[IANAxfer@apnic] Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published
FYI.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number
Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 03:17:09 +0900
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
To: ianaxfer@nro.net
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@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
[ ���] 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@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@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
Andr��s 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@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)
_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer