idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits28299/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-07.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 2 instances 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 791 has weird spacing: '...cussion http:...' == Line 798 has weird spacing: '...st call http:...' == Line 801 has weird spacing: '...meeting https...' == Line 804 has weird spacing: '...meeting https...' == Line 807 has weird spacing: '...rite-up http:...' == (1 more instance...) -- The document date (December 18, 2014) is 2711 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 1374 -- Duplicate reference: RFC2026, mentioned in 'RFC2026', was also mentioned in 'BCP9info'. -- Duplicate reference: RFC2860, mentioned in 'RFC2860', was also mentioned in 'MOUSUP'. ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3777 (Obsoleted by RFC 7437) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6220 (Obsoleted by RFC 8722) == Outdated reference: draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis has been published as RFC 8126 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2870 (Obsoleted by RFC 7720) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 5 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 December 18, 2014 5 Expires: June 21, 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-07 11 Abstract 13 The U.S. NTIA has solicited a request from ICANN to propose how the 14 NTIA should end its oversight of the IANA functions. After broad 15 consultations, ICANN has in turn created the IANA Stewardship 16 Transition Coordination Group. That group solicited proposals for 17 thre three major IANA functions: names, numbers, and protocol 18 parameters. This document contains the IETF response to that 19 solicitation for protocol parameters. It is meant to be included in 20 an aggregate response to the NTIA alongside those for names and 21 numbering resources that are being developed by their respective 22 operational communities. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 21, 2015. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 62 5. IAB Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 63 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 64 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 65 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 66 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 67 Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 68 A.1. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 69 A.2. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 70 A.3. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 71 A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 72 A.5. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 73 A.6. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 74 A.7. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 75 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination 76 Group (ICG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 77 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 78 Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 79 Appendix D. Completed ICG response for the NTIA . . . . . . . . 33 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 82 1. IETF Introduction 84 In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information 85 Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of 86 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions [NTIA-Announce]. 87 In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for 88 Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver 89 a proposal for transition. As part of that process, the IANA 90 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. The 91 charter for the ICG can be found in Appendix B. The ICG in turn 92 solicited proposals regarding post-transition arrangements from the 93 names, numbers, and protocol parameters communities in order to put 94 forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal (RFP) 95 can be found in Appendix C. 97 While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and 98 IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol 99 parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an 100 introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2 101 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal 102 response by the IETF. We have quoted questions from that 103 questionnaire with ">>> ", and we have prefaced answers to questions 104 being asked with "IETF Response:". Note that there are small changes 105 to the questions asked in order to match the RFC format. 107 We note that the following text was stated as footnote in the 108 original RFP: 110 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently 111 specified in the agreement between NTIA and ICANN 112 [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as 113 well as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA 114 functions operator. SAC-067 115 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] 116 provides one description of the many different meanings of the 117 term "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the 118 documents constituting the agreement itself. 120 2. The Formal RFP Response 122 The entire Request for Proposals, including introduction, can be 123 found in Appendix C. 125 >>> 126 >>> 0. Proposal Type 127 >>> 128 >>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this 129 >>> submission proposes to address: 130 >>> 132 IETF Response: 133 Protocol Parameters 135 This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also 136 represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF. 138 >>> 139 >>> I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 140 >>> 141 >>> This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services 142 >>> or activities your community relies on. For each IANA service 143 >>> or activity on which your community relies, please provide the 144 >>> following: 145 >>> A description of the service or activity. 146 >>> 148 IETF Response: 150 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. 151 These parameters are used by implementers, who are the primary users 152 of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure consistent 153 interpretation of these parameter values by independent 154 implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these 155 IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available 156 registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to any 157 associated documentation. The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameters 158 registries to store this information in a public location. The IETF 159 community presently accesses the protocol parameter registries via 160 references based on the iana.org domain name, and makes use of the 161 term "IANA" in the protocol parameter registry processes [RFC5226]. 163 ICANN currently operates the .ARPA top level domain on behalf of the 164 Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This zone is used for certain 165 Internet infrastructure services that are delegated beneath it. The 166 IETF considers .ARPA part of the protocol parameters registries for 167 purposes of this response. 169 >>> 170 >>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. 171 >>> 173 IETF Response: 175 The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the 176 protocol parameters registries for the IETF in conformance with all 177 relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of 178 Understanding [RFC2860] and associated supplemental agreements that 179 include service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF 180 and ICANN [MOUSUP]. 182 The IETF is a global organization that produces voluntary standards, 183 whose mission is to produce high quality, relevant technical and 184 engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and 185 manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better 186 [RFC3935]. IETF standards are published in the RFC series. The IETF 187 is responsible for the key standards that are used on the Internet 188 today, including IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few. 190 The IETF operates in an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The 191 processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series. 