idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-05.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 750 has weird spacing: '...cussion http:...' == Line 753 has weird spacing: '...st call http:...' -- The document date (November 25, 2014) is 3438 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'XXX' is mentioned on line 124, but not defined -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 1249 == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 -- Duplicate reference: RFC2860, mentioned in 'RFC2860', was also mentioned in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 (~~), 6 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 25, 2014 5 Expires: May 29, 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-05 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 29, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 60 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 61 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 62 Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 63 A.1. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 64 A.2. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 65 A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 66 A.4. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 67 A.5. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 68 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination 69 Group (ICG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 70 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 71 Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 74 1. IETF Introduction 76 In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information 77 Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of 78 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. In that 79 announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 80 and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver a proposal for 81 transition. As part of that process, the IANA Stewardship Transition 82 Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. The charter for the ICG can be 83 found in Appendix B. They solicited proposals regarding post- 84 transition arrangements from the three functional areas in order to 85 put forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal 86 (RFP) can be found in Appendix C. 88 While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and 89 IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol 90 parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an 91 introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2 92 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal 93 response by the IETF. Because much of this memo is taken from a 94 questionnaire we have quoted questions with ">>> " and we have 95 prefaced answers to questions being asked with "IETF Response:". 96 Note that there are small changes to the content of the questions 97 asked in order to match the RFC format. 99 As if to demonstrate the last point, the following text was included 100 in a footnote in the original propsoal. 102 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 103 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/ 104 iana-functions-purchase-order] as well as any other functions 105 traditionally performed by the IANA functions operator. SAC-067 106 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] provides 107 one description of the many different meanings of the term "IANA" and 108 may be useful reading in addition to the documents constituting the 109 agreement itself. 111 2. The Formal RFP Response 113 The entire Request for Comments, including introduction, can be found 114 in Appendix C. 116 >>> 117 >>> 0. Proposal Type 118 >>> 119 >>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this 120 >>> submission proposes to address: 121 >>> 123 IETF Response: 124 [XXX] Protocol Parameters 126 This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also 127 represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF. 129 >>> 130 >>> I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 131 >>> 132 >>> This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services 133 >>> or activities your community relies on. For each IANA service 134 >>> or activity on which your community relies, please provide the 135 >>> following: 136 >>> A description of the service or activity. 137 >>> 139 IETF Response: 141 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. 142 These parameters are used by implementers, who are the IETF's primary 143 users of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure 144 consistent interpretation of these parameter values by independent 145 implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these 146 IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available 147 registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to any 148 associated documentation. The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameters 149 registries to store this information in a public location. The IETF 150 community presently accesses the protocol parameter registries via 151 references based on iana.org domain name, and makes use of the term 152 "IANA" in the protocol parameter registry processes[RFC5226]. 154 ICANN currently operates the .ARPA top level domain on behalf of the 155 Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This zone is used for certain 156 Internet infrastructure services that are delegated beneath it. We 157 consider .ARPA part of the protocol parameters registries for 158 purposes of this response. 160 >>> 161 >>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. 162 >>> 164 IETF Response: 166 The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the 167 protocol parameters registries for the IETF in conformance with all 168 relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of 169 Understanding[RFC2860] and associated supplemental agreements that 170 include service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF 171 and ICANN[MOUSUP]. 173 The IETF is a global voluntary standards organization whose goal is 174 to make the Internet work better [RFC3595]. IETF standards are 175 published in the RFC series. The IETF is responsible for the key 176 standards that are used on the Internet today, including IP, TCP, 177 DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few. 179 The IETF operates in an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The 180 processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series. 181 The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That 182 document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how 183 disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a 184 number of times, and those amendments are indicated in [RFC-INDEX]. 185 The standards process can be amended in the same manner that 186 standards are approved. That is, someone proposes a change by 187 submitting a temporary document known as an Internet-Draft, the 188 community discusses it, and if rough consensus can be found the 189 change is approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), 190 who also have day-to-day responsibility for declaring IETF consensus 191 on technical decisions, including those that affect the IANA protocol 192 parameters registries. Anyone may propose a change during a Last 193 Call, and anyone may participate in the community discussion. 