idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-08.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 22, 2014) is 3412 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 1413 -- 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reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6220 (Obsoleted by RFC 8722) == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2870 (Obsoleted by RFC 7720) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 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 4 Intended status: Informational R. Housley, Ed. 5 Expires: June 25, 2015 6 December 22, 2014 8 Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals 9 on the IANA protocol parameters registries 10 draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-08 12 Abstract 14 The U.S. NTIA has solicited a request from ICANN to propose how the 15 NTIA should end its oversight of the IANA functions. After broad 16 consultations, ICANN has in turn created the IANA Stewardship 17 Transition Coordination Group. That group solicited proposals for 18 thre three major IANA functions: names, numbers, and protocol 19 parameters. This document contains the IETF response to that 20 solicitation for protocol parameters. It is meant to be included in 21 an aggregate response to the NTIA alongside those for names and 22 numbering resources that are being developed by their respective 23 operational communities. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 25, 2015. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 63 5. IAB Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 64 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 65 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 66 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 67 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 68 Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 69 A.1. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 70 A.2. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 71 A.3. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 72 A.4. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 73 A.5. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 74 A.6. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 A.7. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 76 A.8. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 77 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination 78 Group (ICG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 79 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group 80 Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 81 Appendix D. Completed ICG response for the NTIA . . . . . . . . 33 82 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 84 1. IETF Introduction 86 In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information 87 Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of 88 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions [NTIA-Announce]. 89 In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for 90 Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver 91 a proposal for transition. As part of that process, the IANA 92 Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. The 93 charter for the ICG can be found in Appendix B. The ICG in turn 94 solicited proposals regarding post-transition arrangements from the 95 names, numbers, and protocol parameters communities in order to put 96 forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal (RFP) 97 can be found in Appendix C. 99 While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and 100 IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol 101 parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an 102 introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2 103 contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal 104 response by the IETF. We have quoted questions from that 105 questionnaire with ">>> ", and we have prefaced answers to questions 106 being asked with "IETF Response:". Note that there are small changes 107 to the questions asked in order to match the RFC format. 109 We note that the following text was stated as footnote in the 110 original RFP: 112 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently 113 specified in the agreement between NTIA and ICANN 114 [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as 115 well as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA 116 functions operator. SAC-067 117 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] 118 provides one description of the many different meanings of the 119 term "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the 120 documents constituting the agreement itself. 122 2. The Formal RFP Response 124 The entire Request for Proposals, including introduction, can be 125 found in Appendix C. 127 >>> 128 >>> 0. Proposal Type 129 >>> 130 >>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this 131 >>> submission proposes to address: 132 >>> 134 IETF Response: 135 Protocol Parameters 137 This response states the existing practice of the IETF, and also 138 represents the views of the Internet Architecture Board and the IETF. 140 >>> 141 >>> I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 142 >>> 143 >>> This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services 144 >>> or activities your community relies on. For each IANA service 145 >>> or activity on which your community relies, please provide the 146 >>> following: 147 >>> A description of the service or activity. 