership-based organizations accountable to
the Internet Number Community, manage the registration and distribution of
Internet Number Resources (as defined above) on a regional basis. The five
AFRINIC Serving Africa
APNIC Serving the Asia-Pacific Region
ARIN Serving Canada, some North Atlantic and Caribbean islands,
Antarctica, and the United States
LACNIC Serving Latin America and portions of the Caribbean
RIPE NCC Serving Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East
The RIRs receive blocks of Internet Number Resources from the IANA Number
Registries managed by the IANA Numbering Services Operator and distribute
and register those number resources at the regional level. The RIRs also
fill a secretariat role, facilitating the open, transparent, and bottom-up
number resource Policy Development Process.
The RIRs have a long-standing and straightforward operational relationship
with the IANA. The IANA maintains the IANA Number Registries from which
the RIRs receive allocations to distribute to the community. The RIRs also
coordinate with the IANA to correctly register any resources that are
returned to the IANA Number Registries. 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. Registries are involved in providing the service or activity
The relevant IANA registries are:
* the IPv4 address registry:
* the IPv6 address registry:
* the ASN registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers
* the IN-ADDR.ARPA DNS zone
* the IP6.ARPA DNS zone
Collectively these registries are referred to as the IANA Number
I.D. Overlaps or interdependencies between your IANA requirements and
the functions required by other customer communities
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is responsible for the
specification of the entire IP address space and AS number space. Through
the respective IANA Number Registries (see above), the IETF delegates
unicast IP address and AS number space into the Internet Numbers Registry
System (RFC 7020). These registries are published via the IANA.ORG web
Within the IANA Number Registries, there may be reserved values or ranges
and special-purpose registries which are outside the Internet Number
Registry System and instead administered under the direction of the IETF.
The delineation of the specific ranges delegated to the Internet Numbers
Registry System is provided in RFC 7249. It is expected that this
delineation may change from time to time by actions of the IETF (through
the RFC process) or the RIRs (through the global policy development
process). Potential reasons for changes include the release of previously
reserved space for general use and the reservation of previously unused
space for a special purpose.
The global Internet community also depends upon the IANA Numbering
Services Operator for administration of the special-purpose IN-ADDR.ARPA
and IP6.ARPA DNS zones which are associated with IPv4 and IPv6 address
spaces, respectively. These zones are delegated to the 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" (RFC 3172). The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN), in its role as the IANA Numbering Services Operator,
administers these zones as "agreed technical work items" per the IETF-IANA
MoU. This work is outside the scope of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) contract.
Provision of reverse DNS services in the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains
may also require interaction with the .ARPA registry. Collectively these
registries are referred to as the IANA Number Registries.
The Internet Number Community also makes use of the term IANA in the
description of their processes, policies, and public database records.
IETF-ICANN MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
NTIA IANA Functions Contract:
RFC 3172, Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address
and Routing Parameter Area Domain ("arpa"):
RFC 7020, The Internet Numbers Registry System:
RFC 7249, Internet Numbers Registries: 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
* 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
II.A.1. Affected IANA service or activity
The affected services and activities are those describe in I.A and I.C
IANA Numbering Services are provided without involvement by the NTIA.
II.A.2. How policy is developed and established and by whom
The policies under which the IANA Numbering Services are provided are
developed and agreed within the Internet Number Community via an open,
transparent, and bottom-up policy development process. The community
engages in regional policy development processes facilitated by each RIR;
these processes are open to all stakeholders regardless of specific
background or interest or geographic location of residence or activity.
Links to the regional Policy Development Processes (PDPs) are included in
the RIR Governance Matrix published on the Number Resource Organization
(NRO) web site: www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix
Any individual may submit a global policy proposal to the Global Policy
Development Process, or gPDP. The community must ratify the proposed
policy within each RIR. The NRO Executive Council (NRO EC) then refers the
proposal to the Address Supporting Organization 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 related to management of the
IANA Number Registries of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous
System Numbers: https://www.nro.net/policies
* IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet
* IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet
* Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the
A fourth global policy, ICP-2, Criteria for Establishment of New Regional
Internet Registries, governs the community's formation of new RIRs.
