Hi Martin, The ianaxfer list us publicly archived, but you do need to subscribe to the list in order to post to it.
Kind regards, Nurani > On 3 jan 2015, at 03:02, "Hannigan, Martin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 >
