Dear colleagues, Firstly, a very happy new year to all of you! :) I hope you all had a well deserved rest.
As you may know, the CRISP team, tasked with coming up with a proposal for the Internet numbers community on the IANA stewardship transition, has published a first draft. We would warmly welcome any comments you have on this draft, on the global <[email protected]> mailing list. The deadline for feedback on this draft is 5 January. The second draft will be distributed on 8 January, and the very final proposal is due for submission 15 January. Kind regards, Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team -- Nurani Nimpuno Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod <[email protected]>, http://www.netnod.se Box 30194 | SE-104 25 Stockholm | Sweden --------------------------------------------- Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community > IANA Stewardship, Proposal published > Date: 2 januari 2015 19:17:09 CET > To: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> mailing list. > > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani > Chair, Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for > Proposals on IANA from the RIR community > 1. Proposal type > > Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission proposes to > address: > > [ ] Names > [ 口] Numbers > [ ] Protocol Parameters > > > > I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA > > This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services or activities > your community relies > on. For each IANA service or activity on which your community relies, please > provide the following: > > · A description of the service or activity. > · A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. > · What registries are involved in providing the service or > activity. > · A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between > your IANA requirements and the > functions required by other customer communities > > ------- > · A description of the service or activity. > > The relevant IANA activities to the number resource communities are the > allocation of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System Numbers > (“ASNs”) to the Regional Internet Registries (“RIRs”) as well as the > delegation of the “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS trees in accordance with > the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. > > · A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. > > The RIRs manage the registration and distribution of Internet number > resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and ASNs) to members within their service > regions. The five RIRs in operation at this point in time are: > > AFRINIC Serving Africa Founded in 2005 > APNIC Serving the Asia Pacific region Founded in 1993 > ARIN Serving North America Founded in 1997 > LACNIC Serving South America and the Caribbean Founded in 2001 > RIPE NCC Serving Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East Founded in 1992 > > The five RIRs manage the distribution and registration of Internet number > resources at the regional level, having received blocks of unused resources > from the global pools managed by the IANA operator. The RIRs also facilitate > the policy development processes of their > respective communities. > > The five RIRs have a long-standing and straightforward operational > relationship with IANA. IANA maintains the global pools of Internet number > resources from which the RIRs receive allocations to distribute to their > communities. The RIRs also coordinate with IANA to correctly register any > resources that are returned to the global pools. Collectively, the system for > administering Internet number resources is referred to as the "Internet > Number Registry System" and is described > in detail in RFC 7020. > > ------- > · What registries are involved in providing the service or > activity. > > The most relevant IANA registries are the IPv4 address registry, the IPv6 > address registry, and the ASN registry. Delegation of “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and > “IP6.ARPA”domain names also requires interaction with the .ARPA zone registry. > > ------- > · A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between > your IANA requirements and the > functions required by other customer communities. > > The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) is responsible for policy > relating to the entire IP address space and AS number space. Through the > IANA protocol parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address > ("IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and "IPv6 Global Unicast Allocations > Registry") and AS number space (“ASN Registry) to the RIR system [RFC7020]. > Note that within each IANA registry, there are also reserved values or > ranges, and special-purpose registries, which are outside the Internet > Numbers Registry System and instead administered under the direction of the > IETF. The delineation of the specific ranges delegated to the Internet Number > Registry system is provided in RFC 7249. It is expected that the boundary > between IETF-managed and Internet Number Registry-managed parts of the number > spaces may change from time to time, with agreement between the IETF and the > RIRs. Potential reasons for changes include the possibility > that the IETF may release some previously reserved space for general use, or > may reserve some previously unused space for a special purpose. > The global Internet community also depends upon the IANA operator for > administration of the special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS zones > which are associated with IPv4 and IPv6 number resources respectively. These > zones are delegated to IANA by the Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) and > “[s]ub-delegations within this hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with > the IANA’s address allocation practices” (RFC3172). The IANA operator > administers these zones as “agreed technical work items” per