192 The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That 193 document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how 194 disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a 195 number of times [BCP9info]. The standards process can be amended in 196 the same manner that standards are approved. That is, someone 197 proposes a change by submitting a temporary document known as an 198 Internet-Draft, the community discusses it, and if rough consensus 199 can be found the change is approved by the Internet Engineering 200 Steering Group (IESG), who also have day-to-day responsibility for 201 declaring IETF consensus on technical decisions, including those that 202 affect the IANA protocol parameters registries. Anyone may propose a 203 change during a Last Call, and anyone may participate in the 204 community discussion. 206 >>> 207 >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or 208 >>> activity. 209 >>> 211 IETF Response: 213 The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work. 214 These also include the top-level registry for the entire IP address 215 space and some of its sub-registries, autonomous system number space, 216 and a number of special use registries with regard to domain names. 217 For more detail please refer to the documentation in the "overlaps or 218 interdependencies" section. 220 Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service 221 that is provided to the IETF. 223 >>> 224 >>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 225 >>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 226 >>> communities. 227 >>> 228 IETF Response: 230 In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in 231 some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple 232 organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between 233 organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully 234 delineated. There are, however, points of interaction between other 235 organizations, and a few cases where the IETF may further define the 236 scope of a registry for technical purposes. This is the case with 237 both names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all 238 cases, the IETF coordinates with the appropriate organizations. 240 It is important to note that the IETF does not have formal 241 membership. The term "the IETF" includes anyone who wishes to 242 participate in the IETF, and IETF participants may also be members of 243 other communities. Staff and participants from ICANN and the 244 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF 245 activities. 247 o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with 248 regard to domain names. These registries require coordination 249 with ICANN as the policy authority for the DNS root, including 250 community groups that are responsible for ICANN policy on domain 251 names such as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and 252 the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO). There are 253 already mechanisms in place to perform this coordination, and the 254 capacity to modify those mechanisms to meet new conditions as they 255 might arise. [RFC6761] 257 o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have 258 been and will be updates to that protocol. As we make changes we 259 will broadly consult the operational community about the impact of 260 those changes, as we have done in the past. 262 o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. 263 [RFC2870] Those requirements are currently under review, in 264 consultations with the root server community. 266 o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to 267 continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on 268 appropriate IP address allocation strategies. If and when that 269 happens, the IETF will consult and coordinate with the RIR 270 community, as we have done in the past. 272 o The IETF is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP 273 address space and AS number space. Through the IANA protocol 274 parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address and 275 AS number ranges to the RIRs [RFC7020],[RFC7249]. Special address 276 allocation, such as multicast and anycast addresses, often require 277 coordination. Another example of IP addresses that are not 278 administered by the RIR system is Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) 279 [RFC4193], where local networks employ a prefix that is not 280 intended to be routed on the public Internet. New special address 281 allocations are added, from time to time, related to the evolution 282 of the standards. In all cases, these special assignments are 283 listed in the IANA protocol paramters registries. 285 o The IETF maintains sub-registries for special IPv4 and IPv6 286 assignments. These are specified in [RFC3307], [RFC5771], and 287 [RFC6890]. The IETF coordinates such assignments with the RIRs. 289 o Changes to IETF standards may have impact on operations of RIRs 290 and service providers. A recent example is the extensions to BGP 291 to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities 292 [RFC6793]. It is important to note that this change occurred out 293 of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment 294 between the RIRs and the IETF. 296 >>> II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 298 >>> 299 >>> This section should describe how existing IANA-related 300 >>> arrangements work, prior to the transition. 301 >>> 302 >>> A. Policy Sources 303 >>> 304 >>> 305 >>> This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy 306 >>> which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its 307 >>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there 308 >>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for 309 >>> different IANA activities, then please describe these 310 >>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development, 311 >>> please provide the following: 312 >>> 313 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 314 >>> affected. 315 >>> 317 IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries. 319 >>> 320 >>> A description of how policy is developed and established and 321 >>> who is involved in policy development and establishment. 322 >>> 324 IETF Response: 326 Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries 327 is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents 328 explains the model for how the registries are to be operated, how 329 policy is set, and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the 330 policies that specification writers may employ when they define new 331 protocol registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each 332 specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the 333 form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If 334 there is sufficient interest, a working group whose scope includes 335 the proposed work may choose to adopt it, the IESG may choose to 336 create a working group, or an Area Director may choose to sponsor the 337 draft. In any case, anyone may comment on the proposal as it 338 progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG unless it enjoys 339 sufficient community support as to indicate rough consensus 340 [RFC7282]. In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that there is 341 notice of any proposed change to a policy or process. Anyone may 342 comment during a Last Call. For example, this process is currently 343 being used to update RFC 5226 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]. 345 >>> 346 >>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 347 >>> 349 IETF Response: 351 Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working 352 group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any 353 action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict 354 resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area 355 Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an 356 appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that 357 the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way 358 to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the 359 Internet Society Board of Trustees. 