195 >>> 196 >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or 197 >>> activity. 198 >>> 200 IETF Response: 202 The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work. 203 These also include the top-level registry for the entire IP address 204 space and some of its sub-registries, AS number space, and a number 205 of special use registries with regard to domain names. For more 206 detail please refer to the documentation in the "overlaps or 207 interdependencies" section. 209 Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service 210 that is provided to the IETF. 212 >>> 213 >>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 214 >>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 215 >>> communities 216 >>> 218 IETF Response: 220 In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in 221 some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple 222 organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between 223 organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully 224 delineated. There are, however, points of interaction between other 225 organizations, and a few cases where we may further define the scope 226 of a registry for technical purposes. This is the case with both 227 names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all 228 cases, the IETF coordinates with the appropriate organizations. 230 It is important to note that the IETF includes anyone who wishes to 231 participate. Staff and participants from ICANN or the Regional 232 Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF activities. 234 o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with 235 regard to domain names. These registries require coordination 236 with ICANN as the policy authority for the DNS root, including 237 community groups that are responsible for ICANN policy on domain 238 names such as the GNSO and the ccNSO. There are already 239 mechanisms in place to perform this coordination, and the capacity 240 to modify them to meet new conditions as they might 241 arise.[RFC6761] 243 o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have 244 been and will be updates to that protocol. As we make changes we 245 will broadly consult the operational community about the impact of 246 those changes, as we have done in the past. 248 o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. Should 249 those requirements change, we will inform ICANN. 251 o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to 252 continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on 253 appropriate IP address allocation strategies. As and when that 254 happens, we will consult with the RIR community, as we have done 255 in the past. 257 o The IETF is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP 258 address space and AS number space. Through the IANA protocol 259 parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address and 260 AS number ranges to the RIR system [RFC7020],[RFC7249]. Special 261 address allocation, such a multicast and anycast addresses, often 262 require coordination. Another example of IP addresses that are 263 not administered by the RIR system is Unique Local Addresses 264 (ULAs) [RFC4193], where local networks employ a prefix that is not 265 intended to be routed on the public Internet. New special address 266 allocations are added, from time to time, related to the evolution 267 of the standards. In all cases, these special assignments are 268 listed in the IANA protocol paramters registries. 270 o The IETF maintains sub-registries for special IPv4 and IPv6 271 assignments. These are specified in [RFC3307], [RFC5771], and 272 [RFC6890]. The IETF coordinates such assignments with the RIRs. 274 o IETF standards changes may have impact on operations of RIRs and 275 service providers. A recent example is the extensions to BGP to 276 carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities 277 [RFC6793]. It is important to note that this change occurred out 278 of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment 279 between the RIRs and the IETF. 281 >>> II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 283 >>> 284 >>> This section should describe how existing IANA-related 285 >>> arrangements work, prior to the transition. 286 >>> 287 >>> A. Policy Sources 288 >>> 289 >>> 290 >>> This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy 291 >>> which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its 292 >>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there 293 >>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for 294 >>> different IANA activities, then please describe these 295 >>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development, 296 >>> please provide the following: 297 >>> 298 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 299 >>> affected. 300 >>> 302 IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries. 304 >>> 305 >>> A description of how policy is developed and established and 306 >>> who is involved in policy development and establishment. 307 >>> 309 IETF Response: 311 Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries 312 is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents 313 explains the model for how the registries are to be operated, how 314 policy is set, and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the 315 policies that specification writers may employ when they define new 316 protocol registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each 317 specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the 318 form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If 319 there is sufficient interest, a working group whose scope includes 320 the proposed work may choose to adopt it, the Internet Engineering 321 Steering Group may choose to create a working group, or an Area 322 Director may choose to sponsor the draft. In any case, anyone may 323 comment on the proposal as it progresses. A proposal cannot be 324 passed by the IESG unless it enjoys sufficient community support as 325 to indicate rough consensus [RFC7282]. In each case, a "Last Call" 326 is made so that there is notice of any proposed change to a policy or 327 process. Anyone may comment during a Last Call. For example, this 328 process is currently being used to update RFC 5226 329 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]. 331 >>> 332 >>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 333 >>> 335 IETF Response: 337 Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working 338 group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any 339 action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict 340 resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area 341 Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an 342 appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that 343 the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way 344 to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the 345 Internet Society Board of Trustees. 347 >>> 348 >>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute 349 >>> resolution processes. 