The global gPDP described in the Global Policy Development Process
is used for all of the number-related IANA activities described in Section
I, but the policy by which "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA" domains must be
delegated following IPv4 and IPv6 address allocations is specified by the
IETF in RFC 3172.
II.A.3. How disputes about policy are resolved
The gPDP mentioned above is formally defined 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 the IANA Numbering Services Operator and
the Internet Number Community. Although 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 Internet Number Community and ICANN; the NTIA has no oversight
role in policy-making for IANA Numbering Services, and its transition out
of its current role would have no 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
It is the responsibility of the NRO Number Council ("NRO NC"), a group
comprising fifteen community members to confirm that the documented RIR
PDPs have been followed in the development of policy. Further, this group
reviews the policy followed by the Internet Number Community to assure
itself that the significant viewpoints of interested parties are
adequately considered, and only after this confirmation does it then
consider forwarding global policy proposals to the ICANN Board for
The NRO NC also acts in the role of the ICANN ASO AC, and as such it
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 AC 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 RIR processes. By consensus of
the Internet Number Community in accordance with the PDPs, the ASO AC may
forward a proposed new or modified policy 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 provides for arbitration. Via the ASO, the RIRs have been
participating in the periodic independent reviews by the Accountability
and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) that are called for in ICANN's Bylaws.
II.A.4. References to documentation of policy development and
dispute resolution processes
ICANN ASO MoU:
NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding
About the NRO Number Council:
RIR Governance Matrix:
Global Policies: https://www.nro.net/policies
RFC 3172, Management Guidelines & Operational Requirements for the Address
and Routing Parameter Area Domain ("arpa"):
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
* 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
* Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis
on which the mechanism rests.
II.B.1. Which IANA service or activity is affected?
The IANA Numbering Services and IANA Number Registries as defined above.
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
Numbering Services, and therefore its contractual relationship with the
IANA Functions Operator, would have no significant impact on the
continuity of IANA Numbering Services currently provided by ICANN.
However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the
ICANN has historically provided IANA Numbering Services via the IANA
Number Registries under the terms of the NTIA IANA Functions contract, and
therefore IANA Numbering Services for the RIRs are currently subject to
change in accordance with that agreement.
II.B.3. The entity or entities that provide oversight or perform
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 community that develops the policies
under which those resources are distributed and registered. The mechanisms
used to ensure and enforce this accountability differ for each of these
ICANN, as the current IANA Numbering Services Operator, is obligated by
the NTIA agreement to manage the IANA Number Registries according to
policies developed by the Internet Number Community.
Although the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public
in nature, the NTIA has an oversight role in the provision of the services
through its contract with ICANN. The ultimate consequence of failing to
meet the performance standards or reporting requirements is understood to
be a decision by the contracting party (the NTIA) to terminate or not
renew the IANA Functions Agreement with the current contractor (ICANN).
II.B.3.ii. The Regional Internet Registries
Administration by the IANA Numbering Services Operator consists
predominantly of processing of requests from the RIRs for issuance of
additional number resources. The five RIRs are intimately familiar with
global numbering policies under which the requests are made and maintain
communications with the IANA Numbering Services Operator throughout the
The RIRs are not-for-profit membership-based organizations, and as such
they 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 elect individuals to the governing board and to
vote on matters related to the respective RIR.
At the same time, an RIR's registration and allocation practices are
directed by policies developed by the community. Each RIR's PDP defines
how these policies are developed, agreed, and accepted for operational
The corporate governance documents and PDPs of each RIR are accessible via
the RIR Governance Matrix, published on the NRO web site:
II.B.4. 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
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
Numbering Services 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 IANA Number Registries, the affected parties are the
RIRs and the Internet Number Community), 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 operational 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 and legal basis of the mechanism
Jurisdiction for the current mechanism is the United States of America
under applicable federal government contracting laws and regulations.
