| IANAPLAN | E. Lear, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | |
| Intended status: Informational | R. Housley, Ed. |
| Expires: May 30, 2015 | |
| November 26, 2014 |
Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries
draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06
This document contains the IETF response to a request for proposals from the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group regarding the protocol parameters registries. It is meant to be included in an aggregate proposal that also includes contributions covering domain names and numbering resources that will be submitted from their respective operational communities. The IETF community is invited to comment and propose changes to this document.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2015.
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal for transition. As part of that process, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. The charter for the ICG can be found in Appendix B. They solicited proposals regarding post-transition arrangements from the three functional areas in order to put forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal (RFP) can be found in Appendix C.
While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a questionnaire we have quoted questions with ">>> " and we have prefaced answers to questions being asked with "IETF Response:". Note that there are small changes to the content of the questions asked in order to match the RFC format.
As if to demonstrate the last point, the following text was included in a footnote in the original RFP:
In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in the agreement between NTIA and ICANN [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions operator. SAC-067 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] provides one description of the many different meanings of the term "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the documents constituting the agreement itself.
The entire Request for Proposals, including introduction, can be found in Appendix C.
>>>
>>> 0. Proposal Type
>>>
>>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this
>>> submission proposes to address:
>>>
IETF Response:
[XXX] Protocol Parameters
This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF.
>>> >>> I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA Functions >>> >>> 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. >>>
IETF Response:
Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. These parameters are used by implementers, who are the primary users of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure consistent interpretation of these parameter values by independent implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to any associated documentation. The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameters registries to store this information in a public location. The IETF community presently accesses the protocol parameter registries via references based on iana.org domain name, and makes use of the term "IANA" in the protocol parameter registry processes [RFC5226].
ICANN currently operates the .ARPA top level domain on behalf of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This zone is used for certain Internet infrastructure services that are delegated beneath it. We consider .ARPA part of the protocol parameters registries for purposes of this response.
>>> >>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. >>>
IETF Response:
The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the protocol parameters registries for the IETF in conformance with all relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding [RFC2860] and associated supplemental agreements that include service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF and ICANN [MOUSUP].
The IETF is a global organization that produces voluntary standards, whose goal is to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are published in the RFC series. The IETF is responsible for the key standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few.
The IETF operates in an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series. The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a number of times, and those amendments are indicated in [RFC-INDEX]. The standards process can be amended in the same manner that standards are approved. That is, someone proposes a change by submitting a temporary document known as an Internet-Draft, the community discusses it, and if rough consensus can be found the change is approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), who also have day-to-day responsibility for declaring IETF consensus on technical decisions, including those that affect the IANA protocol parameters registries. Anyone may propose a change during a Last Call, and anyone may participate in the community discussion.
>>> >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or >>> activity. >>>
IETF Response:
The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work. These also include the top-level registry for the entire IP address space and some of its sub-registries, autonomous system number space, and a number of special use registries with regard to domain names. For more detail please refer to the documentation in the "overlaps or interdependencies" section.
Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service that is provided to the IETF.
>>> >>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your >>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer >>> communities >>>
IETF Response:
In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully delineated. There are, however, points of interaction between other organizations, and a few cases where we may further define the scope of a registry for technical purposes. This is the case with both names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all cases, the IETF coordinates with the appropriate organizations.
It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to participate. Staff and participants from ICANN or the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF activities.
>>> 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. >>>
IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries.
>>> >>> A description of how policy is developed and established and >>> who is involved in policy development and establishment. >>>
IETF Response:
Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents explains the model for how the registries are to be operated, how policy is set, and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the policies that specification writers may employ when they define new protocol registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If there is sufficient interest, a working group whose scope includes the proposed work may choose to adopt it, the IESG may choose to create a working group, or an Area Director may choose to sponsor the draft. In any case, anyone may comment on the proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG unless it enjoys sufficient community support as to indicate rough consensus [RFC7282]. In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or process. Anyone may comment during a Last Call. For example, this process is currently being used to update RFC 5226 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis].