350 >>> 352 IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a 353 conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working 354 group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been 355 amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. Please also 356 see the references at the bottom of this document. 358 >>> 359 >>> B. Oversight and Accountability 360 >>> 361 >>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 362 >>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the 363 >>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 364 >>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for 365 >>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or 366 >>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the 367 >>> following as are applicable: 368 >>> 369 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 370 >>> affected. 371 >>> 373 IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries. 375 >>> 376 >>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are 377 >>> affected, identify which ones are affected. 378 >>> 380 IETF Response: all policy sources relating to the protocol parameters 381 registry are affected. 383 >>> 384 >>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight 385 >>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals 386 >>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities. 387 >>> 389 IETF Response: 391 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the 392 IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming 393 appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above, 394 management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general 395 architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must 396 approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA operator on 397 behalf of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing 398 liaison relationships with other orgnaizations on behalf of the IETF. 399 The IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850]. 401 The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating 402 Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777]. This 403 process provides for selection of active members of the community who 404 themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. Those candidates are 405 sent to the Internet Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In 406 general, members are appointed for terms of two years. The IAB 407 selects its own chair. 409 The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameters registries of 410 the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s) 411 and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships 412 among protocols call for it, many registries are operated by, or in 413 conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has concluded 414 that special treatment is needed, the operator for registries is 415 currently ICANN. 417 >>> 418 >>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting 419 >>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a 420 >>> description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator 421 >>> not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the 422 >>> extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and 423 >>> the terms under which the mechanism may change. 424 >>> 426 IETF Response: 428 A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF 429 community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in 430 [RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA 431 functions operator for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force 432 (IRTF), a peer organization to the IETF that focuses on research. 433 Each year a service level agreement is negotiated that supplements 434 the MoU. 436 Day-to-day administration and contract management is the 437 responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF 438 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. The 439 members of the IAOC are also the trustees of the IETF Trust, whose 440 main purpose is to hold certain intellectual property for the benefit 441 of the IETF as a whole. IAOC members are appointed by the Internet 442 Society Board of Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM 443 [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with the IANA functions operator to 444 establish annual IANA performance metrics[METRICS] and operational 445 procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to 446 the MoU each year [MOUSUP]. In accordance with these supplements, an 447 annual review is performed to ensure that protocol parameter requests 448 are being processed according to the established policies. 450 To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues. In the 451 unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC 452 and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The 453 MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the 454 arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only 455 be undertaken after serious consideration. 457 >>> 458 >>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal 459 >>> basis on which the mechanism rests. 460 >>> 462 IETF Response 464 This mechanism is global in nature. The current agreement does not 465 specify a jurisdiction. 467 >>>III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 468 Arrangements 470 >>> 471 >>> This section should describe what changes your community is 472 >>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of 473 >>> the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or 474 >>> more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that 475 >>> replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed 476 >>> in Section II.B should be described for the new 477 >>> arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and 478 >>> justification for the new arrangements. 479 >>> 480 >>> If your community's proposal carries any implications for 481 >>> existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those 482 >>> implications should be described here. 483 >>> 484 >>> If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements 485 >>> listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that 486 >>> choice should be provided here. 487 >>> 489 IETF Response: 491 No major changes are required. Over the years since the creation of 492 ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together created a system of 493 agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms that already cover 494 what is needed. This system has worked well without any operational 495 involvement from the NTIA. Therefore, no new organizaitons or 496 structures are needed. 498 IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function 499 day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The 500 IETF community is quite satisfied with the current arrangement with 501 ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community 502 very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an appropriate service description 503 and requirements. 505 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements 506 may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations 507 are met. Those expectations are the following: 509 o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It 510 is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties 511 acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. 