[NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 2 19:17:09 CET 2015


Dear Colleagues,



This is a friendly reminder that the deadline for providing feedback to 
the first draft of the proposal from Internet Number Community on IANA 
Stewardship is: 5 January 2015.

Based on the request made by a community member on this mailing list, 
please find below the text format of the first proposal. This is 
identical to the edited version of the first proposal published at:

https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-Draft-24122014-clean.pdf

We continue to welcome your feedback on <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.



Best Regards,

Izumi Okutani
Chair, Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for
Proposals on IANA from the RIR community
1.        Proposal type

Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission proposes 
to address:

[  ] Names
[ 口] 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)         ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
	    resources;
(2)         Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on
	    number resources; and
(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.   Global number policy development which is open and transparent to 
any and all participants
2.   Continuance of existing IANA service levels, escalation processes, 
and reporting mechanisms
3.   Maintenance of independent review and ratification for developed 
global Internet number resource policy
4.   Continued use of periodic third-party independent reviews of 
accountability and transparency of processes
5.   No change of the existing IANA operator for maximum stability and 
security of operational processes and systems
6.    Accountable, member-based, globally-distributed RIR organizations 
providing routine IANA operational oversight for the Internet number 
registries
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
Andrés Piazza (Appointed RIR staff)

RIPE NCC Region
Nurani Nimpuno – Head of Outreach & Communications at Netnod
Andrei Robachevsky – Technology Programme Manager at the Internet 
Society Paul Rendek (Appointed
RIR staff)

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>

<END>

On 2014/12/29 20:43, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> CRISP Team has published an editorial version of the Internet
> numbers community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the
> IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG):
>
>    http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1
>
>  From the initial draft we published on 19th Dec [*], we have made
> editorial changes only. No changes are made in contents of the proposal.
>
> [*]
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-First-Draft1.pdf
>
> The editorial changes are intended to clarify our answers to RFP, by
> re-ordering answers in the same order as questions listed in each
> Section. Some small additions have been made to address points that had
> not been answered in the earlier draft. Finally, there are some changes
> made for stylistic reasons.
>
> The deadline of the comments to be submitted to <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> mailing list remains the same: Monday 5th Jan 2015.
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions about version 1.1 of our
> draft proposal, and we continue to welcome feedback from the community.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team)
>




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list