148 >>> 150 IETF Response: 152 Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters. 153 These parameters are used by implementers, who are the primary users 154 of the IETF standards and other documents. To ensure consistent 155 interpretation of these parameter values by independent 156 implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these 157 IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available 158 registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to any 159 associated documentation. The IETF uses the IANA protocol parameters 160 registries to store this information in a public location. The IETF 161 community presently accesses the protocol parameter registries via 162 references based on the iana.org domain name, and makes use of the 163 term "IANA" in the protocol parameter registry processes [RFC5226]. 165 ICANN currently operates the .ARPA top level domain on behalf of the 166 Internet Architecture Board (IAB). This zone is used for certain 167 Internet infrastructure services that are delegated beneath it. The 168 IETF considers .ARPA part of the protocol parameters registries for 169 purposes of this response. 171 >>> 172 >>> A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. 173 >>> 175 IETF Response: 177 The IANA protocol parameters registries operator maintains the 178 protocol parameters registries for the IETF in conformance with all 179 relevant IETF policies, in accordance with the Memorandum of 180 Understanding [RFC2860] and associated supplemental agreements that 181 include service level agreements (SLAs) established between the IETF 182 and ICANN [MOUSUP]. 184 The IETF is a global organization that produces voluntary standards, 185 whose mission is to produce high quality, relevant technical and 186 engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and 187 manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better 189 [RFC3935]. IETF standards are published in the RFC series. The IETF 190 is responsible for the key standards that are used on the Internet 191 today, including IP, TCP, DNS, BGP, and HTTP, to name but a few. 193 The IETF operates in an open and transparent manner [RFC6852]. The 194 processes that govern the IETF are also published in the RFC series. 195 The Internet Standards Process is documented in [RFC2026]. That 196 document explains not only how standards are developed, but also how 197 disputes about decisions are resolved. RFC 2026 has been amended a 198 number of times [BCP9info]. The standards process can be amended in 199 the same manner that standards are approved. That is, someone 200 proposes a change by submitting a temporary document known as an 201 Internet-Draft, the community discusses it, and if rough consensus 202 can be found the change is approved by the Internet Engineering 203 Steering Group (IESG), who also have day-to-day responsibility for 204 declaring IETF consensus on technical decisions, including those that 205 affect the IANA protocol parameters registries. Anyone may propose a 206 change during a Last Call, and anyone may participate in the 207 community discussion. 209 >>> 210 >>> What registries are involved in providing the service or 211 >>> activity. 212 >>> 214 IETF Response: 216 The protocol parameters registries are the product of IETF work. 217 These also include the top-level registry for the entire IP address 218 space and some of its sub-registries, autonomous system number space, 219 and a number of special use registries with regard to domain names. 220 For more detail please refer to the documentation in the "overlaps or 221 interdependencies" section. 223 Administration of the protocol parameters registries is the service 224 that is provided to the IETF. 226 >>> 227 >>> A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 228 >>> IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 229 >>> communities. 230 >>> 232 IETF Response: 234 In this context, the IETF considers "overlap" to be where there is in 235 some way shared responsibility for a single registry across multiple 236 organizations. In this sense, there is no overlap between 237 organizations because responsibility for each registry is carefully 238 delineated. There are, however, points of interaction between other 239 organizations, and a few cases where the IETF may further define the 240 scope of a registry for technical purposes. This is the case with 241 both names and numbers, as described in the paragraphs below. In all 242 cases, the IETF coordinates with the appropriate organizations. 244 It is important to note that the IETF does not have formal 245 membership. The term "the IETF" includes anyone who wishes to 246 participate in the IETF, and IETF participants may also be members of 247 other communities. Staff and participants from ICANN and the 248 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) regularly participate in IETF 249 activities. 