NTIA IANA Agreement:
ICANN ASO MoU:
NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding
IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process:
IANA Performance Standards Metrics Report:
RIR Governance Matrix:
III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
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
III.A. The elements of this proposal
* ICANN to continue as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA
Numbering Services, hereinafter referred to as the IANA Numbering
Services Operator, via a contract with the RIRs;
* IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with the
* Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services Operator;
* 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.
This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the number
community, the protocol parameter community, and the name community) will
have independent arrangements with the IANA Functions Operator related to
maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At
the same time, the Internet Number Community wishes to emphasize the
importance of communication and coordination between these communities to
ensure the stability of the IANA services. Such communication and
coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach
different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA Functions Operator
after the transition. Efforts to facilitate this communication and
coordination should be undertaken by the affected communities via
processes distinct from this stewardship transition process.
III.A.1. ICANN to continue as the IANA Numbering Services Operator
via a contract with the RIRs
To maintain stability and continuity in operations of the IANA Numbering
Services, very minimal changes to the arrangements listed in Section 2.2
are proposed, including the identification of the proposed initial IANA
Numbering Services 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 the IANA Numbering Services Operator. Taking this
into account, and considering the Internet Number Community's strong
desire for stability and a minimum of operational change, the Internet
Number Community believes that ICANN should remain in the role of the IANA
Numbering Services Operator for at least the initial term of the new
Although there are no concrete needs or plans to do so at this point, the
Internet Number Community may in the future determine that the IANA
Numbering Services 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, consistent with
applicable industry best practices and standards.
III.A.2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains
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:
the IANA trademark, the IANA.ORG domain name, and public databases related
to the performance of the IANA Numbering Services, including the IANA
It is important that the IPR status of the registries remains clear and
ensures free and unrestricted access to the public registry data
throughout the stewardship transition. It is the expectation of the
Internet Number Community that the IANA Number Registries are in the
It is also the expectation of the Internet Number Community 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). All rights on non-public information
related to the IANA number resource registries and corresponding services
must be transferred to the RIRs.
It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant
parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.
With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the
expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with
the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering
Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA
Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets
will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators)
be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number
Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be
transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services
Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a
non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From
the Internet Number Community's 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 Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the
preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties
agree to these expectations as part of the transition.
III.A.3. Service Level Agreement with the IANA Numbering Services
The Internet Number Community proposes that a new contract be established
between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. The
following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a
new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA Numbering
Services Operator's accountability to the Internet Number 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 Numbering Services Operator in
relation to the IANA Numbering Services remain unchanged.
* The policy sources identified in Section II.A are unaffected.
* The oversight and accountability mechanisms detailed in Section II.B
* The entities that provide oversight or perform accountability
functions (the RIRs) remain the same.
* The consequence of failure to meet performance standards remains
unchanged: termination or non-renewal of the contract.
The agreement, essentially a Service Level Agreement for the IANA
Numbering Services, would obligate the IANA Numbering Services Operator to
carry out the IANA Numbering Services according to policies developed by
the Internet Number Community 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 consistent
with current mechanisms and would specify consequences should the IANA
Numbering Services Operator fail to meet those requirements, the means for
the resolution of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal
or termination of the agreement. IANA Numbering Services 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 Numbering Services Operator to appropriately coordinate
with any other operator of IANA services. The agreement would also provide
for jurisdiction and governing law regarding the new arrangement.
It is expected that the RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement,
will draft the specific language of this agreement. During the drafting
process, the RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR
communities, 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 Service Level Agreement Principles
1.Separation of Policy Development and Operational Roles
The IANA Numbering Services 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
2.Description of Services Provided to RIRs
The IANA Numbering Services Operator will maintain the IANA Number
Registries and provide IANA Numbering Services to the RIRs in accordance
with the specific processes and timelines described in this section of the
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract: C.2.9.3
3. Obligation to Issue Reports on Transparency and Accountability
The IANA Numbering Services Operator will commit to certain obligations so
as to perform the function as expected by the Internet Number Community
and will be obliged to periodically issue reports illustrating its
compliance with the Internet Number Community's expectations.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract: C.2.6, C.2.7, C.2.8
4. Security, Performance, and Audit Requirements
The IANA Numbering Services 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
5. Review of the IANA Operations
The RIRs will perform reviews to assess whether the IANA Numbering
Services Operator complies with all requirements described in the
agreement whenever they deem appropriate. The IANA Numbering Services
Operator will be obliged to facilitate this review.