513 o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol 514 parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent 515 operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as 516 part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry 517 out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the 518 current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the 519 NTIA[NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent 520 operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of 521 a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that 522 ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to 523 minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries 524 or other resources currently located at iana.org. 526 Discussions during IETF 89 in London led to the following guiding 527 principles for IAB efforts that impact IANA protocol parameter 528 registries. These principles must be taken together; their order is 529 not significant. 531 1. The IETF protocol parameters registries function has been and 532 continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community. 534 The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within 535 the Internet technical community are both important given how 536 critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF 537 protocols. 539 We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters 540 registries function needs to be strong enough that they can be 541 offered independently by the Internet technical community, without 542 the need for backing from external parties. And we believe we 543 largely are there already, although the system can be strengthened 544 further, and continuous improvements are being made. 546 2. The protocol parameters registries function requires openness, 547 transparency, and accountability. 549 Existing documentation of how the function is administered and 550 overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and 551 clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet 552 community can understand how the function works, and that the 553 processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee 554 the protocol parameters function accountable for following those 555 processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed 556 to making improvements here if necessary. 558 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters registries 559 function should respect existing Internet community agreements. 561 The protocol parameters registries function is working well. The 562 existing Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the 563 technical work to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers 564 Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the 565 Internet Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol 566 parameters registries function should be made using the IETF process 567 to update RFC 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: 568 evolution, not revolution. 570 4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service 571 by Internet registries. 573 The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not 574 just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and 575 other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined 576 protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards 577 development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/ 578 number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special- 579 use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. 580 The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other 581 parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation 582 of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work 583 together. 585 5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter 586 registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards 587 process and the use of resulting protocols. 589 RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters 590 registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF 591 protocols. The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to 592 define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry 593 operator role. This responsibility includes the selection and 594 management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as 595 management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines 596 for parameter allocation. 598 6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public 599 service. 601 Directions for the creation of protocol parameters registries and the 602 policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs. 603 The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and 604 they are published in a form that allows their contents to be 605 included in other works without further permission. These works 606 include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet 607 protocols and their associated documentation. 609 These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF 610 community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA 611 performance metrics and operational procedures. 613 >>> IV Transition Implications 615 >>> 616 >>> This section should describe what your community views as the 617 >>> implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 618 >>> implications may include some or all of the following, or other 619 >>> implications specific to your community: 620 >>> 621 >>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity 622 >>> of service and possible new service integration throughout 623 >>> the transition. 624 >>> o Risks to operational continuity 625 >>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the 626 >>> absence of the NTIA contract 627 >>> o Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 628 >>> workability of any new technical or operational methods 629 >>> proposed in this document and how they compare to established 630 >>> arrangements. 631 >>> 633 IETF Response: 635 No structural changes are required. The principles listed above will 636 guide IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF community as they work with 637 ICANN to establish future IANA performance metrics and operational 638 procedures, as they have in the past. 640 As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are 641 anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods 642 proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the 643 RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen 644 issues that might arise as a result of other changes. 646 What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any 647 supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements 648 outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP. 650 >>> 651 >>> V. NTIA Requirements 652 >>> 653 >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal 654 >>> must meet the following five requirements: 655 >>> 656 >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;" 657 >>> 659 IETF Response: 661 Everyone is welcome to participate in IETF activities. The policies 662 and procedures are outlined in the documents we named above. In- 663 person attendance is not required for participation, and many people 664 participate in email discussions that have never attended an IETF 665 meeting. An email account is the only requirement to participate. 