the IETF- > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) IANA MoU. It > is important to note that this work is outside the scope of the National > Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) contract. > > Relevant links: > IETF-ICANN MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers > Authority: > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en > “The Internet Numbers Registry System”, RFC 7020: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020 “Internet > Numbers Registries”, RFC 7249: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7249 > > > > II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements > > This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements work, > prior to the transition. > > A. Policy Sources > > This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which must be > followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or > activities described above. If there are distinct sources of policy or > policy development for different IANA activities, then please describe these > separately. For each source of policy or policy development, please provide > the following: > > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > · A description of how policy is developed and established and > who is involved in policy development and establishment. > · A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. > · References to documentation of policy development and dispute > resolution processes. > > ------- > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > > The Internet number resource registries. > > It is important to note that allocations of Internet number resources from > IANA to the RIRs and its registrations in IANA registries, as well as > delegations of “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains, described in Section I, > are conducted between IANA and the RIRs without involvement by the NTIA. > > ------- > · A description of how policy is developed and established and > who is involved in policy development and establishment. > > The policies under which the IANA operator manages the global pools of > Internet number resources (excluding those address ranges reserved by the > IETF for specific technical purposes) are developed and agreed by the five > RIR communities via open, transparent and bottom-up policy development > processes. Each RIR community engages in its own regional policy development > process; these processes are open to all stakeholders regardless of specific > background or interest. Links to each of the five regional Policy Development > Processes (“PDPs”) are included under in the RIR Governance Matrix published > on the Number Resource Organization (“NRO”) website > [www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance- matrix]. > > Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must ratify > an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive Council (“NRO > EC”) then refers the coordinated proposal to the Address Supporting > Organization (“ASO”) Address Council (“ASO AC”), which reviews the process by > which the proposal was developed and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum > of Understanding (“ASO MoU”), passes it to the ICANN Board of Directors for > ratification as a global policy. > > There are currently three global policies relating to management of the > global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers > [https://www.nro.net/policies]: > > (a) IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries; > (b) IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries; > and > (c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. > > There is a fourth global policy agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2, > "Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries". > > The global Policy Development Process (“gPDP”) described in “Global Policy > Development Process Document” > [https://www.nro.net/documents/global-policy-development- process] is used > for all of the number-related IANA activities described in Section I, but the > policy that > “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains must be delegated following IPv4 and > IPv6 address allocations is specified by the IETF (most recently in RFC 3172). > > ------- > · A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. > > The gPDP is formally described in "Attachment A" of the ASO MoU, signed by > ICANN and the RIRs in 2004 (and signed by AFRINIC when it was established as > the fifth RIR in 2005). This MoU includes provisions for resolving disputes > between ICANN and the RIRs or their communities. It is important to note that > while the gPDP allows for the ICANN Board to dispute the outcome of a > consensus community decision (escalating to mediation between ICANN and the > RIRs), it does not include any role for the IANA contract holder (currently > the NTIA). The ASO MoU is an agreement between the RIR communities and ICANN; > NTIA has no oversight role in policy-making as regards management of the > global Internet number resource pools, and its transition out of its current > role would have minimal effect on the policy-making framework. > > A separate MoU, the NRO MoU, establishes the NRO as "a coordinating mechanism > of the RIRs to act collectively on matters relating to the interests of the > RIRs", and includes provisions for dispute resolutions between RIRs on issues > relating to global policy development or implementation. > > It is the responsibility of the NRO Number Council (“NRO NC”), a group > comprising three community members selected by each of the five RIR > communities, to confirm that the documented RIR PDPs have been followed in > the development and approval of a new policy or policy change. Further, this > group reviews the policy followed by each of the RIR communities to assure > itself that the significant viewpoints of interested parties were adequately > considered,and only after this confirmation does it then consider forwarding > global policy proposals to the ICANN