6. Failure to Perform
If the IANA Numbering Services Operator fails to perform as agreed, there
will be specific consequences. One of these consequences may be
termination of the agreement.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract: E.2, I.67
7. Term and Termination
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, I.51, I.52,
8. Continuity of Operations
If, at the end of the term, the RIRs decide to sign an agreement for
provision of IANA Numbering Services by a different party, the previous
IANA Numbering Services Operator will be obliged to ensure an orderly
transition of the function while maintaining continuity and security of
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract: C.7.3 and I.61
9. Intellectual Property Rights and Rights Over Data
The contract will implement the RIR community expectations as described in
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract: H.4, H.5
10. Resolution of Disputes
Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved through
The fee is based on costs incurred by the IANA Numbering Services Operator
in providing the IANA Numbering Service.
Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract: B.2
III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee
To ensure that the service level defined in the proposed agreement is
maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator, the NRO EC will
periodically review the service level of the IANA Numbering Services
provided to the Internet Number Community.
The RIRs 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
Numbering Services Operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns
regarding the performance of the IANA Numbering Services Operator,
including especially any observed failure or near-failure by the IANA
Numbering Services Operator to meet its obligations under the proposed
agreement. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its
capacity solely to oversee the performance of the IANA Numbering Services,
and the Review Committee's advice and comment will be limited to the
processes followed in the IANA Numbering Services Operator's performance
under the proposed agreement. 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
Internet Number Community representatives from each RIR region. The
selection of the Review Committee members should be conducted in an open,
transparent, and bottom-up manner appropriate for each RIR region. There
should be equal representation from each RIR region within the Review
III.B. Implications for the interface between the IANA functions and
existing policy arrangements
This proposal carries no implication for the interface between IANA
Numbering Services 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
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
* Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of
service and possible new service integration throughout the
* 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. Operational requirements to achieve continuity of service
throughout the transition
* Describe 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:
* Minimize risks to operational continuity of the management of the
IANA Numbering Services, and;
* Retain the existing framework for making those policies that
describe the management of the IANA Number Registries, as this
framework is already structured to ensure open, transparent, and
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 agreement with the five RIRs and the IANA Numbering
Services 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. Decisions made regarding
the agreement would be based on operational circumstances, past
performance, and input from the Internet Number Community.
The shift from the existing contractual arrangement to one or more new
contracts covering the IANA Numbering Services Operator's ongoing
management of the IANA Numbering Services should result in no operational
change for management of the IANA Number Registries. This will help
minimize any operational or continuity risks associated with stewardship
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.
A new agreement specifying IANA operation of the IANA Number Registries
can and should be established well before the September 2015 transition
target, as we propose to simply reconcile the contracting party with the
policy authority, without changing service levels or reporting.
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 Numbering Services
Operator and the RIRs. As stated in Section III above, the Service Level
Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services, would obligate the IANA
Numbering Services Operator to carry out those IANA Numbering Services
according to policies developed by the community via the gPDP, as well as
management of the delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains.
IV.C. Workability of any new technical or operational methods
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.