361 >>> 362 >>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute 363 >>> resolution processes. 364 >>> 366 IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a 367 conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working 368 group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been 369 amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. 371 >>> 372 >>> B. Oversight and Accountability 373 >>> 374 >>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 375 >>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the 376 >>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 377 >>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for 378 >>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or 379 >>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the 380 >>> following as are applicable: 381 >>> 382 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 383 >>> affected. 384 >>> 386 IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries. 388 >>> 389 >>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are 390 >>> affected, identify which ones are affected. 391 >>> 393 IETF Response: All policy sources relating to the protocol parameters 394 registry are affected. 396 >>> 397 >>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight 398 >>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals 399 >>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities. 400 >>> 402 IETF Response: 404 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the 405 IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming 406 appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above, 407 management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general 408 architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must 409 approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA operator on 410 behalf of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing 411 liaison relationships with other organizations on behalf of the IETF. 412 The IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850]. 414 The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating 415 Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777] and its 416 updates. This process provides for selection of active members of 417 the community who themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. The 418 active members are chosen randomly from volunteers with a history of 419 participation in the IETF, with limits regarding having too many 420 active members with the same affiliation. The selection of the 421 active members is performed in a manner that makes it possible for 422 anyone to verify that the correct procedure was followed. The slate 423 of candidates selected by the active members are sent to the Internet 424 Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In general, members are 425 appointed for terms of two years. The IAB selects its own chair. 427 The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameters registries of 428 the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s) 429 and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships 430 among protocols call for it, registries are at times operated by, or 431 in conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has 432 concluded that special treatment is needed, the operator for 433 registries is currently ICANN. 435 >>> 436 >>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting 437 >>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a 438 >>> description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator 439 >>> not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the 440 >>> extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and 441 >>> the terms under which the mechanism may change. 442 >>> 444 IETF Response: 446 A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF 447 community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in 448 [RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA 449 functions operator for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force 450 (IRTF), a peer organization to the IETF that focuses on 451 research.[RFC2014] Each year a service level agreement is negotiated 452 that supplements the MoU. 454 Day-to-day administration and contract management is the 455 responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF 456 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. The 457 members of the IAOC are also the trustees of the IETF Trust, whose 458 main purpose is to hold certain intellectual property for the benefit 459 of the IETF as a whole. IAOC members are appointed by the Internet 460 Society Board of Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM 461 [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with the IANA functions operator to 462 establish annual IANA performance metrics [METRICS] and operational 463 procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to 464 the MoU each year [MOUSUP]. Starting from 2014, in accordance with 465 these supplements, an annual audit is performed to ensure that 466 protocol parameter requests are being processed according to the 467 established policies. The conclusions of this audit will be 468 available for anyone in the world to review. 470 To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues between 471 the IETF and the current IANA functions operator. [RFC2860] 472 specifies that should a technical dispute arise, "the IANA shall seek 473 and follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG." In the 474 unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC 475 and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The 476 MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the 477 arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only 478 be undertaken after serious consideration. In that case a new IANA 479 functions operator would be selected, and a new agreement with that 480 operator would be established. 482 >>> 483 >>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal 484 >>> basis on which the mechanism rests. 485 >>> 487 IETF Response 489 This mechanism is global in nature. The current agreement does not 490 specify a jurisdiction. 492 >>>III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 493 Arrangements 495 >>> 496 >>> This section should describe what changes your community is 497 >>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of 498 >>> the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or 499 >>> more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that 500 >>> replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed 501 >>> in Section II.B should be described for the new 502 >>> arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and 503 >>> justification for the new arrangements. 504 >>> 505 >>> If your community's proposal carries any implications for 506 >>> existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those 507 >>> implications should be described here. 508 >>> 509 >>> If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements 510 >>> listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that 511 >>> choice should be provided here. 512 >>> 514 IETF Response: 516 No new organizations or structures are required. Over the years 517 since the creation of ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together 518 created a system of agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms 519 that already cover what is needed. This system has worked well 520 without any operational involvement from the NTIA. 522 IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function 523 day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The 524 IETF community is very satisfied with the current arrangement with 525 ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community 526 very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an appropriate service description 527 and requirements. 