251 o The IETF has specified a number of special use registries with 252 regard to domain names. These registries require coordination 253 with ICANN as the policy authority for the DNS root, including 254 community groups that are responsible for ICANN policy on domain 255 names such as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and 256 the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO). There are 257 already mechanisms in place to perform this coordination, and the 258 capacity to modify those mechanisms to meet new conditions as they 259 might arise. [RFC6761] 261 o The IETF specifies the DNS protocol. From time to time there have 262 been and will be updates to that protocol. As we make changes we 263 will broadly consult the operational community about the impact of 264 those changes, as we have done in the past. 266 o The IETF specifies minimum requirements for root servers. 267 [RFC2870] Those requirements are currently under review, in 268 consultations with the root server community. 270 o The routing architecture has evolved over time, and is expected to 271 continue to do so. Such evolution may have an impact on 272 appropriate IP address allocation strategies. If and when that 273 happens, the IETF will consult and coordinate with the RIR 274 community, as we have done in the past. 276 o The IETF is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP 277 address space and AS number space. Through the IANA protocol 278 parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address and 279 AS number ranges to the RIRs [RFC7020],[RFC7249]. Special address 280 allocation, such as multicast and anycast addresses, often require 281 coordination. Another example of IP addresses that are not 282 administered by the RIR system is Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) 283 [RFC4193], where local networks employ a prefix that is not 284 intended to be routed on the public Internet. New special address 285 allocations are added, from time to time, related to the evolution 286 of the standards. In all cases, these special assignments are 287 listed in the IANA protocol paramters registries. 289 o The IETF maintains sub-registries for special IPv4 and IPv6 290 assignments. These are specified in [RFC3307], [RFC5771], and 291 [RFC6890]. The IETF coordinates such assignments with the RIRs. 293 o Changes to IETF standards may have impact on operations of RIRs 294 and service providers. A recent example is the extensions to BGP 295 to carry the Autonomous System numbers as four-octet entities 296 [RFC6793]. It is important to note that this change occurred out 297 of operational necessity, and it demonstrated strong alignment 298 between the RIRs and the IETF. 300 >>> II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 302 >>> 303 >>> This section should describe how existing IANA-related 304 >>> arrangements work, prior to the transition. 305 >>> 306 >>> A. Policy Sources 307 >>> 308 >>> 309 >>> This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy 310 >>> which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its 311 >>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there 312 >>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for 313 >>> different IANA activities, then please describe these 314 >>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development, 315 >>> please provide the following: 316 >>> 317 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 318 >>> affected. 319 >>> 321 IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries. 323 >>> 324 >>> A description of how policy is developed and established and 325 >>> who is involved in policy development and establishment. 326 >>> 328 IETF Response: 330 Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries 331 is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents 332 explains the model for how the registries are to be operated, how 333 policy is set, and how oversight takes place. RFC 5226 specifies the 334 policies that specification writers may employ when they define new 335 protocol registries in the "IANA Considerations" section of each 336 specification. All policies at the IETF begin with a proposal in the 337 form of an Internet-Draft. Anyone may submit such a proposal. If 338 there is sufficient interest, a working group whose scope includes 339 the proposed work may choose to adopt it, the IESG may choose to 340 create a working group, or an Area Director may choose to sponsor the 341 draft. In any case, anyone may comment on the proposal as it 342 progresses. A proposal cannot be passed by the IESG unless it enjoys 343 sufficient community support as to indicate rough consensus 344 [RFC7282]. In each case, a "Last Call" is made so that there is 345 notice of any proposed change to a policy or process. Anyone may 346 comment during a Last Call. For example, this process is currently 347 being used to update RFC 5226 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]. 349 >>> 350 >>> A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 351 >>> 353 IETF Response: 355 Most disputes are handled at the lowest level through the working 356 group and rough consensus processes. Should anyone disagree with any 357 action, Section 6.5 of [RFC2026] specifies a multi-level conflict 358 resolution and appeals process that includes the responsible Area 359 Director, the IESG, and the IAB. Should appeals be upheld, an 360 appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that 361 the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way 362 to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the 363 Internet Society Board of Trustees. 365 >>> 366 >>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute 367 >>> resolution processes. 