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
Numbering Services 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 Internet Number Community
to evaluate and review performance of the IANA Numbering Services
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
* 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
This proposal addresses each of the NTIA's requirements:
V.A. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model
The RIRs are not-for-profit membership-based organizations accountable to
their community. The processes developed by the community over time are
open, transparent, and 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 Numbering Services to the Internet Number
Community is an important step in acknowledging the maturity and stability
of the multistakeholder 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, or 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 related to management of the IANA Number
Registries have served the Internet community well over time, and the
Internet Number Community has expressed a strong desire for stability and
operational continuity of this critical element of the Internet
infrastructure. Accordingly, this proposal suggests minimal changes to
V.C. Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA services
The Internet Number Community is the customer of the Internet number
resource IANA Numbering Services. The Internet Number Community has often
expressed its satisfaction with the current management of the IANA
Numbering Services, which have effectively implemented policies developed
by the community and efficiently provided Numbering Services to the RIRs.
This proposal has been developed by the Internet Number Community, as the
customer of the IANA Numbering Services, and meets its need for continuity
and stability in the operation of the IANA Numbering Services. It does
this by solidifying the IANA Numbering Services Operator's accountability
to the Internet Number Community.
V.D. Maintain the openness of the Internet
An open Internet relies on the effective implementation of policies
developed via open, transparent, and bottom-up processes, ensuring the
transparent and coordinated distribution and registration of Internet
Number Resources. The Internet Number Community has a long-standing
history of open, transparent, and bottom-up policy-making and operational
processes (including the transparent publication of all registration
information). By building on the structures developed by the Internet
Number Community, this proposal ensures that in this regard the openness
of the Internet is maintained.
In addition, the proposed community Review Committee will ensure community
involvement in the open and transparent evaluation of the IANA Numbering
V.E. Not a government-led or inter-governmental solution
This proposal does not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an
inter-governmental organization solution. This proposal places the RIRs in
the role currently occupied by the NTIA. The RIRs are not-for-profit
organizations, accountable to the community. The Internet Number Community
is open to anyone who wishes to contribute and includes 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
* Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and
* An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
proposal, including a description of areas of contention or
VI.A. Steps taken to develop consensus and the proposal
The Internet Number Community process is open, transparent, and bottom-up,
with the initial discussions and proposal elements agreed on a regional
basis in each region of the Internet Number Community. The consensus
output of these five regional discussions has been consolidated in a
single global proposal.
This process was deliberately modeled on the processes that the Internet
Number Community has 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 regional 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
regions, and during the second phase each region remained apprised of
progress and provided feedback on successive iterations of the global
VI.B. Regional Processes
The Internet Number Community's process for developing a new agreement for
operation of the IANA Numbering Services was founded on the regional
Internet Number Community structure, in which stakeholders discuss
policies and other issues relevant to numbers resources. The Internet
Number Community has for many years fostered the open, transparent, and
bottom-up participation of a broad range of stakeholders. Existing
mechanisms and communication channels therefore existed to facilitate the
IANA stewardship transition discussion, eliminating the need for new
processes, communication channels, or bodies. The 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.
The RIRs operate according to open, transparent, bottom-up, and
consensus-based processes, allowing anyone with an interest to participate
in the discussions on an equal footing. Holding the IANA stewardship
discussion within this community has ensured broad participation and
facilitated examination of the issues raised in the context of local and
regional circumstances. The very active community engagement within all
regions not only shows the positive commitment of the Internet Number
Community to this process but also demonstrates the Internet Number
Community's mature and well-functioning decision-making processes.
The Internet Number Community discussed the IANA stewardship issues on
five regional and two global mailing lists and at RIR and other public
meetings, both face-to-face and via remote participation. Although the
discussions have been uniformly open and transparent, with all discussions
archived on mailing lists and meeting records, each region has contributed
to the community consensus via regionally defined processes suitable to
their particular local needs and culture.
Links to specific output documents and archives of all of the Internet
Number Community discussions are available at
VI.B.1. AFRINIC regional process
The AFRINIC community held an IANA oversight transition workshop during
the May 25 through June 6, 2014, Africa Internet Summit in Djibouti. 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. The
list and its archives can be found at
AFRINIC has a dedicated web portal for sharing information on the IANA
AFRINIC also conducted a survey seeking community input on the IANA
The last face-to-face meeting at which IANA oversight
transition consultations were held with the community was during the
AFRINIC-21 meeting, held in Mauritius from November 22 through 28, 2014.