529 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements 530 may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations 531 are met. Those expectations are the following: 533 o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It 534 is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties 535 acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. 537 o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol 538 parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent 539 operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as 540 part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry 541 out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the 542 current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA 543 [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent 544 operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of 545 a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that 546 ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to 547 minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries 548 or other resources currently located at iana.org. 550 In developing our response we have been mindful of the following 551 points that the IETF community has discussed over the last year 552 [ProtoParamEvo14]. Discussions during the IETF 89 meeting in London 553 led to the following guiding principles for IAB efforts that impact 554 IANA protocol parameter registries. These principles must be taken 555 together; their order is not significant. 557 1. The IETF protocol parameters registries function has been and 558 continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community. 560 The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within 561 the Internet technical community are both important given how 562 critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF 563 protocols. 565 We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters 566 registries function need to be strong enough that they can be offered 567 independently by the Internet technical community, without the need 568 for backing from external parties. And we believe we largely are 569 there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and 570 continuous improvements are being made. 572 2. The protocol parameters registries function requires openness, 573 transparency, and accountability. 575 Existing documentation of how the function is administered and 576 overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and 577 clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet 578 community can understand how the function works, and that the 579 processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee 580 the protocol parameters function accountable for following those 581 processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed 582 to making improvements here if necessary. 584 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters registries 585 function should respect existing Internet community agreements. 587 The protocol parameters registries function is working well. The 588 existing Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the 589 technical work to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers 590 Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the 591 Internet Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol 592 parameters registries function should be made using the IETF process 593 to update RFC 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: 594 evolution, not revolution. 596 4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service 597 by Internet registries. 599 The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not 600 just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and 601 other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined 602 protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards 603 development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/ 604 number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special- 605 use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. 606 The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other 607 parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation 608 of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work 609 together. 611 5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter 612 registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards 613 process and the use of resulting protocols. 615 RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters 616 registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF 617 protocols. The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to 618 define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry 619 operator role. This responsibility includes the selection and 620 management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as 621 management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines 622 for parameter allocation. 624 6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public 625 service. 627 Directions for the creation of protocol parameters registries and the 628 policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs. 629 The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and 630 they are published in a form that allows their contents to be 631 included in other works without further permission. These works 632 include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet 633 protocols and their associated documentation. 635 These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF 636 community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA 637 performance metrics and operational procedures. 639 >>> IV Transition Implications 640 >>> 641 >>> This section should describe what your community views as the 642 >>> implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 643 >>> implications may include some or all of the following, or other 644 >>> implications specific to your community: 645 >>> 646 >>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity 647 >>> of service and possible new service integration throughout 648 >>> the transition. 649 >>> o Risks to operational continuity 650 >>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the 651 >>> absence of the NTIA contract 652 >>> o Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 653 >>> workability of any new technical or operational methods 654 >>> proposed in this document and how they compare to established 655 >>> arrangements. 656 >>> 658 IETF Response: 660 No structural changes are required for the handling of protocol 661 parameters. The principles listed above will guide IAB, IAOC, and 662 the rest of the IETF community as they work with ICANN to establish 663 future IANA performance metrics and operational procedures, as they 664 have in the past. 666 As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are 667 anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods 668 proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the 669 RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen 670 issues that might arise as a result of other changes. 672 What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any 673 supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements 674 outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP. 676 >>> 677 >>> V. NTIA Requirements 678 >>> 679 >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal 680 >>> must meet the following five requirements: 681 >>> 682 >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;" 683 >>> 685 IETF Response: 687 Because the IETF is open to everyone, participation is open to all 688 stakeholders. IETF processes outlined in Section I were used to 689 develop this proposal. Those same processes have been and shall be 690 used to amend governance of the protocol parameters function. As 691 mentioned previously, anyone may propose amendments to those 692 processes, and anyone may take part in the decision process. 