Dear colleagues, 

In recent weeks, two significant community discussions regarding the transition 
of oversight of the IANA functions have taken place. 

The following summaries are provided as feedback to the RIPE community - an 
online version of these summaries, containing links to more detailed reports 
and information, is available at: 
https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/update-on-iana-oversight-discussions-icg-meeting-and-ietf-90

Best regards,

Chris Buckridge
Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

———

First Meeting of the ICG

The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) held its first meeting 
in London on 17-18 July 2014. This group has been established to coordinate 
input from the various relevant communities and IANA stakeholders, moving 
towards development of a global transition plan. Discussions and outcomes of 
the meeting are documented on the ICANN website.

Adiel Akplogan and Paul Wilson, the CEOs of AFRINIC and APNIC respectively, 
took part in the meeting as representatives of the Number Resource Organization 
(NRO), and Hartmut Glaser, NRO Number Council member from the LACNIC region, 
represented the Address Supporting Organization (ASO).

In addition, Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC Chief Scientist, participated as one 
of two representatives of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC).

Key points from this meeting:

        • ICG members strongly asserted the group’s independence from ICANN.
        • The constructive atmosphere in the meeting resulted in the successful 
definition of a draft charter [PDF] and organisational principles for ICG.
        • The draft charter acknowledges that parts of the proposal will be 
developed in parallel across three main pillars (names, numbers and protocol 
parameters), coordinated by the respective operational communities.
        • The draft charter also makes it clear that the ICG does not expect to 
create substantive content in the proposals itself. Should serious further work 
be needed on the proposals, the ICG expects to send them back to the respective 
communities to do that work.
        • The group agreed to the request from the ICANN Government Advisory 
Committee (GAC) for five seats (rather than the proposed two).
        • The ICG recognised that there is a very tight schedule for developing 
a global proposal to the NTIA for transition of IANA oversight, and called on 
the various communities to produce input to a global proposal by the end of 
2014.
        • There were around 100 remote observers for both days of the meeting. 
        • The next meeting of the ICG is being planned for 6 September 2014 in 
Istanbul, Turkey.
 

IETF 90 IANAPLAN BoF Session

On 24 July 2014, during the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting in 
Toronto, a dedicated Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) session was held to discuss the 
IANA oversight transition. Approximately 150 people participated on-site, with 
more participating remotely. The session was chaired by Andrew Sullivan and 
Marc Blanchet. Session materials, including minutes and presentations, are 
available from the IETF website.

Key points from this session:

        • Alissa Cooper reported on the first meeting of the ICG, and noted 
that the IETF community will take the lead in drafting a proposal regarding the 
protocol parameters.
        • Participants strongly supported the notion that the current 
arrangements (both contractual and operational) should not change significantly 
as a result of the transition process.
        • It was agreed that there should be reviews to ensure that:
                • Current procedures and relationships are sufficiently 
documented
                • The transition of oversight will not require significant 
changes of the current arrangements
        • In terms of IETF process, there was agreement that, while the 
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) should take a leading role, there should be a 
dedicated Working Group formed to act as sounding board and confirm rough 
consensus on the proposed transitioning plans. This working group could act as 
a focal point for other stakeholders to relay input back to the IETF.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to