[NRO-IANAXFER] Text version of second draft

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Fri Jan 9 18:25:43 CET 2015


I attach a plain text version of the second draft of the CRISP 
Team's proposal.  This will be published on the web page at 
<https://nro.net/crisp-team>, but it has not yet been published 
there.

Some of the formatting of the plain text version may be incorrect 
or confusing, but the content is identical to that of the 
PDF version that was published yesterday.

-- Alan Barrett, CRISP Team vice-chair
-------------- next part --------------
   Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on
   IANA from the RIR community

   1.             Proposal type

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

    [  ] Names                            [ *] Numbers                    [
    ] Protocol Parameters

    

   I.               Description of Community's Use of IANA

   This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services or
   activities your community relies on. For each IANA service or activity on
   which your community relies, please provide the following:

    

   .       A description of the service or activity.

   .       A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.

   .       What registries are involved in providing the service or activity.

   .       A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
   IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer communities

    

   I.A.  A description of the service or activity.

    

   The IANA activities relevant to the number resource communities are the
   maintenance of the global Internet number resource registries, including
   the allocation of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System
   Numbers ("ASNs") to the Regional Internet Registries ("RIRs") as well as
   the delegation of subdomains below the "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA"
   domains in accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

    

   I.B.  A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity.

    

   The RIRs manage the registration and distribution of Internet number
   resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and ASNs) to members within their
   service regions. The five RIRs in operation at this point in time are:

    

   AFRINIC  Serving Africa                                    Founded in 2005 
   APNIC    Serving the Asia Pacific region                   Founded in 1993 
   ARIN     Serving North America                             Founded in 1997 
   LACNIC   Serving South America and the Caribbean           Founded in 2001 
   RIPE NCC Serving Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East  Founded in 1992 

    

   The five RIRs manage the distribution and registration of Internet number
   resources at the regional level, having received blocks of unused
   resources from the global pools managed by the IANA operator.  The RIRs
   also facilitate the policy development processes of their respective
   communities, providing secretariat roles.

    

   The five RIRs have a long-standing and straightforward operational
   relationship with IANA. IANA maintains the global pools of Internet number
   resources from which the RIRs receive allocations to distribute to their
   communities. The RIRs also coordinate with IANA to correctly register any
   resources that are returned to the global pools. Collectively, the system
   for administering Internet number resources is referred to as the
   "Internet Number Registry System" and is described in detail in RFC 7020.

    

   I.C.  What registries are involved in providing the service or activity.

    

   The most relevant IANA registries are the IPv4 address registry, the IPv6
   address registry, and the ASN registry.  Provision of reverse DNS services
   in "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA" domains may also require interaction with
   the .ARPA zone registry.

    

   I.D.  A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your IANA
   requirements and the functions required by other customer communities.

    

   The Internet Engineering Task Force ("IETF") is responsible for policy
   relating to the entire IP address space and AS number space.  Through the
   IANA protocol parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address
   ("IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and "IPv6 Global Unicast Allocations
   Registry") and AS number space ("ASN Registry) to the RIR system
   [RFC7020]. These registries are generally accessed via references based on
   the iana.org domain name.  Note that within each IANA registry, there are
   also reserved values or ranges, and special-purpose registries, which are
   outside the Internet Numbers Registry System and instead administered
   under the direction of the IETF. The delineation of the specific ranges
   delegated to the Internet Number Registry system is provided in RFC 7249.
    It is expected that the boundary between IETF-managed and Internet Number
   Registry-managed parts of the number spaces may change from time to time,
   with agreement between the IETF and the RIRs.  Potential reasons for
   changes include the possibility that the IETF may release some previously
   reserved space for general use, or may reserve some previously unused
   space for a special purpose.

   The global Internet community also depends upon the IANA operator for
   administration of the special-purpose "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA" DNS
   zones which are associated with IPv4 and IPv6 number resources
   respectively. These zones are delegated to IANA by the Internet
   Architecture Board ("IAB") and "[s]ub-delegations within this hierarchy
   are undertaken in accordance with the IANA's address allocation practices"
   (RFC3172). The IANA operator administers these zones as "agreed technical
   work items" per the IETF- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
   Numbers ("ICANN") IANA MoU.  It is important to note that this work is
   outside the scope of the National Telecommunications and Information
   Administration ("NTIA") contract.

    

   The RIR communities also make use of the term "IANA" in the description of
   their processes, policies and public database records.

    

   Relevant links:

   IETF-ICANN MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority:
   https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en

   "The Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020:
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020

   "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249:
   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7249

    

   II.              Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements

   This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements work,
   prior to the transition.

   II.A.                 Policy Sources

   This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which must
   be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services
   or activities described above.  If there are distinct sources of policy or
   policy development for different IANA activities, then please describe
   these separately. For each source of policy or policy development, please
   provide the following:

   .       Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
   affected.

   .       A description of how policy is developed and established and who
   is involved in policy development and establishment.

   .       A description of how disputes about policy are resolved.

   .       References to documentation of policy development and dispute
   resolution processes.

    

   II.A.1..       Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
   affected.

    

   The Internet number resource registries.

    

   It is important to note that allocations of Internet number resources from
   IANA to the RIRs and its registrations in IANA registries, as well as
   delegations of "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA" domains, described in Section
   I, are conducted between IANA and the RIRs without involvement by the
   NTIA.

    

   II.A.2..       A description of how policy is developed and established
   and who is involved in policy development and establishment.

    

   The policies under which the IANA operator manages the global pools of
   Internet number resources (excluding those address ranges reserved by the
   IETF for specific technical purposes) are developed and agreed by the five
   RIR communities via open, transparent and bottom-up policy development
   processes. Each RIR community engages in its own regional policy
   development process; these processes are open to all stakeholders
   regardless of specific background or interest. Links to each of the five
   regional Policy Development Processes ("PDPs") are included under in the
   RIR Governance Matrix published on the Number Resource Organization
   ("NRO") website [www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix].

    

   Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must
   ratify an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive
   Council ("NRO EC") then refers the coordinated proposal to the Address
   Supporting Organization ("ASO") Address Council ("ASO AC"), which reviews
   the process by which the proposal was developed and, under the terms of
   the ASO Memorandum of Understanding ("ASO MoU"), passes it to the ICANN
   Board of Directors for ratification as a global policy.

    

   There are currently three global policies relating to management of the
   global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers
   [https://www.nro.net/policies]:

    

   (a) IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet
   Registries;

   (b) IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet

   Registries; and

   (c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the
   IANA.

    

   There is a fourth global policy agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2,

   "Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries".