368 >>> 370 IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a 371 conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working 372 group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been 373 amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX]. 375 >>> 376 >>> B. Oversight and Accountability 377 >>> 378 >>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 379 >>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the 380 >>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 381 >>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for 382 >>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or 383 >>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the 384 >>> following as are applicable: 385 >>> 386 >>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is 387 >>> affected. 388 >>> 390 IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries. 392 >>> 393 >>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are 394 >>> affected, identify which ones are affected. 395 >>> 397 IETF Response: All policy sources relating to the protocol parameters 398 registry are affected. 400 >>> 401 >>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight 402 >>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals 403 >>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities. 404 >>> 406 IETF Response: 408 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the 409 IETF whose responsibilities include, among other things, confirming 410 appointment of IESG members, managing appeals as discussed above, 411 management of certain domains, including .ARPA [RFC3172], and general 412 architectural guidance to the broader community. The IAB must 413 approve the appointment of an organization to act as IANA operator on 414 behalf of the IETF. The IAB is also responsible for establishing 415 liaison relationships with other organizations on behalf of the IETF. 416 The IAB's charter is to be found in [RFC2850]. 418 The IAB members are selected and may be recalled through a Nominating 419 Committee (NOMCOM) process, which is described in [RFC3777] and its 420 updates. This process provides for selection of active members of 421 the community who themselves agree upon a slate of candidates. The 422 active members are chosen randomly from volunteers with a history of 423 participation in the IETF, with limits regarding having too many 424 active members with the same affiliation. The selection of the 425 active members is performed in a manner that makes it possible for 426 anyone to verify that the correct procedure was followed. The slate 427 of candidates selected by the active members are sent to the Internet 428 Society Board of Trustees for confirmation. In general, members are 429 appointed for terms of two years. The IAB selects its own chair. 431 The IAB provides oversight of the protocol parameters registries of 432 the IETF, and is responsible for selecting appropriate operator(s) 433 and related per-registry arrangements. Especially when relationships 434 among protocols call for it, registries are at times operated by, or 435 in conjunction with, other bodies. Unless the IAB or IETF has 436 concluded that special treatment is needed, the operator for 437 registries is currently ICANN. 439 >>> 440 >>> A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting 441 >>> scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a 442 >>> description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator 443 >>> not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the 444 >>> extent to which the output of the mechanism is transparent and 445 >>> the terms under which the mechanism may change. 446 >>> 448 IETF Response: 450 A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between ICANN and the IETF 451 community has been in place since 2000. It can be found in 452 [RFC2860]. The MoU defines the work to be carried out by the IANA 453 functions operator for the IETF and the Internet Research Task Force 454 (IRTF), a peer organization to the IETF that focuses on 455 research.[RFC2014] Each year a service level agreement is negotiated 456 that supplements the MoU. 458 Day-to-day administration and contract management is the 459 responsibility of the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The IETF 460 Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) oversees the IAD. The 461 members of the IAOC are also the trustees of the IETF Trust, whose 462 main purpose is to hold certain intellectual property for the benefit 463 of the IETF as a whole. IAOC members are appointed by the Internet 464 Society Board of Trustees, the IAB, the IESG, and the NOMCOM 465 [RFC4071]. The IAOC works with the IANA functions operator to 466 establish annual IANA performance metrics [METRICS] and operational 467 procedures, and the resulting document is adopted as an supplement to 468 the MoU each year [MOUSUP]. Starting from 2014, in accordance with 469 these supplements, an annual audit is performed to ensure that 470 protocol parameter requests are being processed according to the 471 established policies. The conclusions of this audit will be 472 available for anyone in the world to review. 474 To date there have been no unresolvable disputes or issues between 475 the IETF and the current IANA functions operator. [RFC2860] 476 specifies that should a technical dispute arise, "the IANA shall seek 477 and follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG." In the 478 unlikely event that a more difficult situation should arise, the IAOC 479 and the IAB would engage ICANN management to address the matter. The 480 MoU also provides an option for either party to terminate the 481 arrangement with six months notice. Obviously such action would only 482 be undertaken after serious consideration. In that case a new IANA 483 functions operator would be selected, and a new agreement with that 484 operator would be established. 