The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) hereby announces the Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community:

IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal [PDF, 2.2 MB]
(Translated versions forthcoming)

The ICG is now asking the public to review the transition proposal, consider specific questions identified below, and submit comments by the deadline of 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. After the conclusion of the public comment period, the ICG will make a final determination about whether to recommend that NTIA approve the transition proposal.

Content Quick Links:

Background

Since the formation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in 1998, NTIA has contracted with ICANN to carry out the IANA functions, including the management of top-level registries for domain names, Internet Protocol addresses and related numeric identifiers, and protocol parameters. Under this contract NTIA has been responsible for approving changes to the authoritative root zone file of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). NTIA also has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign under which the company performs related root zone management functions.

On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced its intent to transfer its stewardship of these key Internet functions to the global Internet community. Transitioning NTIA out of its historic role marks the final phase of the transition of oversight of the DNS as outlined by the U.S. Government’s policy statements in 1997-98.

For more information about the IANA functions, see:

Development Process

The process for development of the transition proposal has been led and coordinated by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), which was formed in July 2014.

The ICG chose to ground the proposal development process in the three communities with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA functions operator. Those three “operational communities” (OCs) are: the domain names community (organized around ICANN’s supporting organizations and advisory committees); the number resources community (organized around the regional address registries); and the protocol parameters community (organized around the Internet Engineering Task Force).

On September 8, 2014, the ICG issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) which provided a template to be used by each community. Each of the communities then used its own processes to develop a proposal for transitioning its part of the IANA functions, and submitted its response to the ICG. The ICG then assessed the proposals against a number of criteria, including the criteria that NTIA established for the transition proposal.

The transition proposal contains the component proposals received from each of the three operational communities.

Relationship to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

In parallel with the process described above, the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability(CCWG) has developed a proposal to ensure ICANN’s continued accountability in the absence of contractual oversight by the U.S. government. This accountability proposal does not deal directly with the governance of the IANA functions, but nevertheless must have broad public support in order for the IANA transition to proceed. The domain names component of the transition proposal, about which the ICG is seeking comment here, is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of specific ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the CCWG.

The CCWG will soon be releasing the accountability proposal for public comment. A link to the CCWG public comment page will be provided here when it becomes available.

All comments concerning the accountability proposal should be submitted to the CCWG. All comments concerning the transition proposal should be submitted to the ICG.

Once the CCWG has concluded its work on the accountability proposal, the ICG will require confirmation from the names community that its requirements have been met, along with any final changes to complete the names community proposal.

Members of the public providing comments on the transition proposal should therefore provide their comments under the assumption that the dependencies in the names portion of the proposal on the outcome of the CCWG’s work will be met by the CCWG.

Public Comment Period

The public comment period opens 31 July 2015 and closes 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC.

Instructions for How to Submit Public Comments

Members of the public have two options for how to submit comments on the transition proposal.

Option 1: Online submission form

The ICG has developed an online submission form to facilitate submission of comments on the transition proposal. Use of the online submission form is strongly encouraged, but not required. This form provides space for you to respond to the ICG’s questions for public comment (listed below), as well as an opportunity for general input on the proposal.

Once you have submitted your input via the online submission form, you will receive an automatically generated email asking you to click on a link to confirm your submission. All comments submitted via the online submission form will be publicly archived.

Option 2: Email submission

Commenters may also submit comments by emailing public-comments@ianacg.org.

Commenters wishing to submit structured input via email may make use of the downloadable submission form:

  • English [DOCX, 28 KB]
  • Translated versions forthcoming

Once you have submitted your input via the public comment email, you will receive an automatically generated email confirming receipt of your submission.  You will receive a second confirmation email once your submission has been posted to the public archive.

Public archive of submitted comments

All submitted comments will be made available at the link above.

Call for Public Comment

Each of the operational community proposals have already been the subject of extensive public comment and discussion. As a result, the ICG is focused in this call for public comments on the combined proposal as a whole and how it fares against the criteria established by NTIA for the transition. It is critical that the ICG build a public record that reflects broad community support for the proposal and justifies the proposal’s conformance with the NTIA criteria before the proposal can be submitted to NTIA. Thus, commenters are encouraged to file comments in support of the proposal even if they have no concerns to express about the proposal.

Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking comment are listed below.

Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole

  1. Completeness and clarity: Is the combined proposal complete? Each of the operational community proposals contains aspects to be completed in the future when the proposal is implemented. Is the combined proposal specified in sufficient detail such that it can be evaluated against the NTIA criteria?
  2. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the operational community proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any incompatible arrangements where compatibility appears to be required? Is the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in a workable manner?
  3. Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA functions? Are there any gaps in overall accountability under the single proposal?
  4. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability that were included in the operational community proposals conflict with each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?

Questions Concerning NTIA Criteria

  1. Do you believe the proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder model? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
  2. Do you believe the proposal maintains the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
  3. Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary. Please indicate if you are a customer or partner of the IANA services.
  4. Do you believe the proposal maintains the openness of the Internet? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
  5. Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA’s role with a government-led or inter-governmental organization solution? If yes, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary. If not, please explain why.
  6. Do you believe that the implementation of the proposal will continue to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.

Questions Concerning ICG Report and Executive Summary

  1. Do you believe the ICG report and executive summary accurately reflect all necessary aspects of the overall proposal? If not, please explain what modifications you believe are necessary.

General Questions

  1. Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?

Proposal Summary

The domain names community proposed to form a new, separate legal entity, Post-Transition IANA (PTI), as an affiliate (subsidiary) of ICANN that would become the IANA functions operator in contract with ICANN. The legal jurisdiction in which ICANN resides is to remain unchanged. The proposal includes the creation of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) responsible for monitoring the operator’s performance according to the contractual requirements and service level expectations. The proposal establishes a multistakeholder IANA Function Review process (IFR) to conduct reviews of PTI.

The numbers community proposed that ICANN continue to serve as the IANA Functions Operator and perform those services under a contract with the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The numbers community proposed a contractual Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the Regional Internet Registries and the IANA Numbering Services Operator; and a Review Committee (RC) comprising community representatives from each region, to advise the RIRs on the IANA functions operator’s performance and adherence to identified service levels.

For the protocol parameters, ICANN currently serves as the IANA registries operator. The IETF community expressed satisfaction with the current arrangements and proposed that the IANA protocol parameters registry updates continue to function day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The protocol parameters community proposed to continue to rely on the system of agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms created by the IETF, ICANN, and IAB for the provision of the protocols parameters-related IANA functions.

A visual summary of the oversight components of the combined proposal appears below. The operational interactions between the communities and the IANA functions operator are not pictured.

 

 

Completed Community Public Comment Periods

Each of the operational community proposals have already been the subject of extensive public comment and discussion.

CWG-Stewardship

CRISP Team

IANAPLAN WG