Comment on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
After months of discussions and collaborative efforts in the Names, Numbers, and Protocol Parameters communities, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) issued a call for comments on the first draft of its combined proposal to transition the stewardship of the IANA functions from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the global multistakeholder community.
Historically managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the IANA functions are part of Internet infrastructure and include responsibility for allocating and maintaining the unique codes and numbering systems used in Internet technical standards. As a member of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team, I have seen firsthand the value of comments from the community and the effect those comments have on the process. Time is running out to comment on the proposal, and I encourage anyone interested in doing so to make your voice heard.
The proposal combines the three proposals submitted to the ICG from each of the three communities served by the IANA. For reference those submissions are:
Protocol Parameters (IETF community)
IANAPLAN Working Group Proposal – submitted 6 Jan 2015
Numbers (RIR community)
CRISP Team Proposal – submitted 15 Jan 2015
Names (DNS community)
Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Proposal – submitted 11 June 2015
In the words of ICANN, the combined proposal summary is as follows:
The domain names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN that would become the IANA functions operator in contract with ICANN. The legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged. The proposal includes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) responsible for monitoring the operator’s performance according to the contractual requirements and service level expectations. The proposal establishes a multistakeholder IANA Function Review process (IFR) to conduct reviews of PTI.
The numbers community proposed that ICANN continue to serve as the IANA Functions Operator and perform those services under a contract with the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The numbers community proposed a contractual Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the Regional Internet Registries and the IANA Numbering Services Operator; and a Review Committee (RC) comprising community representatives from each region, to advise the RIRs on the IANA functions operator’s performance and adherence to identified service levels.
For the protocol parameters, ICANN currently serves as the IANA registries operator. The IETF community expressed satisfaction with the current arrangements and proposed that the IANA protocol parameters registry updates continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The protocol parameters community proposed to continue to rely on the system of agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms created by the IETF, ICANN, and IAB for the provision of the protocols parameters-related IANA functions.
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) proposal is available for review and public comment. The CRISP Team issued a response which you can review. The NRO also published the video below to help explain the importance of this proposal to the numbers community.
It is important that you take the time to contribute your thoughts on the proposed transition document and explain to other stakeholders your reasoning. Your comments can be submitted via the ICG’s online form or by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org until Tuesday, 8 September 2015.
Recent articles categorized under: Updates
GET THE LATEST!
Sign up to receive the latest news about ARIN and the most pressing issues facing the Internet community.SIGN ME UP →
Blog CategoriesARIN Bits • Fellowship Program • Training • Elections • Tips • Grant Program • IPv6 • Public Policy • IPv4 • RPKI • Internet Governance • Outreach • Updates • IRR • Data Accuracy • Customer Feedback • Caribbean