>>> >>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. >>>
IETF Response:
Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the Internet Society Board of Trustees.
>>> >>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute >>> resolution processes. >>>
IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. Please also see the references at the bottom of this document.
>>> >>> B. Oversight and Accountability >>> >>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is >>> conducted over IANA functions operator’s provision of the >>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in >>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le 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. >>>
IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.
>>> >>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are >>> affected, identify which ones are affected. >>>
IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters registry are affected.
>>> >>> 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. >>>
IETF Response:
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above, management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA operator on behalf of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing liaison relationships with other organizations on behalf of the IETF. The IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850].
The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777]. This process provides for selection of active members of the community who themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. The active members are chosen randomly from volunteers with a history of participation in the IETF, with limits regarding having too many active members with the same affiliation. The selection of the active members is performed in a manner that makes it possible for anyone to verify that the correct procedure was followed. The slate of candidates selected by the active members are sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In general, members are appointed for terms of two years. The IAB selects its own chair.
The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameters registries of the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s) and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is currently ICANN.
>>> >>> 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. >>>
IETF Response:
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in [RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA functions operator for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), a peer organization to the IETF that focuses on research. Each year a service level agreement is negotiated that supplements the MoU.
Day-to-day administration and contract management is the responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. The members of the IAOC are also the trustees of the IETF Trust, whose main purpose is to hold certain intellectual property for the benefit of the IETF as a whole. IAOC members are appointed by the Internet Society Board of Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with the IANA functions operator to establish annual IANA performance metrics [METRICS] and operational procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to the MoU each year [MOUSUP]. Starting from 2014, in accordance with these supplements, an annual audit is performed to ensure that protocol parameter requests are being processed according to the established policies. The conclusions of this audit will be available for anyone in the world to review.
To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only be undertaken after serious consideration.
>>> >>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal >>> basis on which the mechanism rests. >>>
IETF Response
This mechanism is global in nature. The current agreement does not specify a jurisdiction.
>>>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 >>> 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. >>>
IETF Response:
No major changes are required. Over the years since the creation of ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms that already cover what is needed. This system has worked well without any operational involvement from the NTIA. Therefore, no new organizaitons or structures are needed.
IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The IETF community is quite satisfied with the current arrangement with ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an appropriate service description and requirements.
However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations are met. Those expectations are the following:
Discussions during the IETF 89 meeting in London led to the following guiding principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is not significant.
1. The IETF protocol parameters registries function has been and continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community.
The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within the Internet technical community are both important given how critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF protocols.
We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters registries function need to be strong enough that they can be offered independently by the Internet technical community, without the need for backing from external parties. And we believe we largely are there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and continuous improvements are being made.
2. The protocol parameters registries function requires openness, transparency, and accountability.
Existing documentation of how the function is administered and overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet community can understand how the function works, and that the processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee the protocol parameters function accountable for following those processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed to making improvements here if necessary.
3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters registries function should respect existing Internet community agreements.
The protocol parameters registries function is working well. The existing Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the technical work to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol parameters registries function should be made using the IETF process to update RFC 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: evolution, not revolution.
4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service by Internet registries.
The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special-use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work together.
5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards process and the use of resulting protocols.
RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF protocols. The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry operator role. This responsibility includes the selection and management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines for parameter allocation.
6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public service.
Directions for the creation of protocol parameters registries and the policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs. The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and they are published in a form that allows their contents to be included in other works without further permission. These works include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet protocols and their associated documentation.
These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational procedures.
>>> 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: >>> >>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity >>> of service and possible new service integration throughout >>> the transition. >>> o Risks to operational continuity >>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the >>> absence of the NTIA contract >>> o 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. >>>
IETF Response:
No structural changes are required. The principles listed above will guide IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational procedures, as they have in the past.
As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen issues that might arise as a result of other changes.
What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP.