Recordings of the session are available:
Discussions continued on the ianaoversight at afrinic.net mailing list until
the closure of comments set by the CRISP Team on January 12, 2015.
The AFRINIC region CRISP Team was appointed by the AFRINIC Board of
Directors. Key milestones of the appointment process were:
October 27, 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 November 12, 2014:
November 8, 2014: The AFRINIC CEO announced the 5 nominated candidates:
November 13, 2014: The AFRINIC Board Chair announced the three CRISP Team
members selected to the community:
The AFRINIC IANA oversight transition information page:
VI.B.2. APNIC regional process
APNIC set up a public mailing list on April 1, 2014, to develop a regional
position on the IANA stewardship transition:
A web site dedicated to sharing up-to-date information on the IANA
stewardship transition was set up:
A draft proposal was discussed at the dedicated session at the APNIC 38
Meeting in September 2014, and a regional community consensus was reached.
The meeting included bidirectional remote participation via live webcast
and a virtual conference room:
On October 23, 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 November
12, 2014, the APNIC Executive Council announced the three APNIC
representatives selected to join the CRISP
Information was also posted on APNIC's IANA oversight transition web site:
Discussion continued on the ianaxfer at apnic.net mailing list until the
closure of the comments on January 12, 2015.
VI.B.3. ARIN regional process
ARIN held a community consultation from October 1 through October 10,
2014, including a live session on October 9, during the ARIN 34 meeting in
On October 13, ARIN established a mailing list, iana-transition at arin.net,
to facilitate regional discussion of the IANA stewardship transition
planning process. This mailing list remained open for comments and updates
throughout the transition planning process. The archives are open and
available for all Internet community members to view:
A regional survey was conducted from October 13 through 20, 2014,
eliciting 64 responses:
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 resulting nominees and on November 8 announced the
appointment of its three CRISP Team members.
On November 21, 2014, the first ARIN draft proposal was shared on
iana-transition at arin.net and discussion followed:
ARIN has set up a web portal dedicated to the IANA Stewardship Transition
VI.B.4. LACNIC regional process
The LACNIC community began a consultative process on August 15, 2014, with
a public teleconference in which LACNIC's CEO discussed the methodology,
expected timeline, and consultation scope with the community. The primary
goal was to obtain the region's input to the multistakeholder debate on
the transition of stewardship of the IANA Numbering Services, gathering
regional points of view, concerns, suggestions, and recommendations,
specifically concerning Internet number resource management.
From that starting point, three representatives from the community guided
the regional debate:
Discussion took place on the internet-gov at lacnic.net mailing list.
From August 15 through September 15, 2014, open discussion was held.
On September 23, moderators presented a preliminary transition document
summarizing all contributions and discussions.
A thirty-day community discussion of the preliminary document ended on
During the October 27 through 31 LACNIC meeting in Santiago, the
preliminary transition document was discussed in two sessions. The first
session focused on the global IANA oversight transition process and the
work done by the name, number, and protocol communities. The second
focused on the proposals from the mailing list and began the process of
drafting a final LACNIC regional community proposal.
Following these sessions, there was an additional week of community
discussion ending November 15, before the proposal was ratified by
LACNIC's Board of Directors and submitted to the CRISP Team.
Announcement of the appointment of the LACNIC region members of the CRISP
After the board appointed the CRISP Team members, there was continued
dialog between the Community Leaders and the LACNIC CRISP Team
representatives through email and teleconferences.
The final result of the Consultation at LACNIC Community:
The list internet-gov at lacnic.net remained open for regional discussion
until the closure of the comments on January 12, 2015.