486 >>> 487 >>> Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal 488 >>> basis on which the mechanism rests. 489 >>> 491 IETF Response 493 This mechanism is global in nature. The current agreement does not 494 specify a jurisdiction. 496 >>>III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 497 Arrangements 499 >>> 500 >>> This section should describe what changes your community is 501 >>> proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of 502 >>> the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or 503 >>> more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that 504 >>> replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed 505 >>> in Section II.B should be described for the new 506 >>> arrangements. Your community should provide its rationale and 507 >>> justification for the new arrangements. 508 >>> 509 >>> If your community's proposal carries any implications for 510 >>> existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those 511 >>> implications should be described here. 512 >>> 513 >>> If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements 514 >>> listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that 515 >>> choice should be provided here. 516 >>> 518 IETF Response: 520 No new organizations or structures are required. Over the years 521 since the creation of ICANN, the IETF, ICANN, and IAB have together 522 created a system of agreements, policies, and oversight mechanisms 523 that already cover what is needed. This system has worked well 524 without any operational involvement from the NTIA. 526 IANA protocol parameters registry updates will continue to function 527 day-to-day, as they have been doing for the last decade or more. The 528 IETF community is very satisfied with the current arrangement with 529 ICANN. RFC 2860 remains in force and has served the IETF community 530 very well. RFC 6220 has laid out an appropriate service description 531 and requirements. 533 However in the absence of the NTIA contract a few new arrangements 534 may be needed in order to ensure the IETF community's expectations 535 are met. Those expectations are the following: 537 o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It 538 is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties 539 acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. 541 o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol 542 parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent 543 operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as 544 part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry 545 out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the 546 current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA 547 [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent 548 operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of 549 a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that 550 ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to 551 minimize disruption in the use the protocol parameters registries 552 or other resources currently located at iana.org. 554 In developing our response we have been mindful of the following 555 points that the IETF community has discussed over the last year 556 [ProtoParamEvo14]. Discussions during the IETF 89 meeting in London 557 led to the following guiding principles for IAB efforts that impact 558 IANA protocol parameter registries. These principles must be taken 559 together; their order is not significant. 561 1. The IETF protocol parameters registries function has been and 562 continues to be capably provided by the Internet technical community. 564 The strength and stability of the function and its foundation within 565 the Internet technical community are both important given how 566 critical protocol parameters are to the proper functioning of IETF 567 protocols. 569 We think the structures that sustain the protocol parameters 570 registries function need to be strong enough that they can be offered 571 independently by the Internet technical community, without the need 572 for backing from external parties. And we believe we largely are 573 there already, although the system can be strengthened further, and 574 continuous improvements are being made. 576 2. The protocol parameters registries function requires openness, 577 transparency, and accountability. 579 Existing documentation of how the function is administered and 580 overseen is good [RFC2860], [RFC6220]. Further articulation and 581 clarity may be beneficial. It is important that the whole Internet 582 community can understand how the function works, and that the 583 processes for registering parameters and holding those who oversee 584 the protocol parameters function accountable for following those 585 processes are understood by all interested parties. We are committed 586 to making improvements here if necessary. 588 3. Any contemplated changes to the protocol parameters registries 589 function should respect existing Internet community agreements. 