    

   The global Policy Development Process ("gPDP") described in "Global Policy

   Development Process Document"
   [https://www.nro.net/documents/global-policy-development-process] is used
   for all of the number-related IANA activities described in Section I, but
   the policy that "IN-ADDR.ARPA" and "IP6.ARPA" domains must be delegated
   following IPv4 and IPv6 address allocations is specified by the IETF (most
   recently in RFC 3172).

    

   II.A.3..       A description of how disputes about policy are resolved.

    

   The gPDP is formally described in "Attachment A" of the ASO MoU, signed by
   ICANN and the RIRs in 2004 (and signed by AFRINIC when it was established
   as the fifth RIR in 2005). This MoU includes provisions for resolving
   disputes between ICANN and the RIRs or their communities. It is important
   to note that while the gPDP allows for the ICANN Board to dispute the
   outcome of a consensus community decision (escalating to mediation between
   ICANN and the RIRs), it does not include any role for the IANA contract
   holder (currently the NTIA). The ASO MoU is an agreement between the RIR
   communities and ICANN; NTIA has no oversight role in policy-making as
   regards management of the global Internet number resource pools, and its
   transition out of its current role would have minimal effect on the
   policy-making framework.

    

   A separate MoU, the NRO MoU, establishes the NRO as "a coordinating
   mechanism of the RIRs to act collectively on matters relating to the
   interests of the RIRs", and includes provisions for dispute resolutions
   between RIRs on issues relating to global policy development or
   implementation.

    

   It is the responsibility of the NRO Number Council ("NRO NC"), a group
   comprising three community members selected by each of the five RIR
   communities, to confirm that the documented RIR PDPs have been followed in
   the development and approval of a new policy or policy change.  Further,
   this group reviews the policy followed by each of the RIR communities to
   assure itself that the significant viewpoints of interested parties were
   adequately considered, and only after this confirmation does it then
   consider forwarding global policy proposals to the ICANN Board for
   ratification.

    

   The NRO NC also acts in the role of the ICANN ASO AC, and as such,
   presents the agreed global policy proposal to the ICANN Board for
   ratification and operational implementation.

    

   The ICANN Board reviews the received global number resource policy
   proposals and may ask questions and otherwise consult with the ASO Address
   Council and/or the individual RIRs acting collectively through the NRO.
   The ICANN Board may also consult with other parties as the Board considers
   appropriate. If the ICANN Board rejects the proposed policy, it delivers
   to the ASO ACa statement of its concerns with the proposed policy,
   including in particular an explanation of the significant viewpoints that
   were not adequately considered during the regular RIR processes. By
   agreement of all RIRs, the ASO AC may forward a new proposed policy
   (either reaffirming the previous proposal or a modified proposal) to the
   ICANN Board. If the resubmitted proposed policy is rejected for a second
   time by ICANN, then the RIRs or ICANN shall refer the matter to mediation.

    

   In case of disputes where mediation has failed to resolve the dispute, the
   ICANN ASO MoU agreement provides for arbitration via International Chamber
   of Commerce (ICC) rRules of Arbitration in the jurisdiction of Bermuda or
   such other location as is agreed between the RIRs and ICANN. It is also
   worth noting that the RIRs have been participating (as the ASO) in the
   periodic independent review processes for Accountability and Transparency
   (ATRT) that is called for per ICANN's Bylaws.

    

   II.A.4..       References to documentation of policy development and
   dispute resolution processes.

    

   Relevant links:

   ICANN ASO MoU: 
   https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou

   NRO MoU:  https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding

   About the NRO Number Council: 
   https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/the-nro-number-council

   RIR Governance Matrix: 
   https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix

   Global Policies: https://www.nro.net/policies

    

   II.B.                  Oversight and Accountability

    

   This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is conducted
   over IANA's provision of the services and activities listed in Section I
   and all the ways in which IANA is currently held accountable for the
   provision of those services. For each oversight or accountability
   mechanism, please provide as many of the following as are applicable:

    

   .       Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
   affected.

   .       If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected,
   identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.

   .       A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight or
   perform accountability functions, including how individuals are selected
   or removed from participation in those entities.

   .       A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting scheme,
   auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the
   consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the standards
   established by the mechanism, the extent to which the output of the
   mechanism is transparent and the terms under which the mechanism may
   change.

   .       Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis
   on which the mechanism rests.  

    

   II.B.1..       Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
   affected.

    

   The Internet number resource registries.

    

   II.B.2..       If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are
   affected, identify which ones are affected and explain in what way.

    

   A  decision  by  the  NTIA  to  discontinue  its  stewardship  of  the 
   IANA  functions,  and  therefore  its

   contractual  relationship  with  the  IANA  functions  operator,  would 
   not  have  any  significant  impact  on  the  continuity  of  Internet 
   number-related  IANA  services  currently  provided  by  ICANN.  However,
   it  would  remove  a  significant  element  of  oversight  from  the 
   current  system.

    

   There  is  no  contractual  obligation  directly  to  the  Internet 
   number  resource  community  for  the  IANA  operator  to  provide  IANA 
   registry  services  for  the  Internet  number  registries.  ICANN has
   historically provided;  IANA  services  for  the  Internet  number 
   registries under the terms are  provided  by  ICANN  since  its  formation
   as  a  result  of  the  NTIA  IANA  Functions  contract  and  hence 
   therefore  IANA  services  for  the  Internet  number  registries  are 
   presently  subject  to  change  per  that  agreement.

    

   II.B.3..       A description of the entity or entities that provide
   oversight or perform accountability

   functions, including how individuals are selected or removed from
   participation in those entities.

    

   All institutional actors with a role in management of Internet number
   resources are accountable to the open communities that make and agree on
   the policies under which those resources are distributed and registered.
   The mechanisms used to ensure and enforce this accountability differ for
   each of these actors.

    

   1II.B.3.i. NTIA

   ICANN, as the current operator of the IANA functions, is obligated by the
   NTIA agreement to carry out management of the global IP address and AS
   Number pools according to policies developed by the communities.

    

   While the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public in
   nature, the Internet number community is primarily represented in
   oversight of the IANA operator performance by the RIRs, which are
   member-based based organizations with elected governance boards.
   Currently, the NTIA does not have an oversight role in this regard.

    

   The ultimate consequence of failing to meet the performance standards or
   reporting requirements is understood to be a decision by the contracting
   party (the NTIA) to terminate or not renew the IANA functions agreement
   with the current contractor (ICANN).  

