idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits27630/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 748 has weird spacing: '...cussion http:...' == Line 751 has weird spacing: '...st call http:...' -- The document date (November 14, 2014) is 2745 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'XXX' is mentioned on line 122, but not defined -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 1227 -- Duplicate reference: RFC2860, mentioned in 'RFC2860', was also mentioned in 'MOUSUP'. -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3777 (Obsoleted by RFC 7437) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6220 (Obsoleted by RFC 8722) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IANAPLAN E. Lear, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft R. Housley, Ed. 4 Intended status: Informational November 14, 2014 5 Expires: May 18, 2015 7 Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals 8 on the IANA protocol parameters registries 9 draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-03 11 Abstract 13 This document contains the a response to a request for proposals from 14 the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group regarding the 15 protocol parameters registries. It is meant to be included in an 16 aggregate proposal that also includes contributions covering domain 17 names and numbering resources that will be submitted from their 18 respective operational communities. The IETF community is invited to 19 comment and propose changes to this document. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2015. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 58 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 59 5. IAB Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 60 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 61 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 62 Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 63 A.1. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 64 A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 65 A.3. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 66 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination 67 Group (ICG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 68 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 69 Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 72 1. IETF Introduction 74 In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information 75 Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of 76 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. In that 77 announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 78 and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal for 79 transition. As part of that process, the IANA Stewardship Transition 80 Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. The charter for the ICG can be 81 found in Appendix B. They solicited proposals regarding post- 82 transition arrangements from the three functional areas in order to 83 put forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal 84 (RFP) can be found in Appendix C. 86 While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and 87 IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol 88 parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an 89 introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2 90 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal 91 response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a 92 questionnaire we have quoted questions with ">>> " and we have 93 prefaced answers to questions being asked with "IETF Response:". 94 Note that there are small changes to the content of the questions 95 asked in order to match the RFC format. 97 As if to demonstrate the last point, the following text was included 98 in a footnote in the original propsoal. 100 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 101 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/ 102 iana-functions-purchase-order] as well as any other functions 103 traditionally performed by the IANA functions operator. SAC-067 104 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] provides 105 one description of the many different meanings of the term "IANA" and 106 may be useful reading in addition to the documents constituting the 107 agreement itself. 109 2. The Formal RFP Response 111 The entire Request for Comments, including introduction, can be found 112 in Appendix C. 114 >>> 115 >>> 0. Proposal Type 116 >>> 117 >>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this 118 >>> submission proposes to address: 119 >>> 121 IETF Response: 122 [XXX] Protocol Parameters 124 This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also 125 represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF. 127 >>> 128 >>> I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 129 >>> 130 >>> This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services 131 >>> or activities your community relies on. For each IANA service 132 >>> or activity on which your community relies, please provide the 133 >>> following: 134 >>> A description of the service or activity. 135 >>> 137 IETF Response: 139 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. 140 These parameters are used by implementers, who are the IETF's primary 141 users of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure 142 consistent interpretation of these parameter values by independent 143 implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these 144 IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available 145 registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to any 146 associated documentation. The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameters 147 registries to store this information in a public location. The IETF 148 community presently accesses the protocol parameter registries via 149 references based on iana.org domain name, and makes use of the term 150 "IANA" in the protocol parameter registry processes[RFC5226]. 152 ICANN currently operates the .ARPA top level domain on behalf of the 153 Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This zone is used for certain 154 Internet infrastructure services that are delegated beneath it. We 155 consider .ARPA part of the protocol parameters registries for 156 purposes of this response. 158 >>> 159 >>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. 160 >>> 162 IETF Response: 164 The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the 165 protocol parameters registries for the IETF in conformance with all 166 relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of 167 Understanding[RFC2860] and associated supplemental agreements that 168 include service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF 169 and ICANN[MOUSUP]. 171 The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is 172 to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are 173 published in the RFC series. The IETF is responsible for the key 174 standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP, 175 DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few. 177 The IETF operates in an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The 178 processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series. 