591 The protocol parameters registries function is working well. The 592 existing Memorandum of Understanding in RFC 2860 defines "the 593 technical work to be carried out by the Internet Assigned Numbers 594 Authority on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the 595 Internet Research Task Force." Any modifications to the protocol 596 parameters registries function should be made using the IETF process 597 to update RFC 6220 and other relevant RFCs. Put quite simply: 598 evolution, not revolution. 600 4. The Internet architecture requires and receives capable service 601 by Internet registries. 603 The stability of the Internet depends on capable provision of not 604 just IETF protocol parameters, but IP numbers, domain names, and 605 other registries. Furthermore, DNS and IPv4/IPv6 are IETF-defined 606 protocols. Thus we expect the role of the IETF in standards 607 development, architectural guidance, and allocation of certain name/ 608 number parameters to continue. IP multicast addresses and special- 609 use DNS names are two examples where close coordination is needed. 610 The IETF will continue to coordinate with ICANN, the RIRs, and other 611 parties that are mutually invested in the continued smooth operation 612 of the Internet registries. We fully understand the need to work 613 together. 615 5. The IETF will continue management of the protocol parameter 616 registry function as an integral component of the IETF standards 617 process and the use of resulting protocols. 619 RFC 6220 specifies the role and function of the protocol parameters 620 registry, which is critical to IETF standards processes and IETF 621 protocols. The IAB, on behalf of the IETF, has the responsibility to 622 define and manage the relationship with the protocol registry 623 operator role. This responsibility includes the selection and 624 management of the protocol parameter registry operator, as well as 625 management of the parameter registration process and the guidelines 626 for parameter allocation. 628 6. The protocol parameters registries are provided as a public 629 service. 631 Directions for the creation of protocol parameters registries and the 632 policies for subsequent additions and updates are specified in RFCs. 633 The protocol parameters registries are available to everyone, and 634 they are published in a form that allows their contents to be 635 included in other works without further permission. These works 636 include, but are not limited to, implementations of Internet 637 protocols and their associated documentation. 639 These principles will guide the IAB, IAOC, and the rest of the IETF 640 community as they work with ICANN to establish future IANA 641 performance metrics and operational procedures. 643 >>> IV Transition Implications 645 >>> 646 >>> This section should describe what your community views as the 647 >>> implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 648 >>> implications may include some or all of the following, or other 649 >>> implications specific to your community: 650 >>> 651 >>> o Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity 652 >>> of service and possible new service integration throughout 653 >>> the transition. 654 >>> o Risks to operational continuity 655 >>> o Description of any legal framework requirements in the 656 >>> absence of the NTIA contract 657 >>> o Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 658 >>> workability of any new technical or operational methods 659 >>> proposed in this document and how they compare to established 660 >>> arrangements. 661 >>> 662 IETF Response: 664 No structural changes are required for the handling of protocol 665 parameters. The principles listed above will guide IAB, IAOC, and 666 the rest of the IETF community as they work with ICANN to establish 667 future IANA performance metrics and operational procedures, as they 668 have in the past. 670 As no services are expected to change, no continuity issues are 671 anticipated, and there are no new technical or operational methods 672 proposed by the IETF to test. The IETF leadership, ICANN, and the 673 RIRs maintain an ongoing informal dialog to spot any unforeseen 674 issues that might arise as a result of other changes. 676 What is necessary as part of transition is the completion of any 677 supplemental agreement(s) necessary to achieve the requirements 678 outlined in our response in Section III of this RFP. 680 >>> 681 >>> V. NTIA Requirements 682 >>> 683 >>> Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal 684 >>> must meet the following five requirements: 685 >>> 686 >>> "Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;" 687 >>> 689 IETF Response: 691 Because the IETF is open to everyone, participation is open to all 692 stakeholders. IETF processes outlined in Section I were used to 693 develop this proposal. Those same processes have been and shall be 694 used to amend governance of the protocol parameters function. As 695 mentioned previously, anyone may propose amendments to those 696 processes, and anyone may take part in the decision process. 698 >>> 699 >>> "Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the 700 >>> Internet DNS;" 701 >>> 703 IETF Response: 705 No changes are proposed in this document that affect the security, 706 stability, and resiliency of the DNS. 708 >>> 709 >>> "Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 710 >>> partners of the IANA services;" 711 >>> 713 IETF Response: 715 Implementers and their users from around the world make use of the 716 IETF standards and the associated IANA protocol parameters 717 registries. The current IANA protocol parameters registries system 718 is meeting the needs of these global customers. This proposal 719 continues to meet their needs by maintaining the existing processes 720 that have served them well in the past. 722 >>> 724 >>> 725 >>> "Maintain the openness of the Internet." 