Subject: [Internetgovtech] an initial proposal wrt IANA developments

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:59:48 +0800

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?

Jari

[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
responsibilities.

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.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:27:44 -0700

Hi Jari,
At 09:59 20-03-2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
> 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?

The situation is evolving.  I prefer not to take a position about the text.

>improving performance, including pre-agreed independent 3rd party

The above mentions the "IANA protocol parameter" and "registry 
operator".  That is not the same as what is in RFC 6220.  The second 
sentence mentions "names".  I assume that it covers the DNS Root 
Zone.  Does the IETF and/or the IAB have a position on that matter?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:01:59 +0800

Hi Jari,

I appreciate that many people have views as to what should happen, going
forward.  However, the text you quote below doesn't seem to me
consistent with the principles that we have been establishing. 

> the faithful registry implementation according to those policies.

The above text should be aligned with principle #5, at least as far as
the IANA parameters are concerned.

> in the Internet ecosystem.

It is beyond feasible.  The job has been and is being done by the
various organizations, generally with good collaboration between them.

>  ICANN's structures and accountability mechanisms

This sounds very good, but why should this text not be addressed in an
ICANN context?

> and protocol communities to formalize relationships, commitments, and mutual

Much of this has already been said by ICANN.

> ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their mechanisms for consideration and

I like this part, actually.  It seems to form the basis for the notion
that consultation should flow to the communities where the experts are,
and where those who are most impacted are likely to participate.  IMHO
the whole statement should be about this.

> improving performance, including pre-agreed independent 3rd party

There was general agreement in London that ICANN does a good job for the
IETF managing protocol parameters.  As someone who has worked very
closely with that team, I must agree.  They deserve all the applause we
gave them, and more.  They do this work on our behalf.  As a general
rule, however, I prefer bilateral voluntary agreements rather than
arbitration processes.  That is, the IETF should always control its own
destiny, and arbitration dilutes that autonomy.  The above paragraph
also should be aligned to our principles.
> bodies and itself that all of us will use open and transparent processes.

Again, this sounds like an ICANN statement.  A very GOOD ICANN
statement, mind you, but I feel a little funny suggesting changes to
their words as to what they would commit to.  But a thousand blessings
upon their house if they actually say this (I feel confident that they
will, by the way, in some positive form).

Eliot

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 07:22:36 -0700

>also should be aligned to our principles.

Completely agree.

I would also like to echo the comments made about this starting point text
being arbitrarily centered on ICANN's role. We know that it is possible to
describe the roles involved with IANA generically -- the IAB is doing just
that in draft-iab-iana-framework [1]. Perhaps focusing more on which of
those roles need actual improvements/strengthening in light of the NTIA
announcement and how they should be improved would be more productive.

Alissa

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-iana-framework-02