Board for ratification. > > The NRO NC also acts in the role of the ICANN ASO AC, and as such, presents > the agreed global policy proposal to the ICANN Board for ratification and > operational implementation. > > The ICANN Board reviews the received global number resource policy proposals > and may ask questions and otherwise consult with the ASO Address Council > and/or the individual RIRs acting collectively > through the NRO. The ICANN Board may also consult with other parties as the > Board considers appropriate. If the ICANN Board rejects the proposed policy, > it delivers to the ASO ACa statement of its concerns with the proposed > policy, including in particular an explanation of the significant viewpoints > that were not adequately considered during the regular RIR processes. By > agreement of all RIRs, the ASO AC may forward a new proposed policy (either > reaffirming the previous proposal or > a modified proposal) to the ICANN Board. If the resubmitted proposed policy > is rejected for a second time by ICANN, then the RIRs or ICANN shall refer > the matter to mediation. > > In case of disputes where mediation has failed to resolve the dispute, the > ICANN ASO MoU agreement provides for arbitration via ICC rules in the > jurisdiction of Bermuda or such other location as is agreed between the RIRs > and ICANN. It is also worth noting that the RIRs have been participating (as > the ASO) in the periodic independent review processes for Accountability and > Transparency (ATRT) that is called for per ICANN’s Bylaws. > > ------- > · References to documentation of policy development and dispute > resolution processes. > > Relevant links: > ICANN ASO MoU: > https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso- mou > NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding > About the NRO Number Council: > https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/the-nro-number-council RIR > Governance Matrix: https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix > Global Policies: https://www.nro.net/policies > > > > B. Oversight and Accountability > > This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is conducted > over IANA’s provision of the services and activities listed in Section I and > all the ways in which IANA is currently held accountable for the provision of > those services. For each oversight or accountability mechanism, please > provide as many of the following as are applicable: > > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > · If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, > identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. > · A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight > or perform accountability functions, including how individuals > are selected or removed from participation in those entities. > · A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting > scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). > This should include a description of the consequences of the > IANA functions operator not meeting the standards established > by the mechanism, the extent to which the output of the > mechanism is transparent and the terms under which the > mechanism may change. > · Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal > basis on which the mechanism rests. > > ------- > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > > The Internet number resource registries. > > ------- > · If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, > identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. > > A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, > and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, > would not have any significant impact on the continuity of Internet > number-related IANA services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would > remove a significant element of oversight from the current system. > > There is no contractual obligation directly to the Internet number resource > community for the IANA operator to provide IANA registry services for the > Internet number registries; IANA services for > the Internet number registries are provided by ICANN since its formation as a > result of the NTIA IANA Functions contract and hence IANA services for the > Internet number registries are presently > subject to change per that agreement. > > ------- > · A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight > or perform accountability functions, including how individuals > are selected or removed from participation in those entities. > > All institutional actors with a role in management of Internet number > resources are accountable to the open communities that make and agree on the > policies under which those resources are distributed and registered. The > mechanisms used to ensure and enforce this accountability differ for each of > these actors. > > 1. NTIA > ICANN, as the current operator of the IANA functions, is obligated by the > NTIA agreement to carry out management of the global IP address and AS Number > pools according to policies developed by the communities. > > While the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public in > nature, the Internet number community is primarily represented in oversight > of the IANA operator performance by the RIRs, which are member-based based > organizations with elected governance boards. > Currently, the NTIA does not have an oversight role in this regard. > > The ultimate consequence of failing to meet the performance standards or > reporting requirements is understood to be a decision by the contracting > party (the NTIA) to terminate or not renew the IANA > functions agreement with the current contractor (ICANN). > > 2. The Regional Internet Registries > > Administration by the IANA operator consists predominantly of processing of > requests from the RIRs for issuance of additional number resources. The five > RIRs are intimately familiar with global number resource policies under > which the requests are made and maintain communications with the IANA > operations team