666 The IETF makes use of both formal and informal lines of communication 667 to collaborate with other organizations within the multistakeholder 668 ecosystem. 670 >>> 671 >>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the 672 >>> Internet DNS;" 673 >>> 675 IETF Response: 677 No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security, 678 stability, and resiliency of the DNS. 680 >>> 681 >>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 682 >>> partners of the IANA services;" 683 >>> 684 IETF Response: 686 Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the 687 IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameters 688 registries. The current IANA protocol parameters registries system 689 is meeting the needs of these global customers. This proposal 690 continues to meet their needs by maintaining the existing processes 691 that have served them well in the past. 693 >>> 695 >>> 696 >>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet." 697 >>> 699 IETF Response: 701 This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows 702 anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including 703 the IANA protocol parameters registries policies. Further, an 704 implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol 705 specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameters 706 registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in 707 the IANA protocol registries will continue to be able to do so, as 708 specified by the existing policies for those registries. 710 >>> 711 >>> VI. Community Process 712 >>> 713 >>> This section should describe the process your community used for 714 >>> developing this proposal, including: 715 >>> 716 >>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to 717 >>> determine consensus. 718 >>> 720 IETF Response: 722 The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this 723 response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate 724 in the development of this response. An open mailing list 725 (ianaplan@ietf.org) was associated with the working group. In 726 addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader 727 community, and all input is welcome. 729 >>> 730 >>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 731 >>> meeting proceedings. 732 >>> 734 IETF Response: 736 The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open 737 discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the 738 past few months. 740 Creation of an open mailing list to discuss the transition: http://w 741 ww.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg12978.html 743 Announcement of a public session on the transition: http:// 744 www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13028.html 746 Announcement by the IESG of the intent to form a working group: 747 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/ 748 msg13170.html 750 The working group discussion http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ 751 ianaplan/current/maillist.html 753 Working group last call http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ 754 ianaplan/current/msg00760.html 756 >>> 757 >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 758 >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 759 >>> disagreement. 760 >>> 762 IETF Response: To be completed as the process progresses. 764 3. IANA Considerations 766 This memo is a response a request for proposals. No parameter 767 allocations or changes are sought. 769 4. Security Considerations 771 While the agreement, supplements, policies, and procedures around the 772 IANA function have shown strong resiliency, the IETF will continue to 773 work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements while 774 maintaining availability of the IANA registries. 776 5. IAB Note 778 This section to be filled in by the IAB. 780 6. Acknowledgments 782 This document describes processes that have been developed by many 783 members of the community over many years. The initial version of 784 this document was developed collaboratively through both the IAB IANA 785 Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular thanks go to 786 Jari Arkko, John Klensin, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew Sullivan, Leslie 787 Daigle, Marc Blanchet, Barry Leiba, Brian Carpenter, Greg Wood, John 788 Curran, Milton Mueller, Alissa Cooper, Andrei Robachevsky, and 789 Suzanne Woolf. 791 7. Informative References 793 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis] 794 Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 795 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft- 796 leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 (work in progress), November 797 2014. 799 [METRICS] , "Performance Standards Metrics Report", , 800 . 802 [MOUSUP] , "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of 803 Understanding between the IETF and ICANN)", , 804 . 806 [NTIA-Contract] 807 , "The NTIA Contract with ICANN", , . 811 [RFC-INDEX] 812 RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments", RFC 813 Index, August 2014. 815 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 816 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 818 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 819 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 821 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 822 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 823 May 2000. 825 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 826 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 827 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 829 [RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational 830 Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area 831 Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001. 833 [RFC3307] Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast 834 Addresses", RFC 3307, August 2002. 836 [RFC3595] Wijnen, B., "Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label", RFC 837 3595, September 2003. 839 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and 840 Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 841 Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. 843 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 844 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 845 4071, April 2005. 847 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 848 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 850 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 851 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 852 May 2008. 854 [RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for 855 IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, 856 March 2010. 858 [RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G., 859 Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and 860 Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators", 861 RFC 6220, April 2011. 863 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 864 RFC 6761, February 2013. 866 [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet 867 Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December 868 2012. 