>>> >>> V. NTIA Requirements >>> >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal >>> must meet the following five requirements: >>> >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;" >>>
IETF Response:
Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities. The policies and procedures are outlined in the documents we named above. In-person attendance is not required for participation, and many people participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF meeting. An email account is the only requirement to participate. The IETF makes use of both formal and informal lines of communication to collaborate with other organizations within the multistakeholder ecosystem.
>>> >>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the >>> Internet DNS;" >>>
IETF Response:
No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS.
>>> >>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and >>> partners of the IANA services;" >>>
IETF Response:
Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameters registries. The current IANA protocol parameters registries system is meeting the needs of these global customers. This proposal continues to meet their needs by maintaining the existing processes that have served them well in the past.
>>>
>>> >>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet." >>>
IETF Response:
This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including the IANA protocol parameters registries policies. Further, an implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameters registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in the IANA protocol registries will continue to be able to do so, as specified by the existing policies for those registries.
>>> >>> VI. Community Process >>> >>> This section should describe the process your community used for >>> developing this proposal, including: >>> >>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to >>> determine consensus. >>>
IETF Response:
The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate in the development of this response. An open mailing list (ianaplan@ietf.org) was associated with the working group. In addition, IETF’s IANA practices have been discussed in the broader community, and all input is welcome.
>>> >>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and >>> meeting proceedings. >>>
IETF Response:
The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the past few months.
>>> >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or >>> disagreement. >>>
IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses.
This memo is a response a request for proposals. No parameter allocations or changes are sought.
While the agreement, supplements, policies, and procedures around the IANA function have shown strong resiliency, the IETF will continue to work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements while maintaining availability of the IANA registries.
This section to be filled in by the IAB.
This document describes processes that have been developed by many members of the community over many years. The initial version of this document was developed collaboratively through both the IAB IANA Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular thanks go to Jari Arkko, John Klensin, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew Sullivan, Leslie Daigle, Marc Blanchet, Barry Leiba, Brian Carpenter, Greg Wood, John Curran, Milton Mueller, Alissa Cooper, Andrei Robachevsky, and Suzanne Woolf.
NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication.
Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10
(August 27, 2014)
The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multi-stakeholder community. The group will conduct itself transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA functions.
The group’s mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA functions are divided into three main categories: domain names, number resources, and other protocol parameters. The domain names category falls further into the country code and generic domain name sub-categories. While there is some overlap among all of these categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in parallel and be based in the respective communities.
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
The coordination group has four main tasks:
(i) Act as liaison to all interested parties, including the three
"operational communities" (i.e., those with direct operational
or service relationship with IANA; namely names, numbers,
protocol parameters). This task consists of:
a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities
b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities
affected by the IANA functions
(ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for
compatibility and interoperability
(iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition
(iv) Information sharing and public communication
Describing each in more detail:
(i) Liaison
a. Solicit proposals
The ICG expects a plan from the country code and generic name communities (possibly a joint one), a plan from the numbers community, and a plan from the protocol parameters community. Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status updates about the progress of his or her community in developing their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use registry).
While working on the development of their proposals, the operational communities are expected to address common requirements and issues relating to the transition, in as far as they affect their parts of the stewardship of IANA functions.
b. Solicit broader input
The ICG is open for input and feedback from all interested parties. While no set of formal requirements related to a transition proposal will be requested outside the operational communities, everyone’s input is welcome across all topics.
The ICG expects that all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the relevant community processes. Input received directly by the ICG may be referred to the relevant community discussion.
The ICG members chosen from a particular community are the official communication channel between the ICG and that community.
(ii) Assessment
When the group receives output from the communities it will discuss and assess their compatibility and interoperability with the proposals of the other communities. Each proposal should be submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for the proposal in the community, and provide an analysis that shows the proposal is in practice workable. The ICG should also compile the input it has received beyond the operational communities, and review the impacts of this input.
The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant communities) can address the issues. It is not in the role of the ICG to develop proposals or to select from among competing proposals.
(iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal
The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together. The whole also needs to include sufficient independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA function. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the proposal will be submitted to NTIA.