    

   2II.B.3.ii. The Regional Internet Registries

    

   Administration by the IANA operator by the IANA operator consists 
   predominantly  of  processing  of  requests  from  the  RIRs  for 
   issuance  of  additional  number  resources.  The  five  RIRs  are 
   intimately  familiar  with  global  number  resource  policies  under 
   which  the  requests  are  made  and  maintain  communications  with  the 
   IANA  operations  team  throughout  the  request  process.  

    

   The RIRs are not-for-profit membership associations, and as such are
   accountable to their members by law. The specific governance processes for
   each RIR differ depending on where they have been established and the
   decisions made by their membership, but in all RIRs, members have the
   right to vote individuals onto the governing Board and to vote on matters
   related to the respective RIRspecific funding or operational resolutions.

    

   At the same time, an RIR's registration and allocation practices are
   directed by policies developed by its community. Each RIR community's PDP
   defines how these policies are developed, agreed and accepted for
   operational implementation.

    

   The corporate governance documents and PDPs of each RIR and its community
   are accessible via the RIR Governance Matrix, published on the NRO
   website.

    

   II.B.4..       A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting
   scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the
   consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the standards
   established by the mechanism, the extent to which the output of the
   mechanism is transparent and the terms under which the mechanism may
   change.

   The NTIA IANA Agreement currently defines obligations of the IANA operator
   for Internet number resources.

    

   This obligation is specifically noted in section C.2.9.3 of the NTIA
   agreement:

    

   C.2.9.3 Allocate Internet Numbering Resources --The Contractor shall have
   responsibility for allocated and unallocated IPv4 and IPv6 address space
   and Autonomous System Number (ASN) space based on established guidelines
   and policies as developed by interested and affected parties as enumerated
   in Section C.1.3.

    

   The NTIA agreement also lays out specific deliverables for the IANA
   operator (ICANN) to produce as a condition of the agreement (see "Section
   F - Deliveries and Performance"), including performance standards
   developed in cooperation with the affected parties (in the case of the
   Internet number resource pools, the affected parties include the RIRs and
   their communities), customer complaint procedures and regular performance
   reporting.

    

   These deliverables are met by ICANN via monthly reporting on their
   performance in processing requests for the allocation of Internet number
   resources; these reports include IANA operator performance against key
   metrics of accuracy, timeliness, and transparency, as well as the
   performance metrics for individual requests. The IANA operations team also
   provides escalation procedures for use in resolving any issues with
   requests, as per the "IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process".

    

   II.B.5..        Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the
   legal basis on which the mechanism rests.  

    

   Jurisdiction for this current mechanism is the United States of America
   under applicable Federal government contracting laws and regulations.

    

   Relevant links:

   NTIA IANA Agreement: 
   http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

   ICANN ASO MoU: 
   https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso-mou

   NRO MoU:  https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding

   IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process:
   http://www.iana.org/help/escalation-procedure

   IANA Performance Standards Metrics Report:

   http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics

   RIR Governance Matrix: 
   https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix

    

   III.            Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability
   Arrangements

   This section should describe what changes your community is proposing to
   the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the transition. If
   your community is proposing to replace one or more existing arrangements
   with new arrangements, that replacement should be explained and all of the
   elements listed in Section II.B should be described for the new
   arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and
   justification for the new arrangements.

   If your community's proposal carries any implications for the interface
   between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in
   Section II.A, those implications should be described here.

   If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in
   Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be
   provided here.

   III.A. The elements of this proposal are as follows:

    

    1. (1)ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
       resources; 

    2. (2)Intellectual property rights (IPR) related to the provision of the
       IANA services stay with the community; 

    3. (3)SService level agreement with the IANA functions operator on number
       resources; and 

    4. (4)Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from each
       RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions
       operator's performance and meeting of identified service levels.  

    

   III.A.1.  ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number
   resources

    

   To maintain stability and continuity in operations of the Internet
   number-related IANA services, very minimal changes to the arrangements
   listed in Section II.B are proposed, including the identification of the
   proposed initial IANA functions operator.  As noted in numerous NRO
   communications over the past decade, the RIRs have been very satisfied
   with the performance of ICANN in the role of IANA functions operator.
   Taking this into account, and considering the strong desires expressed in
   the five RIR communities' IANA stewardship discussions for stability and a
   minimum of operational change, the Internet numbering community believes
   that ICANN should remain in the role of IANA functions operator for at
   least the initial term of the new contract.

    

   A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA
   functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA
   functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the
   continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided by
   ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from
   the current system.  

    

   While there are no concrete needs or plans at this point, the NRO EC may
   in the future determine that the IANA functions related to number
   resources should be transferred to a different contractor.  In such a
   case, selection of a new contractor shall be conducted in a fair, open and
   transparent process, in line with applicable industry best practices and
   standards.  

   III.A.2.  IPR related to the provision of the IANA services stay with the
   community

    

   There are several intellectual properties related to the provision of the
   IANA services whose status should be clarified as part of the transition.
   Namely, the "IANA" trademark, the "IANA.ORG" domain name, and public
   databases related to the performance of the IANA function.

    

   It is important that through the stewardship transition the IPR status of
   the registries is clear and ensures free unlimited access to the public
   registry data. It is the expectation of the RIR communities that the
   public number resource registries are in the public domain.  

    

   It is also the expectation of the RIR communities that non-public
   information related to the IANA number resource registries and
   corresponding services, including the provision of reverse DNS delegation
   in IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA, is managed by the IANA operator and will be
   transferred to its successor(s) along with relevant rights.  

    

   It is the preference of the RIR communities that all relevant parties
   acknowledge that fact as part of the transition.

    

   With regards to the IANA trademark and the iana.org domain it is the
   expectation of the RIR communities that both are associated with the IANA
   function and not with a particular IANA functions operator. Identifying an
   organisation, not associated with an IANA operator, that holds these
   assets permanently will facilitate a smooth transition should another
   operator (or operators) be selected at some point in the future. It is the
   preference of the RIR communities that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG
   domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA functions
   operator that will ensure these assets are used purposefully in a
   non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of all operational communities.
   From the RIR communities' perspective, the IETF Trust would be an
   acceptable candidate for this role.

    

   The transfer of the IANA trademark and iana.org domain to the IETF Trust
   will require additional coordination with the other affected communities
   of the IANA functions, namely protocol parameters and names.

    

   III.A.3. Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on
   number resources

    

   This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e. the numbers
   community, the protocol parameters community and the names community) will
   have independent arrangements with the IANA operator relating to
   maintenance of the specific registries for which they are responsible. At
   the same time, the Internet numbers community wishes to emphasize the
   importance of communication and coordination between these communities to
   ensure the stability of IANA functions operation. Such communication and
   coordination would be especially vital should the three communities reach
   different decisions regarding the identity of the IANA functions operator
   going forward. Efforts to facilitate this communication and coordination
   should be undertaken by the affected communities via processes separate to
   this stewardship transition process.  

    

   The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement
   with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA
   functions operator's accountability to the open, bottom-up numbers
   community.  The proposal attempts to ensure the continuity of processes
   and mechanisms that have proved successful and with which the community is
   satisfied.  

    

     * ****The services provided by the IANA functions operator in relation
       to the Internet number-related functions remain unchanged 

     * **** 

   Other than the replacement of the NTIA with the five RIRs as the
   party(ies) with whom the IANA functions operator would contract for
   provision of Internet number-related IANA services, Tthe overall oversight
   and accountability mechanisms detailedarrangements in Section II.B would
   remain with no unchanged

     * ****The .  The proposed arrangement involves the same IANA service or
       activity, policy sources identified in Section II.A are unaffected 

     * ****, tThe entities that provide oversight or perform accountability
       functions (the RIRs) remain the same 

     * ****, tThe consequence for failure to meet performance standards
       remains termination or decision not to renew the IANA functions
       agreement with the then-current contractor 

     * ****, and jurisdiction will be dependent on the chosen IANA functions
       operator.  

   The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be
   established between the IANA functions operator and the five RIRs. The
   contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the
   IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the
   global Internet number pools according to policies developed by the
   regional communities via the gPDP as well as management of the delegations
   within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement would include
   specific requirements for performance and reporting commensurate with
   current mechanisms, and would specify consequences should the contractor
   fail to meet those requirements, the means for the resolution of disputes
   between the parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of the
   contract. IANA operations should be reliable and consistent, with any
   registry changes made in an open and transparent manner to the global
   community. The agreement should also require the IANA operator to
   appropriately coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry
   services.

    

   It is expected that RIR staff will draft the specific language of this
   agreement, and that the drafting process will be guided by the principles
   listed below. References to relevant sections of the current NTIA
   agreement are also noted, as it is expected the new agreement will share
   many of the same contractual goals and mechanisms.

    

   IANA Agreement Principles

   i. Applicability of ASO MoU - Separation of Policy Development and

   Operational Roles

    

   Principle:

   The IANA Operator will merely execute the global policies adopted
   according to the global Policy Development Process defined in the ASO MoU.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

    C.2.4, C.2.5

    

   ii. Description of Serviced Provided by the IANA Operator to RIRs

    

   Principle:

   The IANA Operator will maintain the global Internet number resource
   registries.  The IANA Operator will distribute Internet number Resources
   to the RIRs in accordance with the specific processes and timelines
   described in this section of the agreement.  The IANA Operator will
   delegate subdomains below the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains in
   accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   C.2.9.3

    

   iii. Obligation to Issue Reports on Transparency and Accountability

    

   Principle:

   The IANA Operator will commit to certain obligations so as to perform the
   function as expected by the community and will be obliged to periodically
   issue reports illustrating its compliance with the community's
   expectations.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   C.2.6, C.2.7, C.2.8

    

   iv. Security Requirements - Performance Metric Requirements - Audit
   Requirements

    

   Principle:

   The IANA Operator will commit to specific security standards, metric
   requirements and audit requirements and will be obliged to periodically
   issue reports illustrating its compliance with them.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   C.3, C.4, C.5

    

   v. Review of the IANA Operations  

    

   Principle:

   The RIRs will perform reviews to assess whether the IANA Operator complies
   with all requirements described in the agreement whenever they deem
   appropriate. The IANA Operator will be obliged to facilitate this review.

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   N/A

    

   vi. Failure to Perform

    

   Principle:

   If the IANA Operator fails to perform as agreed in this agreement, there
   will be specific consequences. One of these consequences may be
   termination of the contract.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   E.2, I.67

    

   vii. Term and Termination

    

   Principle:

   RIRs will be able to periodically review the agreement and evaluate
   whether they want to renew the agreement.

    

   Either party may terminate the agreement with reasonable prior notice.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   Page 2 of Award/Contract, I.51, I.52, I.53

    

   viii. Continuity of Operations

    

   Principle:

   If, at the end of the contract term, the RIRs decide to sign an agreement
   for operation of the number-related IANA functions with a different party,
   the previous IANA Operator will be obliged to ensure an orderly transition
   of the function while maintaining continuity and security of operations.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   C.7.3 and I.61

    

   ix. Intellectual Property Rights and Rights Over Data

    

   Principle:

   Both parties acknowledge that the data of the public number resource
   registries remain in the public domain. The RIRs will have unlimited
   rights in all other data delivered under this agreement and in all other
   data first produced in the performance of this agreement.

    

   If the IANA operator becomes the owner of intellectual property rights
   through the performance of this agreement, these rights will be
   transferred to the public domain or to the RIRs. In case the legislation
   does not allow such transfer, the IANA operator must grant appropriate
   licenses for ongoing use of the relevant intellectual property.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   H.4, H.5

    

   x. Resolution of Disputes

    

   Principle:

   Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved through
   arbitration.

    

   Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:

   N/A

    

   III.A.4.  Establishment of a Review Committee

    

   To ensure the service level defined in the proposed contract is maintained
   and provided by the IANA functions operator, the NRO EC will conduct
   periodic reviews of the service level of the IANA number resource
   functions that serves each RIR and their respective communities.  

    

   The NRO EC shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and assist
   the NRO EC in its periodic review.  The Review Committee will, as needed,
   undertake a review of the level of service received from the IANA
   functions operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding the
   performance of the IANA functions operator, including especially any
   observed failure or near-failure by the IANA functions operator to meet
   its contractual obligations under the proposed contract.  Any such Review
   Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely to oversee the
   performance of the IANA number resource functions and the Review
   Committee's advice and comment will be limited to the processes followed
   in the IANA functions operator's performance under the proposed contract.
    Activities of the Review Committee shall be conducted in an open and
   transparent manner.  Reports from the Review Committee shall be published.

    

   The Review Committee should be a team composed of suitably qualified
   representatives from each RIR region.

    

   Any such Review Committee should be a team composed of representatives
   from each RIR region that will, as needed, undertake a review of the level
   of service received from the IANA functions operator and report to the NRO
   EC any concerns regarding any observed failure by the IANA functions
   operator to meet its contractual obligations under the proposed contract.
    Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely
   to oversee the performance of the IANA number resource functions and the
   Review Committee's advice and comment will be limited to the processes
   followed in the IANA functions operator's performance under the proposed
   contract.