179 The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That 180 document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how 181 disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a 182 number of times, and those amendments are indicated in [RFC-INDEX]. 183 The standards process can be amended in the same manner that 184 standards are approved. That is, someone proposes a change by 185 submitting a temporary document known as an Internet-Draft, the 186 community discusses it, and if rough consensus can be found the 187 change is approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), 188 who also have day-to-day responsibility for declaring IETF consensus 189 on technical decisions, including those that affect the IANA protocol 190 parameters registries. Anyone may propose a change during a Last 191 Call, and anyone may participate in the community discussion. 193 >>> 194 >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or 195 >>> activity. 196 >>> 198 IETF Response: 200 The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work. 201 These also include the top-level registry for the entire IP address 202 space and some of its sub-registries, AS number space, and a number 203 of special use registries with regard to domain names. For more 204 detail please refer to the documentation in the "overlaps or 205 interdependencies" section. 207 Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service 208 that is provided to the IETF. 210 >>> 211 >>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 212 >>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 213 >>> communities 214 >>> 216 IETF Response: 218 In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in 219 some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple 220 organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between 221 organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully 222 delineated. There are, however, points of interaction between other 223 organizations, and a few cases where we may further define the scope 224 of a registry for technical purposes. This is the case with both 225 names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all 226 cases, the IETF coordinates with the appropriate organizations. 228 It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to 229 participate. Staff and participants from ICANN or the Regional 230 Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF activities. 232 o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with 233 regard to domain names. These registries require coordination 234 with ICANN as the policy authority for the DNS root, including 235 community groups that are responsible for ICANN policy on domain 236 names such as the GNSO and the ccNSO. There are already 237 mechanisms in place to perform this coordination, and the capacity 238 to modify them to meet new conditions as they might 239 arise.[RFC6761] 241 o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have 242 been and will be updates to that protocol. As we make changes we 243 will broadly consult the operational community about the impact of 244 those changes, as we have done in the past. 246 o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should 247 those requirements change, we will inform ICANN. 249 o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to 250 continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on 251 appropriate IP address allocation strategies. As and when that 252 happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done 253 in the past. 255 o The IETF is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP 256 address space and AS number space. Through the IANA protocol 257 parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address and 258 AS number ranges to the RIR system [RFC7020],[RFC7249]. Special 259 address allocation, such a multicast and anycast addresses, often 260 require coordination. Another example of IP addresses that are 261 not administered by the RIR system is Unique Local Addresses 262 (ULAs) [RFC4193], where local networks employ a prefix that is not 263 intended to be routed on the public Internet. New special address 264 allocations are added, from time to time, related to the evolution 265 of the standards. In all cases, these special assignments are 266 listed in the IANA protocol paramters registries. 268 o The IETF maintains sub-registries for special IPv4 and IPv6 269 assignments. These are specified in [RFC3307], [RFC5771], and 270 [RFC6890]. The IETF coordinates such assignments with the RIRs. 272 o IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and 273 service providers. A recent example is the extensions to BGP to 274 carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities 275 [RFC6793]. It is important to note that this change occurred out 276 of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment 277 between the RIRs and the IETF. 279 >>> II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 281 >>> 282 >>> This section should describe how existing IANA-related 283 >>> arrangements work, prior to the transition. 284 >>> 285 >>> A. Policy Sources 286 >>> 287 >>> 288 >>> This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy 289 >>> which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its 290 >>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there 291 >>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for 292 >>> different IANA activities, then please describe these 293 >>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development, 294 >>> please provide the following: 295 >>> 296 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 297 >>> affected. 298 >>> 300 IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries. 302 >>> 303 >>> A description of how policy is developed and established and 304 >>> who is involved in policy development and establishment. 305 >>> 307 IETF Response: 309 Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries 310 is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents 311 explains the model for how the registries are to be operated, how 312 policy is set, and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the 313 policies that specification writers may employ when they define new 314 protocol registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each 315 specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the 316 form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If 317 there is sufficient interest, a working group whose scope includes 318 the proposed work may choose to adopt it, the Internet Engineering 319 Steering Group may choose to create a working group, or an Area 320 Director may choose to sponsor the draft. In any case, anyone may 321 comment on the proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be 322 passed by the IESG unless it enjoys sufficient community support as 323 to indicate rough consensus [RFC7282]. In each case, a "Last Call" 324 is made so that there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or 325 process. Anyone may comment during a Last Call. 327 >>> 328 >>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 330 >>> 332 IETF Response: 334 Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working 335 group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any 336 action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict 337 resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area 338 Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an 339 appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that 340 the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way 341 to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the 342 Internet Society Board of Trustees. 