694 >>> 695 >>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the 696 >>> Internet DNS;" 697 >>> 699 IETF Response: 701 No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security, 702 stability, and resiliency of the DNS. 704 >>> 705 >>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 706 >>> partners of the IANA services;" 707 >>> 709 IETF Response: 711 Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the 712 IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameters 713 registries. The current IANA protocol parameters registries system 714 is meeting the needs of these global customers. This proposal 715 continues to meet their needs by maintaining the existing processes 716 that have served them well in the past. 718 >>> 720 >>> 721 >>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet." 722 >>> 724 IETF Response: 726 This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows 727 anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including 728 the IANA protocol parameters registries policies. Further, an 729 implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol 730 specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameters 731 registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in 732 the IANA protocol registries will continue to have their requests 733 satisfied, as specified by the existing policies for those 734 registries. 736 >>> 737 >>> "The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a 738 >>> government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution." 739 >>> 741 Policy oversight is performed by the IAB, which is neither a 742 government-led or an intergovernmental organization. 744 >>> 745 >>> VI. Community Process 746 >>> 747 >>> This section should describe the process your community used for 748 >>> developing this proposal, including: 749 >>> 750 >>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to 751 >>> determine consensus. 752 >>> 754 IETF Response: 756 The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this 757 response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate 758 in the development of this response. An open mailing list 759 (ianaplan@ietf.org) has been associated with the working group. In 760 addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader 761 community, and all input has been welcome. Normal IETF procedures 762 [RFC2026] [RFC2418] were used to determine rough consensus. The 763 chairs of the working group reviewed open issues and, after an 764 internal working group last call, determined that all had been 765 satisfactorily addressed, and subsequently the IESG did a formal 766 IETF-wide Last Call followed by a formal review and determined that 767 the document had rough consensus. 769 >>> 770 >>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 771 >>> meeting proceedings. 772 >>> 774 IETF Response: 776 The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open 777 discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the 778 past few months. 780 Creation of an open mailing list to discuss the transition: http://m 781 ailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ 782 Ztd2ed9U04qSxI-k9-Oj80jJLXc 784 Announcement of a public session on the transition: http://mailarchi 785 ve.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/M5zVmFFvTbtgVyMB_fjUSW4rJ0c 787 Announcement by the IESG of the intent to form a working group: 788 http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ 789 QsvU9qX98G2KqB18jy6UfhwKjXk 791 The working group discussion http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ 792 ianaplan/current/maillist.html 794 2014-10-06 Interim Meeting Agenda, Minutes, and presentations 795 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/10/06/ianaplan/ 796 proceedings.html 798 Working group last call http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ 799 ianaplan/EGF9rfJxn5QpQnRXmS2QxYKYR8k 801 Agenda from IETF 91 IANAPLAN WG meeting https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ 802 ianaplan/agenda 804 Minutes of IETF 91 IANAPLAN WG meeting https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ 805 ianaplan/minutes 807 Shepherd write-up http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- 808 ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/ 810 IETF last call http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ 811 i5rx6PfjJCRax3Lu4qZ_38P8wBg 813 >>> 814 >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 815 >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 816 >>> disagreement. 817 >>> 819 IETF Response: 821 This document has attained rough consensus of the IETF working group 822 and of the IETF community as a whole, as judged by the IESG in 823 accordance with [RFC2026]. Several suggestions were raised that did 824 not enjoy sufficient support to be included. Specifically: 826 o A suggestion for a stronger statement over what terms the IAOC 827 should negotiate. 829 o A suggestion that "iana.org" and other associated marks be 830 transferred to the IETF trust. 832 o A suggestion that IAOC consider some form of arbitration. 834 At the end, three individuals in the community made clear that they 835 did not support the results, while many others did. The chairs 836 concluded that rough consensus existed in the working group. 838 During IETF last call, additional people voiced support for the 839 group, and no additional people raised objections. 841 3. IANA Considerations 843 This memo is a response to a request for proposals. No parameter 844 allocations or changes are sought. 846 4. Security Considerations 848 While the agreement, supplements, policies, and procedures around the 849 IANA function have shown strong resiliency, the IETF will continue to 850 work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements while 851 maintaining availability of the IANA registries. 853 5. IAB Note 855 This section to be filled in by the IAB. 857 6. Acknowledgments 859 This document describes processes that have been developed by many 860 members of the community over many years. The initial version of 861 this document was developed collaboratively through both the IAB IANA 862 Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular thanks go to 863 Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, John 864 Curran, Leslie Daigle, Heather Flanagan, Christer Holmberg, John 865 Klensin, Barry Leiba, Milton Mueller, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew 866 Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Greg Wood, and Suzanne Woolf. 868 7. References 869 7.1. Normative References 871 [BCP9info] 872 , "Information on "The Internet Standards Process -- 873 Revision 3" ", , . 875 [METRICS] , "Performance Standards Metrics Report", , 876 . 878 [MOUSUP] , "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of 879 Understanding between the IETF and ICANN)", , 880 . 882 [NTIA-Announce] 883 , "NTIA Announcement of Intent to Transition Key Internet 884 Domain Name Functions", March 2014, . 888 [NTIA-Contract] 889 , "The NTIA Contract with ICANN", , . 893 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 894 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 896 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 897 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 899 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 900 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 901 May 2000. 903 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 904 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 905 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 907 [RFC3307] Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast 908 Addresses", RFC 3307, August 2002. 910 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and 911 Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 912 Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. 914 [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", BCP 915 95, RFC 3935, October 2004. 917 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 918 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 919 4071, April 2005. 