throughout the request process. > > The RIRs are not-for-profit membership associations, and as such are > accountable to their members by law. The specific governance processes for > each RIR differ depending on where they have been established and the > decisions made by their membership, but in all RIRs, members have the right > to vote individuals onto the governing Board and to vote on specific funding > or operational resolutions. > > At the same time, an RIR's registration and allocation practices are directed > by policies developed by its community. Each RIR community's PDP defines how > these policies are developed, agreed and accepted for operational > implementation. > > The corporate governance documents and PDPs of each RIR and its community are > accessible via the RIR Governance Matrix, published on the NRO website. > > ------- > · A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting > scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). > This should include a description of the consequences of the IANA functions > operator not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the extent > to which the output of the mechanism is > transparent and the terms under which the mechanism may change. > > The NTIA IANA Agreement currently defines obligations of the IANA operator > for Internet number resources. > > This obligation is specifically noted in section C.2.9.3 of the NTIA > agreement: > > C.2.9.3 Allocate Internet Numbering Resources --The Contractor shall have > responsibility for allocated and unallocated IPv4 and IPv6 address space and > Autonomous System Number (ASN) space based on established guidelines and > policies as developed by interested and affected parties as enumerated in > Section C.1.3. > > The NTIA agreement also lays out specific deliverables for the IANA operator > (ICANN) to produce as a condition of the agreement (see "Section F – > Deliveries and Performance"), including performance > standards developed in cooperation with the affected parties (in the case of > the Internet number resource pools, the affected parties include the RIRs and > their communities), customer complaint > procedures and regular performance reporting. > > These deliverables are met by ICANN via monthly reporting on their > performance in processing requests for the allocation of Internet number > resources; these reports include IANA operator performance against key > metrics of accuracy, timeliness, and transparency, as well as the performance > metrics for individual requests. The IANA operations team also provides > escalation procedures for use in resolving any issues with requests, as per > the "IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process". > > ------- > · Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal > basis on which the mechanism rests. > > Jurisdiction for this current mechanism is the United States of America under > applicable Federal government contracting laws and regulations. > > Relevant links: > NTIA IANA Agreement: > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order > ICANN ASO MoU: > https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso- mou > NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding > IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process: > http://www.iana.org/help/escalation- procedure > IANA Performance Standards Metrics Report: > http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics > RIR Governance Matrix: > https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix > > > > III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability > Arrangements > > This section should describe what changes your community is proposing to the > arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the transition. If your > community is proposing to replace one or more existing arrangements with new > arrangements, that replacement should be explained and all of the elements > listed in Section II.B should be described for the new arrangements. Your > community should > provide its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. > > If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface > between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in > Section II.A, those implications should be described > here. > > If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in Section > II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be provided here. > > ------- > The elements of this proposal are as follows: > > (1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number > resources; > (2) Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on > number resources; and > (3) Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives > from each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the > IANA functions operator’s performance and meeting of > identified service levels. > > To maintain stability and continuity in operations of the Internet > number-related IANA services, very minimal changes to the arrangements listed > in Section II.B are proposed, including the identification of the proposed > initial IANA functions operator. As noted in numerous NRO > communications over the past decade, the RIRs have been very satisfied with > the performance of ICANN in the role of IANA functions operator. Taking this > into account, and considering the strong desires expressed in the five RIR > communities' IANA stewardship discussions for stability and a minimum of > operational change, the Internet numbering community believes that ICANN > should remain in the role of IANA functions operator for at least the initial > term of the new contract. > > A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, > and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, > would not have any significant impact on > the continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided by > ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the > current system. > > The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a > new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA functions > operator's accountability to the open, > bottom-up numbers community. Other than the replacement of the NTIA with the > five RIRs as the party(ies) with whom the IANA functions operator would > contract for provision of Internet number-related IANA services, the overall > arrangements in Section II.B would remain with no change. > > The proposed arrangement involves the same IANA service or activity, policy > sources identified in Section II.A are unaffected, the entities that provide > oversight or perform accountability functions (the RIRs) remain the same, the > consequence for failure to meet performance standards remains termination or > decision not to renew the IANA functions agreement with the then-current > contractor, and jurisdiction will be dependent on the chosen IANA functions > operator. > > The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be established > between the IANA functions operator and the five RIRs. The contract, > essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the IANA > functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the global > Internet number pools according to policies developed by the regional > communities via the gPDP as well as management of the delegations within > IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement would include specific > requirements for performance and reporting commensurate with current > mechanisms, and would specify consequences should the contractor fail to meet > those requirements, the means for the resolution of disputes between the > parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of the contract. IANA > operations should be > reliable and consistent, with any registry changes made in an open and > transparent manner to the global community. The agreement should also require > the IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of > IANA-related registry services. > > To ensure the service level defined in the proposed contract is maintained > and provided by the IANA functions operator, the NRO EC will conduct periodic > reviews of the service level of the IANA number resource functions that > serves each RIR and their respective communities. The NRO EC shall establish > a Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic > review. Any such Review Committee should be a team composed of > representatives from each RIR region that will, as needed, undertake a review > of the level of service received from the IANA functions operator and report > to the NRO EC any concerns regarding any observed failure by the IANA > functions operator to meet its contractual obligations under the proposed > contract. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity > solely to oversee the performance of the IANA number resource functions and > the Review Committee’s advice and comment will be limited to the processes > followed in the IANA functions operator’s performance under the proposed > contract. > > If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface > between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in > Section II.A, those implications should be described > here. > > This proposal carries no implication for the interface between IANA functions > and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A. The text in > "Attachment A" of the ICANN ASO MoU meets the current and anticipated > requirements for a community-driven global policy development process. > > As an additional measure of security and stability, the RIRs have documented > their individual accountability and governance mechanisms, and asked the > community-based Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) to > undertake a review of these mechanisms and make > recommendations for improvements that may be warranted given the nature of > the stewardship transition for Internet number resources. > > > IV. Transition Implications > > This section should describe what your community views as the implications of > the changes it proposed in Section III. These implications may include some > or all of the following, or other > implications specific to your community: > > · Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity > of service and possible new service integration throughout the > transition. > · Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. > · Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence > of the NTIA contract. > · Description of how you have tested or evaluated the > workability of any new technical or > operational methods proposed in this document and how they > compare to established arrangements. > > ------- > · Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity > of service and possible new service integration throughout the > transition. > · Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. > > The intent of the proposal described above is to: > > 1. Minimize risks to operational continuity of the management of the > Internet number- related IANA functions, and; > 2. Retain the existing framework for making those policies that describe > the management of the global Internet number resource pools, as this > framework is already structured to ensure open, bottom-up development of such > policies. > > Under current arrangements, the NTIA is responsible for extending or renewing > the IANA functions agreement, and setting the terms of that contract. A new > contract with the five RIRs and the IANA functions operator as signatories > would shift the responsibility for renewing, setting terms or terminating the > contract to the RIRs, who would coordinate their decisions via the NRO EC > (made up of the RIR Directors and Chief Executives). Decisions made regarding > the contract would be based on operational circumstances, past performance > and input from open, regional communities. > > The shift from the existing contractual arrangement to another contractual > arrangement (perhaps relying on a set of distinct contracts) covering the > IANA functions operator’s ongoing management > of all the IANA functions