344 >>> 345 >>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute 346 >>> resolution processes. 347 >>> 349 IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a 350 conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working 351 group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been 352 amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. Please also 353 see the references at the bottom of this document. 355 >>> 356 >>> B. Oversight and Accountability 357 >>> 358 >>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 359 >>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the 360 >>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 361 >>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for 362 >>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or 363 >>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the 364 >>> following as are applicable: 365 >>> 366 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 367 >>> affected. 368 >>> 370 IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries. 372 >>> 373 >>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are 374 >>> affected, identify which ones are affected. 376 >>> 378 IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters 379 registry are affected. 381 >>> 382 >>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight 383 >>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals 384 >>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities. 385 >>> 387 IETF Response: 389 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the 390 IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming 391 appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above, 392 management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general 393 architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must 394 approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA operator on 395 behalf of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing 396 liaison relationships with other orgnaizations on behalf of the IETF. 397 The IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850]. 399 The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating 400 Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777]. This 401 process provides for selection of active members of the community who 402 themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. Those candidates are 403 sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In 404 general, members are appointed for terms of two years. The IAB 405 selects its own chair. 407 The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameters registries of 408 the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s) 409 and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships 410 among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in 411 conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded 412 that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is 413 currently ICANN. 415 >>> 416 >>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting 417 >>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a 418 >>> description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator 419 >>> not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the 420 >>> extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and 421 >>> the terms under which the mechanism may change. 423 >>> 425 IETF Response: 427 A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF 428 community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in 429 [RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA 430 functions operator for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force 431 (IRTF), a peer organization to the IETF that focuses on research. 432 Each year a service level agreement is negotiated that supplements 433 the MoU. 435 Day-to-day administration and contract management is the 436 responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF 437 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. The 438 members of the IAOC are also the trustees of the IETF Trust, whose 439 main purpose is to hold certain intellectual property for the benefit 440 of the IETF as a whole. IAOC members are appointed by the Internet 441 Society Board of Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM 442 [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with the IANA functions operator to 443 establish annual IANA performance metrics and operational procedures, 444 and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to the MoU 445 each year [MOUSUP]. In accordance with these supplements, an annual 446 review is performed to ensure that protocol parameter requests are 447 being processed according to the established policies. 449 To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the 450 unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC 451 and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The 452 MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the 453 arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only 454 be undertaken after serious consideration. 456 >>> 457 >>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal 458 >>> basis on which the mechanism rests. 459 >>> 461 IETF Response 463 This mechanism is global in nature. The current agreement does not 464 specify a jurisdiction. 466 >>>III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 467 Arrangements 468 >>> 469 >>> This section should describe what changes your community is 470 >>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of 471 >>> the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or 472 >>> more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that 473 >>> replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed 474 >>> in Section II.B should be described for the new 475 >>> arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and 476 >>> justification for the new arrangements. 477 >>> 478 >>> If your community's proposal carries any implications for 479 >>> existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those 480 >>> implications should be described here. 481 >>> 482 >>> If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements 483 >>> listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that 484 >>> choice should be provided here. 485 >>> 487 IETF Response: 489 No major changes are required. Over the years since the creation of 490 ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of 491 agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms that already cover 492 what is needed. This system has worked well without any operational 493 involvement from the NTIA. Therefore, no new organizaitons or 494 structures are needed. 