870 [RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St. 871 Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards", 872 RFC 6852, January 2013. 874 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, 875 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 876 6890, April 2013. 878 [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The 879 Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. 881 [RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May 882 2014. 884 [RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 885 7282, June 2014. 887 Appendix A. Changes 889 NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication. 891 A.1. Changes from -04 to -05 893 o Change to simpler text for answer about stability and security. 895 o Mention of RFC 5226bis. 897 A.2. Changes from -03 to -04 899 o Additional text regarding what is needed in Section III. 901 o Appropriate language modifications in section IV to match the 902 above changes in III. 904 o Acknowledgments edits. 906 A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 908 o Terminology consistency. 910 o Add IAB section. 912 o Changes based on WG discussion on what we prefer as part of the 913 transition regarding IPR. 915 o Add discussion about .ARPA domain. 917 o Elaboration of what registries are involved. 919 o Additional text around coordination with ICANN. 921 o Working groups can adopt items within their charters. 923 o IAB appointments generally last two years. 925 o Add mention of the Trust. 927 o Security Considerations update. 929 A.4. Changes from -01 to -02 931 o A better description special registries and BGP ASNs. 933 o Clarity on how the address space and ASNs are delegated. 935 o Many editorials corrected. 937 o Mention of the annual review as part of the SLAs. 939 o Change about how overlap is presented. 941 o A number of small wording changes based on feedback. 943 A.5. Changes from -00 to -01 945 o Front matter greatly reduced. 947 o Appendices with charter and RFP added. 949 o Jurisdiction text changed. 951 o Proposed changes include supplemental agreement(s) to address 952 jurisdiction, dispute resolution, and IPR, including names and 953 marks. 955 o Transition implications slightly modified to reference 956 supplemental agreement. 958 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG 960 Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10 962 (August 27, 2014) 963 The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one 964 deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National 965 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding 966 the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the 967 global multi-stakeholder community. The group will conduct itself 968 transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure 969 that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA 970 functions. 972 The group's mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal 973 among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA 974 functions are divided into three main categories: domain names, 975 number resources, and other protocol parameters. The domain names 976 category falls further into the country code and generic domain name 977 sub-categories. While there is some overlap among all of these 978 categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and 979 technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of 980 interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on 981 the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in 982 parallel and be based in the respective communities. 984 The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a 985 parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. 986 While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier 987 governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is 988 focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA 989 functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the 990 expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes 991 are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately 992 coordinate their work. 994 The coordination group has four main tasks: 995 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties, including the three 996 "operational communities" (i.e., those with direct operational 997 or service relationship with IANA; namely names, numbers, 998 protocol parameters). This task consists of: 999 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1000 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1001 affected by the IANA functions 1002 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1003 compatibility and interoperability 1004 (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition 1005 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1006 Describing each in more detail: 1007 (i) Liaison 1008 a. Solicit proposals 1010 The ICG expects a plan from the country code and generic name 1011 communities (possibly a joint one), a plan from the numbers 1012 community, and a plan from the protocol parameters community. 1013 Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they 1014 are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This 1015 involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking 1016 progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role 1017 of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status 1018 updates about the progress of his or her community in developing 1019 their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a 1020 transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use 1021 registry). 1023 While working on the development of their proposals, the operational 1024 communities are expected to address common requirements and issues 1025 relating to the transition, in as far as they affect their parts of 1026 the stewardship of IANA functions. 1028 b. Solicit broader input 1030 The ICG is open for input and feedback from all interested parties. 1031 While no set of formal requirements related to a transition proposal 1032 will be requested outside the operational communities, everyone's 1033 input is welcome across all topics. 1035 The ICG expects that all interested parties get involved as early as 1036 possible in the relevant community processes. Input received 1037 directly by the ICG may be referred to the relevant community 1038 discussion. 1040 The ICG members chosen from a particular community are the official 1041 communication channel between the ICG and that community. 1043 (ii) Assessment 1045 When the group receives output from the communities it will discuss 1046 and assess their compatibility and interoperability with the 1047 proposals of the other communities. Each proposal should be 1048 submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for 1049 the proposal in the community, and provide an analysis that shows the 1050 proposal is in practice workable. The ICG should also compile the 1051 input it has received beyond the operational communities, and review 1052 the impacts of this input. 