    

   III.B.  If your community's proposal carries any implications for the
   interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements
   described in Section II.A, those implications should be described here.

   This proposal carries no implication for the interface between IANA
   functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A.  The
   text in "Attachment A" of the ICANN ASO MoU meets the current and
   anticipated requirements for a community-driven global policy development
   process.

    

   As an additional measure of security and stability, the RIRs have
   documented their individual accountability and governance mechanisms, and
   asked the community-based Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO
   NC) to undertake a review of these mechanisms and make recommendations for
   improvements that may be warranted given the nature of the stewardship
   transition for Internet number resources.

    

   IV.            Transition Implications

   This section should describe what your community views as the implications
   of the changes it proposed in Section III. These implications may include
   some or all of the following, or other implications specific to your
   community:

   .       Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of
   service and possible new service integration throughout the transition.

   .       Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed.

   .       Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence of
   the NTIA contract.

   .       Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of
   any new technical or operational methods proposed in this document and how
   they compare to established arrangements.

    

   IV. A..       Description of operational requirements to achieve
   continuity of service and possible  new service integration throughout the
   transition.

   .       Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed.

    

   The intent of the proposal described above is to:

    

   1.  Minimize risks to operational continuity of the management of the
   Internet number-related IANA functions, and;

   2.  Retain the existing framework for making those policies that describe
   the management of the global Internet number resource pools, as this
   framework is already structured to ensure open, bottom-up development of
   such policies.

    

   Under current arrangements, the NTIA is responsible for extending or
   renewing the IANA functions agreement, and setting the terms of that
   contract. A new contract with the five RIRs and the IANA functions
   operator as signatories would shift the responsibility for renewing,
   setting terms or terminating the contract to the RIRs, who would
   coordinate their decisions via the NRO EC (made up of the RIR Directors
   and Chief Executives). Decisions made regarding the contract would be
   based on operational circumstances, past performance and input from open,
   regional communities.

    

   The shift from the existing contractual arrangement to another contractual
   arrangement (perhaps relying on a set of distinct contracts) covering the
   IANA functions operator's ongoing management of all the IANA functions
   should result in no operational change for management of the global
   Internet number resource pools. This will help minimize any operational or
   continuity risks associated with stewardship transition.

   By building on the existing Internet registry system (which is open to
   participation from all interested parties) and its structures, the
   proposal reduces the risk associated with creating new organizations whose
   accountability is unproven.

    

   The necessary agreement proposed for IANA operation services for the
   Internet number registries can be established well before the NTIA target
   date for transition (September 2015), as there are no changes to existing
   service levels or reporting that are being proposed, only a change in
   contracting party to align with the delegated policy authority.

    

   IV.B.  Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence of
   the NTIA contract.

    

   The necessary legal framework in the absence of the NTIA contract will be
   fulfilled by the proposed agreement between the IANA functions operator
   and the five RIRs.  As stated in Section III above, the contract,
   essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the IANA
   functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the
   global Internet number pools according to policies developed by the
   regional communities via the gPDP as well as management of the delegations
   within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement would include
   specific requirements for performance and reporting commensurate with
   current mechanisms, and would specify consequences should the contractor
   fail to meet those requirements, the means for the resolution of disputes
   between the parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of the
   contract. IANA operations should be reliable and consistent, with any
   registry changes made in an open and transparent manner to the global
   community. The agreement should also require the IANA operator to
   appropriately coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry
   services.  The contract would also provide for jurisdiction and governing
   law regarding the new arrangement.

    

   IV.C.  Description of how you have tested or evaluated the workability of
   any new technical or

   operational methods proposed in this document and how they compare to
   established arrangements.

   .       Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed.

    

   This proposal does not propose any new technical or operational methods.
    There is inclusion of a proposed Review Committee to be established by
   the five RIRs acting cooperatively and coordinating through the NRO EC;
   however, this does not carry any new operational method as the IANA
   functions operator would remain accountable to the party with whom it is
   contracting, in this case, the five RIRs in place of the NTIA.  The
   proposed Review Committee is a tool for the five RIRs to, together with
   their respective communities collectively, evaluate and review performance
   of the IANA functions provided.

    

   V.             NTIA Requirements

   Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet
   the following five requirements:

    

   .       Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;

   .       Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet
   DNS;

   .       Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
   partners of the IANA services;

   .       Maintain the openness of the Internet.

   .       The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led
   or an inter-governmental organization solution.

    

   This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these
   requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA
   functions.

    This proposal addresses each of the NTIA's requirements:

   V.A. Support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model;

    

   The RIRs are not-for-profit membership organisations accountable to their
   membership and communities. The processes developed by these communities
   over time are open, bottom-up and inclusive of all stakeholders, ensuring
   the opportunity for anyone with an interest in management of Internet
   number resources to participate in policy-making.

    

   Shifting stewardship of the IANA functions to the RIRs and their
   communities is an important step in acknowledging the maturity and
   stability of the multi-stakeholder governance model, and in recognizing
   the success and de facto authority of that model under the current
   arrangement.

   V.B.  Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet
   DNS;

    

   No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security,
   stability, and resiliency of the DNS.

    

   This proposal is chiefly concerned with Internet number resources, which
   also need security, stability, and resiliency.  The existing operational
   and policy-making structures relating to management of the global Internet
   number resource pools have served the Internet community well over time,
   and the RIR communities have strongly expressed a desire for stability and
   operational continuity of this critical element of the Internet
   infrastructure. Accordingly, this proposal suggests minimal changes to
   existing processes.

   V.C.  Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners
   of the IANA services;

    

   The RIRs and their communities are the primary global customers for the
   Internet number resource-related IANA functions. As such, they have on
   numerous occasions expressed their satisfaction with the current
   management of the IANA functions, which has ensured the effective
   implementation of policies developed by the community and the efficient
   distribution of number resources to the RIRs. This proposal has been
   developed by the RIR communities, as customers of the IANA number-related
   functions, and meets their need for continuity and stability in the
   operation of the number-related IANA functions. It does this by
   solidifying the IANA functions operator's accountability to the RIRs and
   their communities in relation to the number-related IANA functions.

   V.D.  Maintain the openness of the Internet.

    

   An "open" Internet relies on the effective implementation of policies
   developed via open, inclusive, bottom-up processes, ensuring the
   transparent and coordinated distribution and registration of Internet
   number resources. The Internet numbers community has a longstanding
   history of bottom-up, inclusive, open and transparent policy-making and
   operational processes (including the transparent publication of all
   registration information). By building on the structures developed by the
   Internet numbers community, this proposal ensures that in this regard, the
   openness of the Internet is maintained.