496 IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function 497 day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The 498 IETF community is quite satisfied with the current arrangement with 499 ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community 500 very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an appropriate service description 501 and requirements. 503 The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is 504 the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties 505 acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. 507 It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol 508 parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent 509 operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as 510 part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out 511 the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA 512 functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to 513 achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the 514 need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the 515 expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and 516 subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in 517 the use the protocol parameters registries or other resources 518 currently located at iana.org. 520 Discussions during IETF 89 in London led to the following guiding 521 principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter 522 registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is 523 not significant. 525 1. The IETF protocol parameters registries function has been and 526 continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community. 528 The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within 529 the Internet technical community are both important given how 530 critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF 531 protocols. 533 We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters 534 registries function needs to be strong enough that they can be 535 offered independently by the Internet technical community, without 536 the need for backing from external parties. And we believe we 537 largely are there already, although the system can be strengthened 538 further, and continuous improvements are being made. 540 2. The protocol parameters registries function requires openness, 541 transparency, and accountability. 543 Existing documentation of how the function is administered and 544 overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and 545 clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet 546 community can understand how the function works, and that the 547 processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee 548 the protocol parameters function accountable for following those 549 processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed 550 to making improvements here if necessary. 552 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters registries 553 function should respect existing Internet community agreements. 555 The protocol parameters registries function is working well. The 556 existing Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the 557 technical work to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers 558 Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the 559 Internet Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol 560 parameters registries function should be made using the IETF process 561 to update RFC 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: 562 evolution, not revolution. 564 4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service 565 by Internet registries. 567 The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not 568 just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and 569 other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined 570 protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards 571 development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/ 572 number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special- 573 use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. 574 The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other 575 parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation 576 of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work 577 together. 579 5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter 580 registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards 581 process and the use of resulting protocols. 583 RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters 584 registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF 585 protocols. The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to 586 define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry 587 operator role. This responsibility includes the selection and 588 management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as 589 management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines 590 for parameter allocation. 592 6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public 593 service. 595 Directions for the creation of protocol parameters registries and the 596 policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs. 597 The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and 598 they are published in a form that allows their contents to be 599 included in other works without further permission. These works 600 include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet 601 protocols and their associated documentation. 603 These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF 604 community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA 605 performance metrics and operational procedures. 607 >>> IV Transition Implications 609 >>> 610 >>> This section should describe what your community views as the 611 >>> implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 612 >>> implications may include some or all of the following, or other 613 >>> implications specific to your community: 614 >>> 615 >>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity 616 >>> of service and possible new service integration throughout 617 >>> the transition. 618 >>> o Risks to operational continuity 619 >>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the 620 >>> absence of the NTIA contract 621 >>> o Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 622 >>> workability of any new technical or operational methods 623 >>> proposed in this document and how they compare to established 624 >>> arrangements. 625 >>> 627 IETF Response: 629 No structural changes are required. The principles listed above will 630 guide IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF community as they work with 631 ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational 632 procedures, as they have in the past. 634 As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are 635 anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods 636 proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the 637 RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen 638 issues that might arise as a result of other changes. 