1054 The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component 1055 proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that 1056 back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant 1057 communities) can address the issues. It is not in the role of the 1058 ICG to develop proposals or to select from among competing proposals. 1060 (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal 1062 The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different 1063 components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, 1064 meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and 1065 that the whole fits together. The whole also needs to include 1066 sufficient independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA 1067 function. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that 1068 achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then 1069 put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period 1070 of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing 1071 supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these 1072 comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no 1073 modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the 1074 proposal will be submitted to NTIA. 1076 If changes are required to fix problems or to achieve broader 1077 support, the ICG will work with the operational communities in a 1078 manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above. Updates are 1079 subject to the same verification, review, and consensus processes as 1080 the initial proposals. If, in the ICG's opinion, broad public 1081 support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, 1082 the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the 1083 liaison phase. 1085 (iv) Information sharing 1087 The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information 1088 about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat 1089 maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under 1090 its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are 1091 announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As 1092 the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is 1093 important that information about ongoing work is distributed early 1094 and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the 1095 detection of potential issues. 1097 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for 1098 Proposals 1100 IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals 1101 8 September 2014 1103 Introduction 1105 Under the IANA1 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) 1106 Charter,2 the ICG has four main tasks: 1108 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA 1109 stewardship transition, including the three "operational 1110 communities" (i.e., those with direct operational or service 1111 relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names, 1112 numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of: 
 1114 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1115 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1116 affected by the
IANA functions 1118 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1119 compatibility and interoperability (iii) Assemble a complete 1120 proposal for the transition 1122 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1124 This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG 1125 Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the 1126 non-operational communities. 1128 0. Complete Formal Responses 1130 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks 1131 complete formal responses to this RFP through processes which are to 1132 be convened by each of the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., 1133 those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA 1134 functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol 1135 parameters). 1137 Proposals should be supported by the broad range of stakeholders 1138 participating in the proposal development process. Proposals should 1139 be developed through a transparent process that is open to and 1140 inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the 1141 development of the proposal. In order to help the ICG maintain its 1142 light coordination role, all interested and affected parties are 1143 strongly encouraged to participate directly in these community 1144 processes. 1146 The following link provides information about ongoing community 1147 processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to 1148 be updated over time: 1150 https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community 1152 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 1153 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN 1154 [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well 1155 as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions 1156 operator. SAC-067 1158 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] 1159 provides one description of the many different meanings of the term 1160 "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the documents 1161 constituting the agreement itself. 1163 Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in 1164 developing their responses, so that all community members may fully 1165 participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also 1166 asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any 1167 other parties with interest in their response. 1169 A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to 1170 reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to 1171 produce a single plan for the transition of IANA 1172 stewardship. Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those 1173 elements that are considered to be truly essential to the transition 1174 of their specific IANA functions. The target deadline for all 1175 complete formal responses to this RFP is 15 January 2015. 1177 I. Comments 1179 While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through 1180 processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that 1181 all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the 1182 relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide 1183 comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular 1184 proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own 1185 processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time 1186 via email to icg-forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived 1187 at . 1189 Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to 1190 the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will 1191 review comments received as time and resources permit and in 1192 accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is, 1193 comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until 1194 those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may 1195 establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in 1196 the future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been 1197 received. 1199 Required Proposal Elements 1201 The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that 1202 contains the elements described in this section. 