    

   In addition, the proposed community Review Committee will ensure bottom-up
   community involvement in the open and transparent evaluation of the IANA
   functions operation.

   V.E.  The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or
   an inter-governmental organization solution.

    

   This proposal does not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an
   inter-governmental organization solution.  This proposal will place the
   RIRs in the role currently occupied by the NTIA. The RIRs are
   not-for-profit organisations, accountable to their memberships and their
   communities. Those communities are open to anyone that wishes to
   contribute and they include participants from all Internet stakeholder
   groups, including operators, civil society, business, the technical
   community and governments. Open, community-driven and consensus-based
   policy development processes mean that no single stakeholder group has a
   dominant role in policy-making.

    

   VI.            Community Process

    

   This section should describe the process your community used for
   developing this proposal, including:

   .       The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine
   consensus.

   .       Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and
   meeting proceedings.

   .       An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
   proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement.

    

   The Internet numbers community process is "bottom-up", transparent and
   inclusive, with the initial discussions and proposal elements agreed on a
   regional basis in each RIR region community. The consensus output of these
   five community discussions has been consolidated in a single global
   proposal by representatives from each RIR region, however the ensuring
   feedback to and from regional discussion forums has been a priority for
   all of those representatives.

    

   This process was deliberately modeled on the longstanding community
   processes that the RIR communities have successfully employed for
   policy-making at the regional and global levels. It reflects the strong
   commitment emerging from all community discussions to employing proven
   structures and mechanisms in this process.

    

   The proposal development can therefore be seen as two distinct phases,
   first at the RIR community level and then at the global level. It is
   important to emphasize that neither of these phases occurred in isolation
   - throughout the first phase, there was communication between the five
   communities, and during the second phase, regional communities were kept
   informed of progress and provided feedback on successive iterations of the
   global proposal.

   1.  VI.A.  Regional and global pProcesses

    

   The number resources communities based their process for developing an
   IANA stewardship proposal primarily on the regional RIR community
   structures, which are the existing forums for number resources
   stakeholders to discuss policies and other issues relevant to the numbers
   resources. The RIR communities have for many years fostered the active,
   bottom-up participation of a broad range of stakeholders. Existing
   mechanisms and communication channels could therefore be used for the IANA
   stewardship transition discussions, eliminating the need for the creation
   of distinct new processes, communication channels or bodies. All RIRs have
   worked actively over the years to engage the full range of stakeholders
   via outreach activities within their regions as part of their commitment
   to openness, inclusiveness and transparency. Building on these outreach
   activities, the RIRs and the CRISP team have ensured that this proposal
   has been the product of input and feedback from the full range of
   stakeholders with an interest in Internet number resources.

    

   Each of the RIR communities operates according to open, bottom-up,
   transparent and consensus based processes, allowing anyone with an
   interest to contribute to the discussions. Grounding the IANA stewardship
   discussion in these communities has ensured broad participation across the
   global communities and facilitated examination of the issues raised in the
   context of local and regional circumstances. The very active engagement by
   the community, particularly in their regional discussions, shows not only
   the positive commitment of the numbering community to this process, but is
   evidence of the RIR community's mature and well-functioning
   decision-making processes.

    

   Each of the five RIR communities is discusseding the IANA stewardship
   issues via mailing lists, at their RIR public meetings and in other
   community forums(many of which included facilities for remote
   participation). While these discussions have been uniformly open and
   transparent, with all discussions archived on mailing lists and meeting
   records, each community has adopted a specific process suitable toof their
   particular local needs and cultureown choosing to reach an agreed
   community output.

   Links to specific output documents and archives of all the RIR community
   discussions are available at:

   https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process

    

   The results from the five regional processes fed a global process that
   produced this document.  More details about the regional and global
   processes are given below, interspersed with links to relevant documents.

   2.  VI. B.  AFRINIC regional process:

   The AFRINIC community held a consultative meeting on 25 May to 6 June 2014
   during the Africa Internet Summit (AIS'2014) in Djibouti in the "IANA
   oversight transition" workshop. As a follow up to the meeting, AFRINIC set
   up a mailing list to provide a platform for the African Internet community
   to discuss the IANA Oversight Transition process. The mailing list was
   announced on July 4, 2014 to develop a community position. The list and
   its archives can be found at:
   https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ianaoversight  

    

   A Ddedicated web portal was setup for sharing information on the IANA
   stewardship transition with the AFRINIC community and is also available at
   http://afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition

    

   AFRINIC also conducted a survey seeking community input on the IANA
   Stewardship Transition. The results of the survey are published
    at: http://afrinic.net/images/stories/Initiatives/%20survey%20on%20the%20iana%20stewardship%20transition.pdf

    

   The last face-to-face meeting at which IANA oversight
   transition consultations were held with the community was during the
   AFRINIC-21 meeting in Mauritius, 22-28 November 2014. The recordings of
   the session are available at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/vod
    

    

   Discussions continued on the ianaoversight at afrinic.net mailing list, until
   the closure of the comments from the number resources communities set by
   the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team on 12th Jan
   2015.

    

   The AFRINIC region CRISP team was selected/appointed by the AFRINIC Board
   of Directors. Key highlights/milestones of the selection/appointment
   process follow below:

    

   27 Oct 2014: Public Call for nominations - The call was sent by the
   AFRINIC CEO to major community mailing lists, indicating intent of the
   Board to make appointments by 12 Nov 2014.

    

   URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/announce/2014/001326.html

    

   8 Nov 2014: The AFRINIC CEO announced the 5 nominated candidates:

   https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/ianaoversight/2014-November/000099.html

    

   13 Nov 2014: The AFRINIC Board Chair announced the three CRISP team
   members selected to the community.

    

   URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2014/004381.html

    

   The AFRINIC IANA oversight transition info page can be found at:

   http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition

    

   VI.C.  APNIC regional process:

   APNIC, as the secretariat for the APNIC community, set up a public mailing
   list (announced on 1 Apr 2014) to develop a community position, and have
   discussions about the proposal from the region on IANA stewardship
   transition: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/IANAxfer

    

   A website, dedicated to sharing up-to-date information on the IANA
   stewardship transition was set up for the APNIC community members and
   wider community members interested in this issue:
   http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition

    

   A draft proposal was discussed at the dedicated session at the APNIC 38
   Meeting in September 2014, which saw the general community consensus. The
   meeting provided remote participation tools to enable wider participation
   from communities across Asia Pacific and beyond, with live webcasts as
   well as Adobe Connect virtual conference room.