If changes are required to fix problems or to achieve broader support, the ICG will work with the operational communities in a manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above. Updates are subject to the same verification, review, and consensus processes as the initial proposals. If, in the ICG’s opinion, broad public support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the liaison phase.
(iv) Information sharing
The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is important that information about ongoing work is distributed early and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the detection of potential issues.
IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals
8 September 2014
Introduction
Under the IANA1 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
Charter,2 the ICG has four main tasks:
(i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA
stewardship transition, including the three “operational
communities” (i.e., those with direct operational or service
relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names,
numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of:
a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities
b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities
affected by the
IANA functions
(ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for
compatibility and interoperability (iii) Assemble a complete
proposal for the transition
(iv) Information sharing and public communication
This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG
Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the
non-operational communities.
0. Complete Formal Responses
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks
complete formal responses to this RFP through processes which are to
be convened by each of the “operational communities” of IANA (i.e.,
those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA
functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol
parameters).
Proposals should be supported by the broad range of stakeholders
participating in the proposal development process. Proposals should
be developed through a transparent process that is open to and
inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the
development of the proposal. In order to help the ICG maintain its
light coordination role, all interested and affected parties are
strongly encouraged to participate directly in these community
processes.
The following link provides information about ongoing community
processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to
be updated over time:
https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community
In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in
the agreement between NTIA and ICANN
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well
as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions
operator. SAC-067
[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf]
provides one description of the many different meanings of the term
"IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the documents
constituting the agreement itself.
Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in
developing their responses, so that all community members may fully
participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also
asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any
other parties with interest in their response.
A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to
reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to
produce a single plan for the transition of IANA
stewardship. Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those
elements that are considered to be truly essential to the transition
of their specific IANA functions. The target deadline for all
complete formal responses to this RFP is 15 January 2015.
I. Comments
While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through
processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that
all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the
relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide
comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular
proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG’s own
processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time
via email to icg-forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived
at <http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/>.
Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to
the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will
review comments received as time and resources permit and in
accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is,
comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until
those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may
establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in
the future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been
received.
Required Proposal Elements
The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that
contains the elements described in this section.
Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the
sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the
suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily
assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to
allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to
provide further information in explanatory sections, including
descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated
references to source documents of specific policies/practices. In
this way, the responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the
operational level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities.
In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should
cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions
Contract[3] when describing existing arrangements and proposing
changes to existing arrangements.
0. Proposal type
Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission
proposes to address:
[ ] Names [ ] Numbers [ ] Protocol Parameters
I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA Functions
This section should list the specific, distinct IANA functions your
community relies on. For each IANA function on which your community
relies, please provide the following:
o A description of the function;
o A description of the customer(s) of the function;
o What registries are involved in providing the function;
o A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your
IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer
communities.
If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity
beyond the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe
them here. In this case please also describe how the service or
activity should be addressed by the transition plan.
II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements
This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements
work, prior to the transition.
[3] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf
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
functions, then please describe these separately. For each source of
policy or policy development, please provide the following:
o Which IANA function (identified in Section I) are affected.
o A description of how policy is developed and established and who
is involved in policy development and establishment.
o A description of how disputes about policy are resolved.
o References to documentation of policy development and dispute
resolution processes.
B. Oversight and Accountability
This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is
conducted over the IANA functions operator’s provision of the
services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in
which the IANA functions operator 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 functions (identified in Section I) are affected. If the
policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify
which ones are affected and explain in what way.
o 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.
o 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.
o Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis
on which the mechanism rests.
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.
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 how long the proposals in Section III are expected to
take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur
before they are completed.
V. NTIA Requirements
Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must
meet the following five requirements:
o Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
o Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet
DNS;
o Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and
partners of the IANA functions;
o Maintain the openness of the Internet;
o 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.
VI. Community Process
This section should describe the process your community used for
developing this proposal, including:
o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine
consensus.
o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and
meeting proceedings.
o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community’s
proposal, including a description of areas of contention or
disagreement.