VI.B.5. 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:
The RIPE NCC, as secretariat for the RIPE community, also facilitated
discussion of the IANA stewardship in national and regional forums across
the RIPE NCC service region from May through 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 web site: https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions
Although there were active, and at times passionate, discussions in the
community throughout the consultation period, there was clearly strong
agreement on the needs of the Internet Number Community and the general
principles that should underpin transition of IANA stewardship. From
September through November 2014, RIPE community discussion converged on 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
Discussions at the RIPE 69 meeting in November 2014 reached 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
This announcement noted the procedure whereby the RIPE Chair, in
consultation with the RIPE NCC Executive Board, would select two community
representatives and a staff representative. At the conclusion of RIPE 69,
the community expressed its support for the three RIPE representatives to
the CRISP Team.
RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session:
RIPE 69 Closing Plenary Session:
VI.B.6. Internet Number Community Process (CRISP Team)
Following the broad consultations and active discussion within the five
regions, a mechanism was established to develop a single proposal from the
Internet Number Community, based on the consensus of the five regions.
On October 16, 2014, the Internet Number Community proposed the formation
of the CRISP Team to develop a single Internet Number 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 within each RIR. Details of these selection processes are
included in the RIR process descriptions above.
The CRISP Team members are:
Alan P. Barrett - Independent Consultant
Mwendwa Kivuva - Network Infrastructure Services, University of Nairobi
Ernest Byaruhanga (Appointed RIR staff)
Bill Woodcock - Executive Director, Packet Clearing House
John Sweeting - Sr. Director Network Architecture & Engineering, Time
Michael Abejuela (Appointed RIR staff)
Dr Govind - CEO, NIXI
Izumi Okutani - Policy Liaison, JPNIC
Craig Ng (Appointed RIR staff)
Nico Scheper - Manager, Curacao IX
Esteban Lescano - Vice Chairman, Cabase Argentina
Andres Piazza (Appointed RIR staff)
RIPE NCC Region:
Nurani Nimpuno - Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod
Andrei Robachevsky - Technology Programme Manager, Internet Society
Paul Rendek (Appointed RIR staff)
VI.B.7. CRISP Team Methodology
The charter of the CRISP Team describes its methodology, to ensure maximum
transparency and openness of the process. The charter is available on the
NRO web site: 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 the
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 December 9, 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
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 mail to this list or receive mail
sent to the list, but the list content would be archived publicly on the
NRO web site. This archive is available:
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.C. Level of consensus behind the community's proposal
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
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
Internet Number Community tradition of open, transparent, and bottom-up
processes defined the discussions in all regions, and a solid trust in the
RIR system was consistently expressed throughout the process. Although all
five regional inputs differed, no major conflicts or irreconcilable points
of contention were identified.
Notable points of difference included the views on the format of the
agreement to be established between the IANA Numbering Services 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
* Composition of Review Committee
* Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
conditions, dispute resolution and the need of SLA text to be
* Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks associated
with the IANA Numbering Services
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 Internet Number Community.
Address Supporting Organization (ASO): a Supporting Organization in the
ICANN structure, as defined in the ICANN Bylaws, and was formed in 2004 by
the ICANN ASO MoU. The ASO's role is to review and develop recommendations
on Internet Protocol (IP) address policy and to advise the ICANN Board.
The functions of the ASO are carried out by the Address Supporting
Organization Address Council (ASO AC).
Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC): has the
following responsibilities in the ICANN structure and processes:
undertaking a role in the global policy development process; defining
procedures for the selection of individuals to serve on other ICANN
bodies, in particular seats 9 and 10 on the ICANN Board, and implementing
any roles assigned to the AC in such procedures; and providing advice to
the ICANN Board on number resource allocation policy, in conjunction with
the RIRs. The ASO AC function is carried out by the members of the NRO NC.
CRISP Team: The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team
was established by the five RIRs specifically for the purpose of producing
Global Policies: Internet number resource policies that have the agreement
of all RIRs according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and
require specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other
external ICANN-related body in order to be implemented.
Global Policy Development Process (gPDP): The RIR communities' process for
the development of policy relating to management of the global Internet
number registries. The gPDP is employed in the development of policies
relating to all of the number-related IANA activities described in Section
I, except those relating to maintenance of the "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and
"IP6.ARPA" domains. The gPDP is formally defined in Attachment A of the
ASO MoU and posted on the NRO website:
IANA Number Registries: Refers collectively to the IPv4, IPv6, and ASN
registries, as well as the associated IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA DNS zones.