should result in no operational change for > management of the global Internet number resource pools. This will help > minimize any operational or continuity risks associated with stewardship > transition. > > By building on the existing Internet registry system (which is open to > participation from all interested parties) and its structures, the proposal > reduces the risk associated with creating new organizations whose > accountability is unproven. > > The necessary agreement proposed for IANA operation services for the Internet > number registries can be established well before the NTIA target date for > transition (September 2015), as there are no changes to existing service > levels or reporting that are being proposed, only a change in contracting > party to align with the delegated policy authority. > > ------- > · Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence > of the NTIA contract. > > The necessary legal framework in the absence of the NTIA contract will be > fulfilled by the proposed agreement between the IANA functions operator and > the five RIRs. As stated in Section III above, > the contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the > IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the > global Internet number pools according to policies developed by the regional > communities via the gPDP as well as > management of the delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The > agreement would include specific requirements for performance and reporting > commensurate with current mechanisms, and would specify consequences should > the contractor fail to meet those requirements, the means for the resolution > of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of > the contract. IANA operations should be reliable and consistent, with any > registry changes made in an open and transparent manner to the global > community. > > The agreement should also require the IANA operator to appropriately > coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry services. The > contract would also provide for jurisdiction and governing law regarding the > new arrangement. > > ------- > · Description of how you have tested or evaluated the > workability of any new technical or > operational methods proposed in this document and how they > compare to established arrangements. > · Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. > > This proposal does not propose any new technical or operational methods. > There is inclusion of a proposed Review Committee to be established by the > five RIRs acting cooperatively and coordinating > through the NRO EC; however, this does not carry any new operational method > as the IANA functions operator would remain accountable to the party with > whom it is contracting, in this case, the five RIRs in place of the NTIA. > The proposed Review Committee is a tool for the five RIRs to evaluate and > review performance of the IANA functions provided. > > > > V. NTIA Requirements > > Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the > following five requirements: > > · Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; > · Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the > Internet DNS; > · Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and > partners of the IANA services; > · Maintain the openness of the Internet. > · The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a > government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. > > This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these > requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA functions. > > ------- > The proposal for the IANA stewardship transition for the Internet number > registries builds upon the existing, successful framework used by the > Internet number community today. The major characteristics of this approach > include: > > 1. Global number policy development which is open and transparent to any > and all participants > 2. Continuance of existing IANA service levels, escalation processes, and > reporting mechanisms > 3. Maintenance of independent review and ratification for developed global > Internet number resource policy > 4. Continued use of periodic third-party independent reviews of > accountability and transparency of processes > 5. No change of the existing IANA operator for maximum stability and > security of operational processes and systems > 6. Accountable, member-based, globally-distributed RIR organizations > providing routine IANA operational oversight for the Internet number > registries > 7. No new organization is proposed. However, a new process within the RIR > structures is proposed, where a Review Committee is established to advise and > assist the NRO EC in its periodic review of the service level provided by the > IANA functions operator. > > As a result of the approach taken (and its characteristics as outlined > above), it is clear that the proposal from the Internet number community > meets the stated NTIA requirements. > > > VI. Community Process > > This section should describe the process your community used for developing > this proposal, including: > > · The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to > determine consensus. > · Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations > and meeting proceedings. > · An assessment of the level of consensus behind your > community’s proposal, including a description of areas of > contention or disagreement. > > ------- > 1. Regional and global process > > Each of the five RIR communities is discussing the IANA stewardship issues > via mailing lists, at their RIR meetings and in other community forums. While > these discussions have been uniformly open and transparent, with all > discussions archived on mailing lists and meeting records, each community has > adopted a specific process of their own choosing to reach an agreed community > output. > > The results from the five regional processes fed a global process that > produced this document. More details about the regional and global processes > are