921 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 922 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 923 May 2008. 925 [RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for 926 IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, 927 March 2010. 929 [RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G., 930 Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and 931 Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators", 932 RFC 6220, April 2011. 934 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 935 RFC 6761, February 2013. 937 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, 938 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 939 6890, April 2013. 941 [RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 942 7282, June 2014. 944 7.2. Informative References 946 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis] 947 Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 948 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft- 949 leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 (work in progress), November 950 2014. 952 [ProtoParamEvo14] 953 , "IAB statement on Guiding the Evolution of the IANA 954 Protocol Parameter Registries ", March 2014, . 958 [RFC-INDEX] 959 RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments", RFC 960 Index, August 2014. 962 [RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines 963 and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996. 965 [RFC2870] Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M., and R. Plzak, "Root 966 Name Server Operational Requirements", BCP 40, RFC 2870, 967 June 2000. 969 [RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational 970 Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area 971 Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001. 973 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 974 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 976 [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet 977 Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December 978 2012. 980 [RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St. 981 Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards", 982 RFC 6852, January 2013. 984 [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The 985 Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. 987 [RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May 988 2014. 990 Appendix A. Changes 992 NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication. 994 A.1. Changes from -06 to -07 996 o Merge "No new changes are needed" with "No new organizations or 997 structures are required". Fewer words to say the same thing. 999 o consult to consult and coordinate. 1001 o RFC Editor comments. 1003 o Edits resulting from Security Area review by Sean Turner. 1005 o Edits resulting from AD comments. 1007 A.2. Changes from -05 to -06 1009 o Inclusion of agreed substantial comments from the AD. 1011 o Editorial changes. 1013 A.3. Changes from -04 to -05 1015 o Change to simpler text for answer about stability and security. 1017 o Mention of RFC 5226bis. 1019 A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 1021 o Additional text regarding what is needed in Section III. 1023 o Appropriate language modifications in section IV to match the 1024 above changes in III. 1026 o Acknowledgments edits. 1028 A.5. Changes from -02 to -03 1030 o Terminology consistency. 1032 o Add IAB section. 1034 o Changes based on WG discussion on what we prefer as part of the 1035 transition regarding IPR. 1037 o Add discussion about .ARPA domain. 1039 o Elaboration of what registries are involved. 1041 o Additional text around coordination with ICANN. 1043 o Working groups can adopt items within their charters. 1045 o IAB appointments generally last two years. 1047 o Add mention of the Trust. 1049 o Security Considerations update. 1051 A.6. Changes from -01 to -02 1053 o A better description special registries and BGP ASNs. 1055 o Clarity on how the address space and ASNs are delegated. 1057 o Many editorials corrected. 1059 o Mention of the annual review as part of the SLAs. 1061 o Change about how overlap is presented. 1063 o A number of small wording changes based on feedback. 1065 A.7. Changes from -00 to -01 1067 o Front matter greatly reduced. 1069 o Appendices with charter and RFP added. 1071 o Jurisdiction text changed. 1073 o Proposed changes include supplemental agreement(s) to address 1074 jurisdiction, dispute resolution, and IPR, including names and 1075 marks. 1077 o Transition implications slightly modified to reference 1078 supplemental agreement. 1080 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG 1082 Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10 1084 (August 27, 2014) 1086 The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one 1087 deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National 1088 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding 1089 the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the 1090 global multi-stakeholder community. The group will conduct itself 1091 transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure 1092 that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA 1093 functions. 1095 The group's mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal 1096 among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA 1097 functions are divided into three main categories: domain names, 1098 number resources, and other protocol parameters. The domain names 1099 category falls further into the country code and generic domain name 1100 sub-categories. While there is some overlap among all of these 1101 categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and 1102 technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of 1103 interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on 1104 the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in 1105 parallel and be based in the respective communities. 1107 The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a 1108 parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. 1110 While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier 1111 governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is 1112 focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA 1113 functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the 1114 expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes 1115 are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately 1116 coordinate their work. 1118 The coordination group has four main tasks: 1119 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties, including the three 1120 "operational communities" (i.e., those with direct operational 1121 or service relationship with IANA; namely names, numbers, 1122 protocol parameters). This task consists of: 1123 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1124 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1125 affected by the IANA functions 1126 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1127 compatibility and interoperability 1128 (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition 1129 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1130 Describing each in more detail: 1131 (i) Liaison 1132 a. Solicit proposals 1134 The ICG expects a plan from the country code and generic name 1135 communities (possibly a joint one), a plan from the numbers 1136 community, and a plan from the protocol parameters community. 1137 Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they 1138 are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This 1139 involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking 1140 progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role 1141 of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status 1142 updates about the progress of his or her community in developing 1143 their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a 1144 transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use 1145 registry). 