[Chapter-delegates] An initial proposal regarding IANA development

[Kathy Brown]

Colleagues,

The U.S. Department of Commerce National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) recently announced its intent to step back from its stewardship of the IANA functions. This is an important step for the global Internet.

NTIA has asked ICANN to convene a process to plan the transition of the IANA functions to a global multistakeholder model. This process presents an opportunity for stakeholders to consider, discuss and forge agreements on a number of important issues concerning roles, responsibilities and accountability mechanisms for the continued deployment and evolution of a global, robust and trusted Internet. In the weeks ahead, it is imperative to discuss these issues in an open and inclusive manner in a variety of organizations and forums.

An issue that has been given some attention by the technical partners administering the names, numbers and protocol parameter aspects of the IANA functions is the various roles on policy that these partners play with respect to the current administration of those functions. In the past months, there has been an ongoing dialogue among the I* individuals who currently lead the respective organizations around how these roles should be viewed going forward, after the US steps back from its current role.

The formulation below is offered as a starting point, in what I hope will be an active, robust discussion as we forge consensus on a true multistakeholder approach to the administration of the technical functions of the Internet.

We have set up a dedicated email list (ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org) for the Internet Society community, and invite you to subscribe:

https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

I encourage you to distribute this information within your communities as well.

We will look forward to your input and ideas, and will be working to actively engage you as developments and discussions progress.

Kathy Brown

-----

An initial proposal:

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.?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140322/2b85acd5/attachment.htm>