640 What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of 641 supplemental agreement(s) discussed in the previous section of this 642 RFP. 644 >>> 645 >>> V. NTIA Requirements 646 >>> 647 >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal 648 >>> must meet the following five requirements: 649 >>> 650 >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;" 651 >>> 653 IETF Response: 655 Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities. The policies 656 and procedures are outlined in the documents we named above. In- 657 person attendance is not required for participation, and many people 658 participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF 659 meeting. An email account is the only requirement to participate. 660 The IETF makes use of both formal and informal lines of communication 661 to collaborate with other organizations within the multistakeholder 662 ecosystem. 664 >>> 665 >>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the 666 >>> Internet DNS;" 667 >>> 669 IETF Response: 671 The DNS relies on some of the IETF protocol parameters registries. 672 As the current IANA functions operator, ICANN performs its task very 673 well, usually exceeding the service level agreement metrics.[METRICS] 674 Security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS is best 675 protected by maintaining the current service in its current form. 677 >>> 678 >>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 679 >>> partners of the IANA services;" 680 >>> 682 IETF Response: 684 Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the 685 IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameters 686 registries. The current IANA protocol parameters registries system 687 is meeting the needs of these global customers. This proposal 688 continues to meet their needs by maintaining the existing processes 689 that have served them well in the past. 691 >>> 693 >>> 694 >>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet." 695 >>> 697 IETF Response: 699 This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows 700 anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including 701 the IANA protocol parameters registries policies. Further, an 702 implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol 703 specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameters 704 registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in 705 the IANA protocol registries will continue to be able to do so, as 706 specified by the existing policies for those registries. 708 >>> 709 >>> VI. Community Process 710 >>> 711 >>> This section should describe the process your community used for 712 >>> developing this proposal, including: 713 >>> 714 >>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to 715 >>> determine consensus. 716 >>> 718 IETF Response: 720 The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this 721 response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate 722 in the development of this response. An open mailing list 723 (ianaplan@ietf.org) was associated with the working group. In 724 addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader 725 community, and all input is welcome. 727 >>> 728 >>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 729 >>> meeting proceedings. 730 >>> 732 IETF Response: 734 The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open 735 discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the 736 past few months. 738 Creation of an open mailing list to discuss the transition: http://w 739 ww.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12978.html 741 Announcement of a public session on the transition: http:// 742 www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13028.html 744 Announcement by the IESG of the intent to form a working group: 745 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/ 746 msg13170.html 748 The working group discussion http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ 749 ianaplan/current/maillist.html 751 Working group last call http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ 752 ianaplan/current/msg00760.html 754 >>> 755 >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 756 >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 757 >>> disagreement. 758 >>> 760 IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses. 762 3. IANA Considerations 764 This memo is a response a request for proposals. No parameter 765 allocations or changes are sought. 767 4. Security Considerations 769 While the agreement, supplements, policies, and procedures around the 770 IANA function have shown strong resiliency, the IETF will continue to 771 work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements while 772 maintaining availability of the IANA registries. 774 5. IAB Note 776 This section to be filled in by the IAB. 778 6. Acknowledgments 780 This document describes processes that have been developed by many 781 members of the community over many years. The initial version of 782 this document was developed collaboratively through both the IAB IANA 783 Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular thanks go to 784 Jari Arkko, John Klensin, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew Sullivan, Leslie 785 Daigle, Marc Blanchet, Barry Leiba, Brian Carpenter, Greg Wood, John 786 Curran, Milton Mueller, Alissa Cooper, Andrei Robachevsky, Miles 787 Fidelman, Richard Hill, and Suzanne Woolf. 789 7. Informative References 791 [METRICS] , "Performance Standards Metrics Report", , 792 . 794 [MOUSUP] , "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of 795 Understanding between the IETF and ICANN)", , 796 . 798 [NTIA-Contract] 799 , "The NTIA Contract with ICANN", , . 803 [RFC-INDEX] 804 RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments", RFC 805 Index, August 2014. 807 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 808 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 810 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 811 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 813 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 814 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 815 May 2000. 817 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 818 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 819 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 821 [RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational 822 Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area 823 Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001. 825 [RFC3307] Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast 826 Addresses", RFC 3307, August 2002. 828 [RFC3595] Wijnen, B., "Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label", RFC 829 3595, September 2003. 831 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and 832 Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 833 Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. 835 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 836 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 837 4071, April 2005. 839 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 840 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 842 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 843 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 844 May 2008. 846 [RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for 847 IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, 848 March 2010. 