[Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 20 March 2014 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FEE1A0743 for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8_uVNHV_MhP for <internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174DE1A0709 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB55C2CEC5 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:59:55 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5IUih70RZRb6 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:59:53 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620D22CCD0 for <internetgovtech@iab.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:59:49 +0200 (EET)
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2EA5E4B4-DE50-494F-BB7B-E9604E03513D@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:59:48 +0800
To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" <internetgovtech@iab.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/internetgovtech/Jtn81NYqDuTc5Ju0lNxQ3AHMYbs
Subject: [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments
X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work <internetgovtech.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/>
List-Post: <mailto:internetgovtech@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech>, <mailto:internetgovtech-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:00:08 -0000

You have all seen the NTIA announcement [1,2]: they want to transition their role to multi-stakeholder organisations. And you've seen the common statement that was issued by the leaders of the technical Internet organisations on this topic [3]: we said that we are committed to further strengthening our processes and agreements related to the IANA functions, and to building on the existing organizations and their roles.

At the London IETF, we also discussed principles guiding the IETF regarding the role and evolution of IANA. After the meeting, Russ posted his summary of the principles [4], including, for instance, that we believe the protocol parameter registry function has been and continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community.

I am sure similar discussions will be held, for instance, in the RIRs. And as you may know, ICANN will facilitate discussion of the evolution, starting from their upcoming meeting next week.

From an IETF point of view, I think the principles discussion is what primarily guides us. But I also wanted to post something that goes into a little bit more into details of what this all might mean in practice. The following text is something that a small set of leaders from technical Internet organisations wrote as one possible starting point for the discussion. Your comments on this would be appreciated. Given the situation, given the principles, given the roles of various organisations, what specific actions would you like us to take with regards to moving the NTIA role to the multi-stakeholder communities?


[1] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
[2] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/qa_-_iana-for_web_eop.pdf
[3] http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress
[4] http://www.iab.org/mail-archive/web/internetgovtech/current/msg00221.html


Status of the text below: This is something that some leaders of technical Internet
organisations have agreed is a reasonable starting point for discussing how the role of
the USG can be transitioned to the Internet community. It is a starting point
only, and not something that has been agreed by our respective communities.

In order to ensure global acceptance and affirmation of ICANN's role as
administrator of the IANA functions, we are now pursuing the transition of USG's
stewardship of the IANA functions from the USG to ICANN. The roles of all
Internet registry policy bodies (such as the RIRs, IAB, IETF, ASO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, and
gNSO) stay unchanged. These bodies continue to hold policy authority for the
protocol parameter, number, and name spaces, including responsibility to ensure
the faithful registry implementation according to those policies.

This transition from the USG has been envisaged since the early days of ICANN.
It is now feasible due to the growing maturity of ICANN and other organisations
in the Internet ecosystem. ICANN's structures and accountability mechanisms
continue to evolve and advance guided by the AoC community reviews, including
ATRT. In addition, ICANN will continue to embrace its aggressive roadmap to 
truly globalize its structures.

In order to operationalize the transition from USG, ICANN will engage with the Internet
community in a bottom-up public consultation process to ensure appropriate
accountability mechanisms. In addition, ICANN will work with the names, numbers,
and protocol communities to formalize relationships, commitments, and mutual

When community stakeholders have input about the policies emanating from the
names, numbers, and protocol communities, they would be directed to pursue their
interests through the relevant Internet communities (such as the gNSO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs,
ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their mechanisms for consideration and
potential redress.

The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent processes. They
also are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol parameter and IP
address registry operator. The accountability mechanisms for ICANN's
administration of these core internet functions will provide escalation routes
that assure the names, numbers, and protocol communities that if IANA's
performance is lacking, those communities can pursue defined processes for
improving performance, including pre-agreed independent 3rd party
arbitration processes.

ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry functions in
accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also provide affirmations to
all stakeholders (including governments) from all Internet registry policy
bodies and itself that all of us will use open and transparent processes.