given below, interspersed with links to relevant documents. > > 2. AFRINIC regional process: > The AFRINIC community held a consultative meeting on 25 May to 6 June 2014 > during the Africa Internet Summit (AIS'2014) in Djibouti in the "IANA > oversight transition" workshop. As a follow up to the meeting, AFRINIC setup > a mailing list to provide a platform for the African > Internet community to discuss the IANA Oversight Transition process. The > mailing list was announced on July 4, 2014 to develop a community position. > The list and its archives can be found at: > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ianaoversight > > A Dedicated web portal was setup for sharing information on the IANA > stewardship transition with the AFRINIC community and is also available at > http://afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition > > AFRINIC also conducted a survey seeking community input on the IANA > Stewardship Transition. The results of the survey are published > at: > http://afrinic.net/images/stories/Initiatives/%20survey%20on%20the%20iana%20stewardship > %20transition.pdf > > > The last face-to-face meeting at which IANA oversight transition > consultations were held with the community was during the AFRINIC-21 meeting > in Mauritius, 22-28 November 2014. The recordings of > the session are available at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/vod > > Discussions continued on the [email protected] 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 "[email protected]." mailing list, > until the closure of the comments from the number resources communities set > by CRISP Team as 12th Jan 2015. > > 4. ARIN regional process: > > <TBD> > > 5. LACNIC regional process: > > > <TBD> > > 6. RIPE regional process: > The RIPE community agreed at the RIPE 68 Meeting in May 2014 that the > development of a community position on IANA stewardship should take place in > the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, and via that working group's public > mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg- lists/cooperation > > The RIPE NCC, as secretariat for the RIPE community, also facilitated > discussions on the IANA stewardship in national and regional forums across > the RIPE NCC service region. Summaries of these discussions were posted to > the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list and on the RIPE website: > https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions > > Between September and November 2014, RIPE community discussion centered > around developing a set of principles reflecting the communities primary > concerns in the development of an alternative IANA stewardship arrangement. > These discussions are reflected in the discussions on the mailing list from > that time: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation- wg/ > > Discussions at the RIPE 69 Meeting in November 2014 saw general community > consensus on the principles discussed on the mailing list, and support > expressed for the three community members selected to join the Consolidated > RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team. > > RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session: > https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting- plan/coop-wg/#session1 > RIPE 69 Closing Plenary Session: https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10112/ > > ------- > 7. Global process (CRISP Team) > On 16 October 2014, the NRO EC proposed the formation of a Consolidated RIR > IANA Stewardship > > Proposal (CRISP) team to develop a single Internet numbering community > proposal to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). Each RIR community > selected three members (two community members and one RIR staff) to > participate in the team. The participants selected were: > > AFRINIC Region > Alan P. Barrett – Independent Consultant > Mwendwa Kivuva – Network Infrastructure Services, University of Nairobi > Ernest Byaruhanga (Appointed RIR staff) > > ARIN Region > Bill Woodcock – President and Research Director of Packet Clearing House > John Sweeting – Sr. Director, Network Architecture & Engineering at Time > Warner Cable > Michael Abejuela (Appointed RIR staff) > > APNIC Region > Dr Govind – CEO NIXI > Izumi Okutani – Policy Liaison JPNIC > Craig Ng (Appointed RIR staff) > > LACNIC Region > Nico Scheper - Curacao IX > Esteban Lescano - Cabase Argentina > Andrés Piazza (Appointed RIR staff) > > RIPE NCC Region > Nurani Nimpuno – Head of Outreach & Communications at Netnod > Andrei Robachevsky – Technology Programme Manager at the Internet Society > Paul Rendek (Appointed > RIR staff) > > Steps and timeline for proposal development and links to announcements, > mailing lists, and > proceedings - > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs- > > engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process > > ------- > 8. Assessment of consensus level > <TBD> > > <END> > > On 2014/12/29 20:43, Izumi Okutani wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> CRISP Team has published an editorial version of the Internet >> numbers community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the >> IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG): >> >> http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1 >> >> From the initial draft we published on 19th Dec [*], we have made >> editorial changes only. No changes are made in contents of the proposal. >> >> [*] >> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-First-Draft1.pdf >> >> The editorial changes are intended to clarify our answers to RFP, by >> re-ordering answers in the same order as questions listed in each >> Section. Some small additions have been made to address points that had >> not been answered in the earlier draft. Finally, there are some changes >> made for stylistic reasons. >> >> The deadline of the comments to be submitted to <[email protected]> >> 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 > [email protected] > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