850 [RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G., 851 Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and 852 Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators", 853 RFC 6220, April 2011. 855 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 856 RFC 6761, February 2013. 858 [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet 859 Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December 860 2012. 862 [RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St. 863 Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards", 864 RFC 6852, January 2013. 866 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, 867 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 868 6890, April 2013. 870 [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The 871 Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. 873 [RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May 874 2014. 876 [RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 877 7282, June 2014. 879 Appendix A. Changes 881 NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication. 883 A.1. Changes from -02 to -03 885 o Terminology consistency. 887 o Add IAB section. 889 o Changes based on WG discussion on what we prefer as part of the 890 transition regarding IPR. 892 o Add discussion about .ARPA domain. 894 o Elaboration of what registries are involved. 896 o Additional text around coordination with ICANN. 898 o Working groups can adopt items within their charters. 900 o IAB appointments generally last two years. 902 o Add mention of the Trust. 904 o Security Considerations update. 906 A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 908 o A better description special registries and BGP ASNs. 910 o Clarity on how the address space and ASNs are delegated. 912 o Many editorials corrected. 914 o Mention of the annual review as part of the SLAs. 916 o Change about how overlap is presented. 918 o A number of small wording changes based on feedback. 920 A.3. Changes from -00 to -01 922 o Front matter greatly reduced. 924 o Appendices with charter and RFP added. 926 o Jurisdiction text changed. 928 o Proposed changes include supplemental agreement(s) to address 929 jurisdiction, dispute resolution, and IPR, including names and 930 marks. 932 o Transition implications slightly modified to reference 933 supplemental agreement. 935 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG 936 Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10 938 (August 27, 2014) 940 The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one 941 deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National 942 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding 943 the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the 944 global multi-stakeholder community. The group will conduct itself 945 transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure 946 that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA 947 functions. 949 The group's mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal 950 among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA 951 functions are divided into three main categories: domain names, 952 number resources, and other protocol parameters. The domain names 953 category falls further into the country code and generic domain name 954 sub-categories. While there is some overlap among all of these 955 categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and 956 technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of 957 interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on 958 the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in 959 parallel and be based in the respective communities. 961 The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a 962 parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. 963 While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier 964 governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is 965 focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA 966 functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the 967 expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes 968 are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately 969 coordinate their work. 971 The coordination group has four main tasks: 972 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties, including the three 973 "operational communities" (i.e., those with direct operational 974 or service relationship with IANA; namely names, numbers, 975 protocol parameters). This task consists of: 976 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 977 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 978 affected by the IANA functions 979 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 980 compatibility and interoperability 981 (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition 982 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 983 Describing each in more detail: 985 (i) Liaison 986 a. Solicit proposals 988 The ICG expects a plan from the country code and generic name 989 communities (possibly a joint one), a plan from the numbers 990 community, and a plan from the protocol parameters community. 991 Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they 992 are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This 993 involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking 994 progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role 995 of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status 996 updates about the progress of his or her community in developing 997 their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a 998 transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use 999 registry). 1001 While working on the development of their proposals, the operational 1002 communities are expected to address common requirements and issues 1003 relating to the transition, in as far as they affect their parts of 1004 the stewardship of IANA functions. 1006 b. Solicit broader input 1008 The ICG is open for input and feedback from all interested parties. 1009 While no set of formal requirements related to a transition proposal 1010 will be requested outside the operational communities, everyone's 1011 input is welcome across all topics. 1013 The ICG expects that all interested parties get involved as early as 1014 possible in the relevant community processes. Input received 1015 directly by the ICG may be referred to the relevant community 1016 discussion. 1018 The ICG members chosen from a particular community are the official 1019 communication channel between the ICG and that community. 1021 (ii) Assessment 1023 When the group receives output from the communities it will discuss 1024 and assess their compatibility and interoperability with the 1025 proposals of the other communities. Each proposal should be 1026 submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for 1027 the proposal in the community, and provide an analysis that shows the 1028 proposal is in practice workable. The ICG should also compile the 1029 input it has received beyond the operational communities, and review 1030 the impacts of this input. 1032 The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component 1033 proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that 1034 back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant 1035 communities) can address the issues. It is not in the role of the 1036 ICG to develop proposals or to select from among competing proposals. 