1147 While working on the development of their proposals, the operational 1148 communities are expected to address common requirements and issues 1149 relating to the transition, in as far as they affect their parts of 1150 the stewardship of IANA functions. 1152 b. Solicit broader input 1153 The ICG is open for input and feedback from all interested parties. 1154 While no set of formal requirements related to a transition proposal 1155 will be requested outside the operational communities, everyone's 1156 input is welcome across all topics. 1158 The ICG expects that all interested parties get involved as early as 1159 possible in the relevant community processes. Input received 1160 directly by the ICG may be referred to the relevant community 1161 discussion. 1163 The ICG members chosen from a particular community are the official 1164 communication channel between the ICG and that community. 1166 (ii) Assessment 1168 When the group receives output from the communities it will discuss 1169 and assess their compatibility and interoperability with the 1170 proposals of the other communities. Each proposal should be 1171 submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for 1172 the proposal in the community, and provide an analysis that shows the 1173 proposal is in practice workable. The ICG should also compile the 1174 input it has received beyond the operational communities, and review 1175 the impacts of this input. 1177 The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component 1178 proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that 1179 back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant 1180 communities) can address the issues. It is not in the role of the 1181 ICG to develop proposals or to select from among competing proposals. 1183 (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal 1185 The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different 1186 components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, 1187 meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and 1188 that the whole fits together. The whole also needs to include 1189 sufficient independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA 1190 function. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that 1191 achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then 1192 put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period 1193 of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing 1194 supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these 1195 comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no 1196 modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the 1197 proposal will be submitted to NTIA. 1199 If changes are required to fix problems or to achieve broader 1200 support, the ICG will work with the operational communities in a 1201 manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above. Updates are 1202 subject to the same verification, review, and consensus processes as 1203 the initial proposals. If, in the ICG's opinion, broad public 1204 support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, 1205 the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the 1206 liaison phase. 1208 (iv) Information sharing 1210 The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information 1211 about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat 1212 maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under 1213 its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are 1214 announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As 1215 the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is 1216 important that information about ongoing work is distributed early 1217 and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the 1218 detection of potential issues. 1220 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for 1221 Proposals 1223 IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals 1225 8 September 2014 1227 Introduction 1229 Under the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) 1230 Charter, the ICG has four main tasks: 1232 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA 1233 stewardship transition, including the three "operational 1234 communities" (i.e., those with direct operational or service 1235 relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names, 1236 numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of: 
 1238 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1239 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1240 affected by the
IANA functions 1242 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1243 compatibility and interoperability 1245 (iii) Assemble a complete 1246 proposal for the transition 1248 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1249 This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG 1250 Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the 1251 non-operational communities. 1253 0. Complete Formal Responses 1255 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks 1256 complete formal responses to this RFP through processes which are to 1257 be convened by each of the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., 1258 those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA 1259 functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol 1260 parameters). 1262 Proposals should be supported by the broad range of stakeholders 1263 participating in the proposal development process. Proposals should 1264 be developed through a transparent process that is open to and 1265 inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the 1266 development of the proposal. In order to help the ICG maintain its 1267 light coordination role, all interested and affected parties are 1268 strongly encouraged to participate directly in these community 1269 processes. 1271 The following link provides information about ongoing community 1272 processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to 1273 be updated over time: 1275 https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community 1277 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 1278 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN 1279 [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well 1280 as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions 1281 operator. SAC-067 1283 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] 1284 provides one description of the many different meanings of the term 1285 "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the documents 1286 constituting the agreement itself. 1288 Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in 1289 developing their responses, so that all community members may fully 1290 participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also 1291 asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any 1292 other parties with interest in their response. 1294 A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to 1295 reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to 1296 produce a single plan for the transition of IANA 1297 stewardship. Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those 1298 elements that are considered to be truly essential to the transition 1299 of their specific IANA functions. The target deadline for all 1300 complete formal responses to this RFP is 15 January 2015. 1302 I. Comments 1304 While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through 1305 processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that 1306 all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the 1307 relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide 1308 comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular 1309 proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own 1310 processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time 1311 via email to icg-forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived 1312 at . 