    

   https://conference.apnic.net/38/program#iana

    

   The discussions continued on the "ianaxfer at apnic.net." mailing list, until
   the closure of the comments from the number resources communities

   set by the CRISP Team as 12th Jan 2015.

    

   On 23 October 2014, through a post to the APNIC IANAxfer mailing list,
   APNIC sought volunteers from the Asia Pacific community to nominate to
   join the CRISP team. The nominees were asked to provide information about
   their qualifications and interest to the APNIC Executive Council for its
   consideration. The nomination period was open for two weeks. On 12
   November 2014, the APNIC Executive Council appointed Izumi Okutani and Dr
   Govind as its CRISP community members, and Craig Ng as its non-voting
   staff member to the CRISP team.

    

   The information was also posted on APNIC's IANA oversight transition
   website:

    

   APNIC EC announces CRISP Team appointees

   APNIC EC seeks nominations for CRISP Team

   http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition

    

   VI.D.  ARIN regional process:

    

   ARIN held a community consultation during the period 10/1 - 10/10/14. On
   10/9/14 the ARIN community held a consultative meeting at ARIN 34 in
   Baltimore, MD.

    

   On 10/13/14 ARIN established a mailing list, iana-transition at arin.net to
   facilitate the open community discussion in the region regarding the IANA
   Stewardship Transition planning process. This mailing list will remain
   open for comments and updates throughout the transition planning process.
   The archives are open and available for all Internet community members to
   view.

    

   A community survey was conducted following ARIN 34 from October 13, 2014
   -October 20, 2014. There were a total of 64 participants and the Community
   Survey Summary Report can be viewed at
   https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/iana_survey.pdf

    

   On October 25, 2014, ARIN put a call out for volunteers to serve on the
   CRISP team as community representatives of the ARIN region.  The call for
   volunteers ended on October 31, 2014.  The ARIN Board of Trustees
   considered all the names that were submitted in response to the call for
   volunteers.  On November 8, 2014, the ARIN Board of Trustees announced the
   appointment of its three ARIN region CRISP team members.

    

   On November 21, 2014 the first ARIN draft proposal was shared on
   iana-transition at arin.net and discussion followed.

   http://teamarin.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ARIN_draft_proposal.pdf

    

   ARIN has a dedicated web portal set up for sharing information and keeping
   the ARIN region updated on the IANA Stewardship Transition planning
   process.
    http://teamarin.net/education/internet-governance/iana-transition/

    

   VI.E.  LACNIC regional process:

    

   The LACNIC community developed a consultative process launched on August
   15th 2014, with a public teleconference. In that opportunity LACNIC's CEO
   explained the methodology, the expected timeline and the consultation
   scope. The public consultation process had as a primary goal to obtain the
   regional community's input  with a view to shaping the multi-stakeholder
   debate on the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions in Latin
   America and the Caribbean, taking into account regional points of view,
   concerns, suggestions and/or recommendations regarding this transition, 
   specifically as it concerns IP address assignment.

    

   From that starting point, three representatives from the community guided
   the regional debate:
   http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/transicion/representantes

    

   Contributions were received on the internet-gov at lacnic.net mailing list.
     

    

   Timeline for discussion:

    

   During the thirty (30) day period (August 15 to September 15), open
   discussion was held. Seven (7) days later, moderators prepared a first
   draft, a preliminary Transition Document summarizing all contributions and
   discussions.

   The first Transition Document was presented on September 23. Another
   thirty (30) day period started for the community to comment, ending on
   October 24th.

   Within the framework of the LACNIC22 meeting held on 27-31 October in the
   city of Santiago, Chile, two (2) sessions were scheduled for discussing
   the first preliminary version of the Transition Document. After these two
   (2) sessions, a second version of the Transition Document was drafted.

   The consultative process included two panel sessions during the LACNIC 22
   meeting in Santiago the Chile (October 28th 2014). The first panel session
   was to share information about the global IANA's oversight transition
   process and the work done by communities involved (names, numbers, and
   protocols) and the second was to discuss the main proposals on the mailing
   list, in order to draft a LACNIC community proposal. During the panels,
   with strong participation of the community, the LACNIC community proposal
   was shaped.  

    

   After these panels, there was a seven (7) day period that lasted until
   November 15th 2014 for the community to present additional comments. Once
   this step was accomplished the proposal was filed to LACNIC's Board of
   Directors and after its approval, it was submitted to the CRISP Team.

    

   Announcement of the appointment of the LACNIC region members of the CRISP
   team can be found at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-crisp-team

    

   After the board appointed the CRISP Team members, there was continued
   dialogue between the Community Leaders and the LACNIC CRISP team
   representatives through email and teleconferences.

    

   The final result of the Consultation at LACNIC Community:
    http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/transicion/resultado-consulta-publica

    

   The list internet-gov at lacnic.net is still open for regional discussions
   until the closure of the comments set by the CRISP Team on 12th Jan 2015.

    

   VI.F.  RIPE regional process:

   The RIPE community agreed at the RIPE 68 Meeting in May 2014 that the
   development of a community position on IANA stewardship should take place
   in the existing RIPE Cooperation Working Group, and via that working
   group's public mailing list: 
   https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation

    

   The RIPE NCC, as secretariat for the RIPE community, also facilitated
   discussions on the IANA stewardship in national and regional forums across
   the RIPE NCC service region from the period of May to November 2014. Some
   of these forums also included remote participation facilities.  Summaries
   of all discussions were posted to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group
   mailing list and on the RIPE website:

   https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions

    

   While there were very active, and at times passionate, discussions in the
   community throughout the consultation period, there was clearly strong
   agreement on the needs of the numbering community and the general
   principles that should underpin the transition of the IANA stewardship.
   Between September and November 2014, RIPE community discussion converged
   around developing a set of principles reflecting the community's primary
   concerns and needs in the development of an IANA stewardship transition
   proposal.

    

   These discussions are reflected in the discussions on the mailing list
   from that time:  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/

    

   Discussions at the RIPE 69 Meeting in November 2014 saw the RIPE community
   discuss a range of issues in relation to the IANA stewardship transition
   and reach consensus on the principles discussed on the mailing list.
    During the RIPE 69 Meeting, a general invitation for community volunteers
   to the CRISP team was distributed via various RIPE NCC membership and RIPE
   community mailing lists:
   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2014-November/000877.html
    

    

   This announcement also noted the procedure whereby the RIPE Chair, in
   consultation with the RIPE NCC Executive Board, would select two community
   representatives (with the staff representative agreed by the Executive
   Board).  At the conclusion of RIPE 69, the community expressed its support
   for the three RIPE representatives selected to join the CRISP)team.