1038 (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal 1040 The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different 1041 components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, 1042 meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and 1043 that the whole fits together. The whole also needs to include 1044 sufficient independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA 1045 function. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that 1046 achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then 1047 put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period 1048 of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing 1049 supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these 1050 comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no 1051 modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the 1052 proposal will be submitted to NTIA. 1054 If changes are required to fix problems or to achieve broader 1055 support, the ICG will work with the operational communities in a 1056 manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above. Updates are 1057 subject to the same verification, review, and consensus processes as 1058 the initial proposals. If, in the ICG's opinion, broad public 1059 support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, 1060 the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the 1061 liaison phase. 1063 (iv) Information sharing 1065 The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information 1066 about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat 1067 maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under 1068 its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are 1069 announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As 1070 the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is 1071 important that information about ongoing work is distributed early 1072 and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the 1073 detection of potential issues. 1075 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for 1076 Proposals 1078 IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals 1079 8 September 2014 1081 Introduction 1083 Under the IANA1 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) 1084 Charter,2 the ICG has four main tasks: 1086 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA 1087 stewardship transition, including the three "operational 1088 communities" (i.e., those with direct operational or service 1089 relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names, 1090 numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of: 
 1092 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1093 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1094 affected by the
IANA functions 1096 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1097 compatibility and interoperability (iii) Assemble a complete 1098 proposal for the transition 1100 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1102 This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG 1103 Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the 1104 non-operational communities. 1106 0. Complete Formal Responses 1108 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks 1109 complete formal responses to this RFP through processes which are to 1110 be convened by each of the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., 1111 those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA 1112 functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol 1113 parameters). 1115 Proposals should be supported by the broad range of stakeholders 1116 participating in the proposal development process. Proposals should 1117 be developed through a transparent process that is open to and 1118 inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the 1119 development of the proposal. In order to help the ICG maintain its 1120 light coordination role, all interested and affected parties are 1121 strongly encouraged to participate directly in these community 1122 processes. 1124 The following link provides information about ongoing community 1125 processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to 1126 be updated over time: 1128 https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community 1130 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 1131 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN 1132 [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well 1133 as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions 1134 operator. SAC-067 1136 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] 1137 provides one description of the many different meanings of the term 1138 "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the documents 1139 constituting the agreement itself. 1141 Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in 1142 developing their responses, so that all community members may fully 1143 participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also 1144 asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any 1145 other parties with interest in their response. 1147 A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to 1148 reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to 1149 produce a single plan for the transition of IANA 1150 stewardship. Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those 1151 elements that are considered to be truly essential to the transition 1152 of their specific IANA functions. The target deadline for all 1153 complete formal responses to this RFP is 15 January 2015. 1155 I. Comments 1157 While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through 1158 processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that 1159 all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the 1160 relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide 1161 comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular 1162 proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own 1163 processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time 1164 via email to icg-forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived 1165 at . 1167 Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to 1168 the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will 1169 review comments received as time and resources permit and in 1170 accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is, 1171 comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until 1172 those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may 1173 establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in 1174 the future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been 1175 received. 1177 Required Proposal Elements 1179 The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that 1180 contains the elements described in this section. 