1204 Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the 1205 sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the 1206 suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily 1207 assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to 1208 allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to 1209 provide further information in explanatory sections, including 1210 descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated 1211 references to source documents of specific policies/practices. In 1212 this way, the responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the 1213 operational level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities. 1215 In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should 1216 cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions 1217 Contract[3] when describing existing arrangements and proposing 1218 changes to existing arrangements. 1220 0. Proposal type 1222 Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission 1223 proposes to address: 1224 [ ] Names [ ] Numbers [ ] Protocol Parameters 1226 I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 1228 This section should list the specific, distinct IANA functions your 1229 community relies on. For each IANA function on which your community 1230 relies, please provide the following: 1232 o A description of the function; 1233 o A description of the customer(s) of the function; 1234 o What registries are involved in providing the function; 1235 o A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 1236 IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 1237 communities. 1239 If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity 1240 beyond the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe 1241 them here. In this case please also describe how the service or 1242 activity should be addressed by the transition plan. 1244 II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 1246 This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements 1247 work, prior to the transition. 1249 [3] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ 1250 publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf 1252 A. Policy Sources 1254 This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which 1255 must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of 1256 the services or activities described above. If there are distinct 1257 sources of policy or policy development for different IANA 1258 functions, then please describe these separately. For each source of 1259 policy or policy development, please provide the following: 1261 o Which IANA function (identified in Section I) are affected. 1262 o A description of how policy is developed and established and who 1263 is involved in policy development and establishment. 1264 o A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 1265 o References to documentation of policy development and dispute 1266 resolution processes. 1268 B. Oversight and Accountability 1270 This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 1271 conducted over the IANA functions operator's provision of the 1272 services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 1273 which the IANA functions operator is currently held accountable for 1274 the provision of those services. For each oversight or 1275 accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the following as 1276 are applicable: 1278 Which IANA functions (identified in Section I) are affected. If the 1279 policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify 1280 which ones are affected and explain in what way. 1282 o A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight or 1283 perform accountability functions, including how individuals are 1284 selected or removed from participation in those entities. 1285 o A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting scheme, 1286 auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the 1287 consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the 1288 standards established by the mechanism, the extent to which the 1289 output of the mechanism is transparent and the terms under which 1290 the mechanism may change. 1291 o Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis 1292 on which the mechanism rests. 1294 III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 1295 Arrangements 1297 This section should describe what changes your community is 1298 proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the 1299 transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more 1300 existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should 1301 be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should 1302 be described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide 1303 its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. 1305 If your community's proposal carries any implications for the 1306 interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements 1307 described in Section II.A, those implications should be described 1308 here. 1310 If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in 1311 Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should 1312 be provided here. 1314 IV. Transition Implications 1316 This section should describe what your community views as the 1317 implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 1318 implications may include some or all of the following, or other 1319 implications specific to your community: 1321 Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of 1322 service and possible new service integration throughout the 1323 transition. 1325 Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. 1326 Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence of the 1327 NTIA contract. Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 1328 workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in 1329 this document and how they compare to established arrangements. 1330 Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to 1331 take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur 1332 before they are completed. 1334 V. NTIA Requirements 1336 Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must 1337 meet the following five requirements: 1338 o Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 1339 o Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet 1340 DNS; 1341 o Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 1342 partners of the IANA functions; 1343 o Maintain the openness of the Internet; 1344 o The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led 1345 or an inter-governmental organization solution. 1347 This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these 1348 requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA 1349 functions. 1351 VI. Community Process 1352 This section should describe the process your community used for 1353 developing this proposal, including: 1354 o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine 1355 consensus. 1356 o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 1357 meeting proceedings. 1358 o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 1359 proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 1360 disagreement. 1362 Authors' Addresses 1364 Eliot Lear (editor) 1365 Richtistrasse 7 1366 Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304 1367 Switzerland 1369 Phone: +41 44 878 9200 1370 Email: lear@cisco.com 1372 Russ Housley (editor) 1373 918 Spring Noll Drive 1374 Herndon, VA 20170 1375 USA 1377 Email: housley@vigilsec.com