    

   RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session: 
   https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/#session1

   RIPE 69 Closing Plenary Session: 
   https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10112/

    

    

   VI.G.  Global Internet Numbers Community Process (CRISP Team)

   Following the broad consultations and active discussion in the respective
   five RIR communities, a mechanism was established to develop a single
   proposal from the Internet numbers community, based on the positions and
   issues noted in the five communities.

    

    

   On 16 October 2014, the NRO EC proposed the formation of theCRISP team to
   develop a single Internet numbering community proposal to the IANA
   Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). Established around a model similar
   to the community-based NRO Number Council, the CRISP team comprises three
   community members from each of the RIR regions (two community members and
   one RIR staff). The selection of the CRISP team members from each region
   was facilitated via transparent but distinct processes in each RIR
   community. Details of these selection processes are included in the RIR
   community process descriptions above.

    

   The CRISP team members are:

   AFRINIC Region

    

    Alan P. Barrett - Independent Consultant

    Mwendwa Kivuva - Network Infrastructure Services, University of Nairobi

    Ernest Byaruhanga (Appointed RIR staff)

    

   ARIN Region

    

    Bill Woodcock - President and Research Director of Packet Clearing House

    John Sweeting - Sr. Director, Network Architecture & Engineering at Time
   Warner Cable

    Michael Abejuela (Appointed RIR staff)

    

   APNIC Region

    

    Dr Govind - CEO NIXI

    Izumi Okutani - Policy Liaison JPNIC

    Craig Ng (Appointed RIR staff)

    

   LACNIC Region

    

    Nico Scheper - Curacao IX

    Esteban Lescano - Cabase Argentina

    Andres Piazza (Appointed RIR staff)

    

   RIPE NCC Region

    

    Nurani Nimpuno - Head of Outreach & Communications at Netnod

    Andrei Robachevsky - Technology Programme Manager at the Internet Society

    Paul Rendek (Appointed RIR staff)

    

   VI.H.  CRISP Team Working Methods

    

   The charter of the CRISP team describes its working methods, which are
   established to ensure maximum transparency and openness of the process for
   anyone with an interest. The charter is available on the NRO website:

   https://www.nro.net/crisp-team

    

   From that charter:

    

     * ****The CRISP team shall meet entirely via teleconference for its
       activities; these teleconferences will be open to the public who wish
       to listen to the CRISP Team discussions, and will be facilitated by
       the Regional Internet Registries.  

     * ****The CRISP team shall also work through a public mailing list and
       the archive of such mailing list will be publicly available. The name
       of the mailing list will be <ianaxfer at nro.net>.  

     * ****The results of each CRISP team meeting shall be published on the
       <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list and additionally by each RIR to its
       respective community. The CRISP team members from the region shall
       monitor and participate in the community discussion in their region
       regarding CRISP Team outputs. 

    

   The CRISP team held its first teleconference on 9 December 2014. At that
   meeting, Izumi Okutani (APNIC region) and Alan Barrett (AFRINIC region)
   were selected as the Chair and Vice-Chair respectively. A timeline for the
   process was defined, published and announced. All CRISP teleconferences
   have been announced on the relevant regional mailing lists as well as the
   global ianaxfer at nro.net list. As stipulated in the charter, all CRISP
   teleconferences have been open to observers. Archives of the audio, video
   and minutes of all CRISP teleconferences, as well as several iterations of
   the proposal draft and a spreadsheet of issues raised by community members
   and their current status, have been made available online at:

   https://www.nro.net/crisp-team

    

   Additionally, the CRISP team decided that in the interests of efficiency,
   an "internal" CRISP mailing list would be established - only members of
   the CRISP team would be able to send mails to this list or receive mail
   sent to the list, but the list content would be archived publicly on the
   NRO website. This archive is available at:

   https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/

    

   Throughout the CRISP team process, CRISP team members have engaged with
   their regional communities, ensuring that the communities are informed and
   sharing information with other CRISP team members on key events and
   discussions in their regional forums. They have also consulted the
   discussion archives of their regional communities as necessary throughout
   the process to ensure the fair and accurate representation of their
   community's views. CRISP team members have been active in encouraging
   feedback from their regions, whether on the global ianaxfer at nro.net
   mailing list or in the regional discussion forums.

   VI.I.  An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
   proposal, including a description of areas of contention or disagreement.

    

   Throughout CRISP team deliberations, consensus was determined when,
   following discussions within the team, no further comments, concerns or
   objections were observed. A 24-hour window was set for decisions made
   during CRISP team teleconferences and shared on the CRISP team mailing
   list to allow those who were not at the call to provide input.

    

   A similar approach was taken for the <ianaxfer at nro.net> list. Consensus
   was determined following discussions on the list around an issue raised or
   a new suggestion when no further comments, concerns, objections were
   observed.

    

   Prior to submitting this proposal to the ICG, two drafts were published,
   along with calls for feedback from the global community. These two comment
   periods were important in ensuring that the community had a chance
   to actively contribute to resolving issues identified during the process.

    

   In addition, the CRISP team has called for community feedback on this
   current draft of the proposal. ICG members and other interested parties
   can observe the level of support for the proposal in the archives of
    <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.

    

   In comparing output coming from each RIR region, many commonalities were
   identified early in the process, and there was a clear consensus across
   the five RIR communities on the basic principles for this proposal. The
   RIR community tradition of openness, transparency and bottom-up processes
   defined the discussions in all regions, and a solid trust in the RIR
   system was consistently expressed throughout the process. While all five
   regional inputs differed, there were no major conflicts or irreconcilable
   points of contention identified.

   Notable points of difference included the views on the format of the
   agreement to be established between IANA operator and the RIRs, and on the
   need for an oversight body to periodically review the agreement. The
   current proposal reflects the consensus agreement reached on these issues
   through discussion within the CRISP team and in public forums, especially
   the <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.

    

   In the global discussions at <ianaxfer at nro.net>, several issues received
   close attention and provoked significant discussion. These issues
   included:

    

     * ****Composition of Review Committee 

     * ****Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
       conditions 

     * ****Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks associated
       with the IANA function 

    

   Comments mainly focused on clarification of details of these issues.
    Support was expressed by several people on the ianaxfer at nro.net mailing
   list on the final, agreed elements of the proposal listed in Section III.

    

   There was clear agreement from the global community on positions regarding
   each of these issues, as reflected in the content of the current proposal.
    The CRISP team believes therefore that the current proposal fully
   reflects the consensus of the global numbering community.

   Assessment of consensus level

   <TBD>

    

    

    

    


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list