1314 Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to 1315 the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will 1316 review comments received as time and resources permit and in 1317 accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is, 1318 comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until 1319 those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may 1320 establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in 1321 the future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been 1322 received. 1324 Required Proposal Elements 1326 The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that 1327 contains the elements described in this section. 1329 Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the 1330 sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the 1331 suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily 1332 assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to 1333 allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to 1334 provide further information in explanatory sections, including 1335 descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated 1336 references to source documents of specific policies/practices. In 1337 this way, the responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the 1338 operational level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities. 1340 In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should 1341 cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions 1342 Contract[3] when describing existing arrangements and proposing 1343 changes to existing arrangements. 1345 0. Proposal type 1347 Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission 1348 proposes to address: 1349 [ ] Names [ ] Numbers [ ] Protocol Parameters 1351 I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 1353 This section should list the specific, distinct IANA functions your 1354 community relies on. For each IANA function on which your community 1355 relies, please provide the following: 1357 o A description of the function; 1358 o A description of the customer(s) of the function; 1359 o What registries are involved in providing the function; 1360 o A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 1361 IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 1362 communities. 1364 If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity 1365 beyond the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe 1366 them here. In this case please also describe how the service or 1367 activity should be addressed by the transition plan. 1369 II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 1371 This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements 1372 work, prior to the transition. 1374 [3] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ 1375 publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf 1377 A. Policy Sources 1379 This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which 1380 must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of 1381 the services or activities described above. If there are distinct 1382 sources of policy or policy development for different IANA 1383 functions, then please describe these separately. For each source of 1384 policy or policy development, please provide the following: 1386 o Which IANA function (identified in Section I) are affected. 1387 o A description of how policy is developed and established and who 1388 is involved in policy development and establishment. 1389 o A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 1390 o References to documentation of policy development and dispute 1391 resolution processes. 1393 B. Oversight and Accountability 1395 This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 1396 conducted over the IANA functions operator's provision of the 1397 services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 1398 which the IANA functions operator is currently held accountable for 1399 the provision of those services. For each oversight or 1400 accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the following as 1401 are applicable: 1403 Which IANA functions (identified in Section I) are affected. If the 1404 policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify 1405 which ones are affected and explain in what way. 1407 o A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight or 1408 perform accountability functions, including how individuals are 1409 selected or removed from participation in those entities. 1410 o A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting scheme, 1411 auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the 1412 consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the 1413 standards established by the mechanism, the extent to which the 1414 output of the mechanism is transparent and the terms under which 1415 the mechanism may change. 1416 o Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis 1417 on which the mechanism rests. 1419 III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 1420 Arrangements 1422 This section should describe what changes your community is 1423 proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the 1424 transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more 1425 existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should 1426 be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should 1427 be described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide 1428 its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. 1430 If your community's proposal carries any implications for the 1431 interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements 1432 described in Section II.A, those implications should be described 1433 here. 1435 If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in 1436 Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should 1437 be provided here. 1439 IV. Transition Implications 1440 This section should describe what your community views as the 1441 implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 1442 implications may include some or all of the following, or other 1443 implications specific to your community: 1445 Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of 1446 service and possible new service integration throughout the 1447 transition. 1449 Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. 1450 Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence of the 1451 NTIA contract. Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 1452 workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in 1453 this document and how they compare to established arrangements. 1454 Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to 1455 take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur 1456 before they are completed. 1458 V. NTIA Requirements 1460 Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must 1461 meet the following five requirements: 1462 o Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 1463 o Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet 1464 DNS; 1465 o Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 1466 partners of the IANA functions; 1467 o Maintain the openness of the Internet; 1468 o The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led 1469 or an inter-governmental organization solution. 1471 This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these 1472 requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA 1473 functions. 1475 VI. Community Process 1476 This section should describe the process your community used for 1477 developing this proposal, including: 1478 o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine 1479 consensus. 1480 o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 1481 meeting proceedings. 1482 o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 1483 proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 1484 disagreement. 1486 Appendix D. Completed ICG response for the NTIA 1488 To be filled in with completed response. 1490 Authors' Addresses 1492 Eliot Lear (editor) 1493 Richtistrasse 7 1494 Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304 1495 Switzerland 1497 Phone: +41 44 878 9200 1498 Email: lear@cisco.com 1500 Russ Housley (editor) 1501 918 Spring Noll Drive 1502 Herndon, VA 20170 1503 USA 1505 Email: housley@vigilsec.com