Hi Nurani,
Is the ianaxfer@ list open for posting or do we need to subscribe, which is typical for mailman? I recall earlier that we all agreed this list would be post by members, view by public. Best, -M< On Jan 2, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Nurani Nimpuno <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