1182 Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the 1183 sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the 1184 suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily 1185 assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to 1186 allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to 1187 provide further information in explanatory sections, including 1188 descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated 1189 references to source documents of specific policies/practices. In 1190 this way, the responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the 1191 operational level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities. 1193 In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should 1194 cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions 1195 Contract[3] when describing existing arrangements and proposing 1196 changes to existing arrangements. 1198 0. Proposal type 1200 Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission 1201 proposes to address: 1202 [ ] Names [ ] Numbers [ ] Protocol Parameters 1204 I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 1206 This section should list the specific, distinct IANA functions your 1207 community relies on. For each IANA function on which your community 1208 relies, please provide the following: 1210 o A description of the function; 1211 o A description of the customer(s) of the function; 1212 o What registries are involved in providing the function; 1213 o A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 1214 IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 1215 communities. 1217 If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity 1218 beyond the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe 1219 them here. In this case please also describe how the service or 1220 activity should be addressed by the transition plan. 1222 II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 1224 This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements 1225 work, prior to the transition. 1227 [3] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ 1228 publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf 1230 A. Policy Sources 1232 This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which 1233 must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of 1234 the services or activities described above. If there are distinct 1235 sources of policy or policy development for different IANA 1236 functions, then please describe these separately. For each source of 1237 policy or policy development, please provide the following: 1239 o Which IANA function (identified in Section I) are affected. 1240 o A description of how policy is developed and established and who 1241 is involved in policy development and establishment. 1242 o A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 1243 o References to documentation of policy development and dispute 1244 resolution processes. 1246 B. Oversight and Accountability 1248 This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 1249 conducted over the IANA functions operator's provision of the 1250 services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 1251 which the IANA functions operator is currently held accountable for 1252 the provision of those services. For each oversight or 1253 accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the following as 1254 are applicable: 1256 Which IANA functions (identified in Section I) are affected. If the 1257 policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify 1258 which ones are affected and explain in what way. 1260 o A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight or 1261 perform accountability functions, including how individuals are 1262 selected or removed from participation in those entities. 1263 o A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting scheme, 1264 auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the 1265 consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the 1266 standards established by the mechanism, the extent to which the 1267 output of the mechanism is transparent and the terms under which 1268 the mechanism may change. 1269 o Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis 1270 on which the mechanism rests. 1272 III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 1273 Arrangements 1275 This section should describe what changes your community is 1276 proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the 1277 transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more 1278 existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should 1279 be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should 1280 be described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide 1281 its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. 1283 If your community's proposal carries any implications for the 1284 interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements 1285 described in Section II.A, those implications should be described 1286 here. 1288 If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in 1289 Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should 1290 be provided here. 1292 IV. Transition Implications 1294 This section should describe what your community views as the 1295 implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 1296 implications may include some or all of the following, or other 1297 implications specific to your community: 1299 Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of 1300 service and possible new service integration throughout the 1301 transition. 1303 Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. 1304 Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence of the 1305 NTIA contract. Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 1306 workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in 1307 this document and how they compare to established arrangements. 1308 Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to 1309 take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur 1310 before they are completed. 1312 V. NTIA Requirements 1314 Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must 1315 meet the following five requirements: 1316 o Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 1317 o Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet 1318 DNS; 1319 o Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 1320 partners of the IANA functions; 1321 o Maintain the openness of the Internet; 1322 o The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led 1323 or an inter-governmental organization solution. 1325 This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these 1326 requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA 1327 functions. 1329 VI. Community Process 1330 This section should describe the process your community used for 1331 developing this proposal, including: 1332 o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine 1333 consensus. 1334 o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 1335 meeting proceedings. 1336 o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 1337 proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 1338 disagreement. 1340 Authors' Addresses 1342 Eliot Lear (editor) 1343 Richtistrasse 7 1344 Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304 1345 Switzerland 1347 Phone: +41 44 878 9200 1348 Email: lear@cisco.com 1350 Russ Housley (editor) 1351 918 Spring Noll Drive 1352 Herndon, VA 20170 1353 USA 1355 Email: housley@vigilsec.com