The registries can be found here: http://www.iana.org/numbers
IANA Numbering Services Operator: The party contractually engaged to
perform the IANA Numbering Services.
IANA Numbering Services: The IANA activities relevant to the Internet
Number Community, which are the allocation of blocks of Internet Number
Resources (namely IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System
Numbers or ASNs) to the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs); the
registration of such allocations in the corresponding IANA Internet Number
Registries; other related registry management tasks including the
management of returned IP address space, and general registry maintenance;
and the administration of the special-purpose "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and
"IP6.ARPA" DNS zones, in accordance with IPv4 and IPv6 allocations,
ICANN Address Supporting Organization Memorandum of Understanding (ICANN
ASO MoU): A Memorandum of Understanding signed by ICANN and the NRO in
2004, under which the NRO shall fulfill the role, responsibilities and
functions of the ASO (including that the NRO NC shall carry out the
functions of the ASO AC).
Internet Number Community or RIR Community: Collaborative forum operating
through decision-making processes that are bottom-up, inclusive and open
to all parties interested in the IANA numbering services as well as in the
services of the five RIRs.
Internet Number Registry System: The system for administering Internet
Number Resources, whereby the IANA maintains the Number Registries from
which the RIRs receive allocations to distribute to the community and the
RIRs coordinate with the IANA to correctly register any resources that are
returned to the Number Registries. This system is described in detail in
Internet Number Resources: IP addresses (IPv4, IPv6) and Autonomous System
Number Resource Organization (NRO): A coordinating mechanism of the RIRs
to act collectively on matters relating to the interests of the RIRs,
established by an MoU between the RIRs.
Number Resource Organization (NRO): The Number Resource Organization (NRO)
is a coordinating mechanism of the RIRs to act collectively on matters
relating to the interests of the RIRs. It was established in 2003 by a
Memorandum of Understanding between the four RIRs in operation at that
time (and signed by AFRINIC upon its establishment in 2005).
Number Resource Organization Executive Council (NRO EC): A group of
appointed representatives of each RIR, normally the CEOs.
Number Resource Organization Executive Council (NRO EC): Body that
represents the NRO and its suborganizations in all matters. Made up of one
representative from each RIR, generally the CEO or Director of the RIR.
Chairmanship of the NRO EC rotates through each of the RIRs on an annual
Number Resource Organization Memorandum of Understanding (NRO MoU): A
Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2003 by the four RIRs in operation
at the time, and subsequently signed by AFRINIC in 2005. The MoU
established the Number Resource Organization and defines its activities
Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC): A body made up of
three community members from each RIR community. It acts in an advisory
capacity to the NRO Executive Council and to review of any global policy
proposal to confirm that the documented RIR PDPs and relevant procedures
were followed in its development and approval. In the ICANN structure, the
members of the NRO NC serve the functions of the Address Supporting
Organization Address Council (ASO AC).
Policy Development Process (PDP): The process within each RIR by which the
community makes policies relating to the distribution and registration of
Internet number resources within its service region. While these PDPs
differ in some specifics, the share common characteristics: all RIR PDPs
are open to all and follow an established, bottom-up process of
collaboration; all RIR PDPs are transparent in their working methods,
utilizing public mailing lists and open community forums; all RIR PDPs
reach conclusions by community consensus; and the policies produced by an
RIR PDP are made freely and publicly available.
Regional Internet Registry (RIR): The not-for-profit membership-based
organizations responsible for the distribution and registration of
Internet Number Resources in continent-sized geopolitical regions, as
first proposed by the IETF in RFC 1366. The RIRs are an important element
in the Internet Number Registry System as defined in RFC 7020. The RIRs
were established in a bottom-up fashion and serve a secretariat role for
their communities, facilitating the open, inclusive, bottom-up development
of number resource policy. There are currently five RIRs in operation, as
described in Section 1.B. of this document.
More information about the CRISP