726 >>> 728 IETF Response: 730 This proposal maintains the existing open framework that allows 731 anyone to participate in the development of IETF standards, including 732 the IANA protocol parameters registries policies. Further, an 733 implementer anywhere in the world has full access to the protocol 734 specification published in the RFC series and the protocol parameters 735 registries published at iana.org. Those who require assignments in 736 the IANA protocol registries will continue to have their requests 737 satisfied, as specified by the existing policies for those 738 registries. 740 >>> 741 >>> "The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a 742 >>> government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution." 743 >>> 745 Policy oversight is performed by the IAB, which is neither a 746 government-led or an intergovernmental organization. 748 >>> 749 >>> VI. Community Process 750 >>> 751 >>> This section should describe the process your community used for 752 >>> developing this proposal, including: 753 >>> 754 >>> o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to 755 >>> determine consensus. 756 >>> 758 IETF Response: 760 The IESG established the IANAPLAN working group to develop this 761 response. Anyone was welcome to join the discussion and participate 762 in the development of this response. An open mailing list 763 (ianaplan@ietf.org) has been associated with the working group. In 764 addition, IETF's IANA practices have been discussed in the broader 765 community, and all input has been welcome. Normal IETF procedures 766 [RFC2026] [RFC2418] were used to determine rough consensus. The 767 chairs of the working group reviewed open issues and, after an 768 internal working group last call, determined that all had been 769 satisfactorily addressed, and subsequently the IESG did a formal 770 IETF-wide Last Call followed by a formal review and determined that 771 the document had rough consensus. 773 >>> 774 >>> Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 775 >>> meeting proceedings. 776 >>> 778 IETF Response: 780 The following list is not exhaustive, as there have been many open 781 discussions about this transition within the IETF community in the 782 past few months. 784 Creation of an open mailing list to discuss the transition: 785 http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Ztd2ed9U04qSxI- 786 k9-Oj80jJLXc 788 Announcement of a public session on the transition: 789 http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ 790 M5zVmFFvTbtgVyMB_fjUSW4rJ0c 792 Announcement by the IESG of the intent to form a working group: 793 http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ 794 QsvU9qX98G2KqB18jy6UfhwKjXk 796 The working group discussion: http://www.ietf.org/mail- 797 archive/web/ianaplan/current/maillist.html 799 2014-10-06 Interim Meeting Agenda, Minutes, and presentations: 800 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/10/06/ianaplan/ 801 proceedings.html 803 Working group last call: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianapl 804 an/EGF9rfJxn5QpQnRXmS2QxYKYR8k 806 Agenda from IETF 91 IANAPLAN WG meeting: 807 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-ianaplan 809 Minutes of IETF 91 IANAPLAN WG meeting: 810 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-ianaplan 812 Shepherd write-up: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- 813 ianaplan-icg-response/shepherdwriteup/ 815 IETF last call: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ 816 i5rx6PfjJCRax3Lu4qZ_38P8wBg 818 >>> 819 >>> An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 820 >>> proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 821 >>> disagreement. 822 >>> 824 IETF Response: 826 This document has attained rough consensus of the IETF Working Group 827 and of the IETF community as a whole, as judged first by the chairs 828 and then by the sponsoring Area Director, and then by the IESG in 829 accordance with [RFC2026] during the 18 December 2014 IESG telechat. 830 The IESG has approved the draft, pending insertion of this answer in 831 this section and the IAB approval note. The IAB approved a statement 832 for inclusion in the document on 19 December 2014. 834 Over the course of the development of the document, several 835 suggestions were raised that did not enjoy sufficient support to be 836 included. Two general areas of suggestion that generated much 837 discussion were 839 o A suggestion for a stronger statement over what terms the IAOC 840 should negotiate. 842 o A suggestion that "iana.org" and other associated marks be 843 transferred to the IETF trust. 845 At the end of the working group process, although there was not 846 unanimous support for the results, the working group chairs concluded 847 that rough consensus existed in the working group. The document 848 shepherd's summary of the WG consensus for this document can be found 849 here: 851 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/ 852 shepherdwriteup/ 854 During IETF last call, additional people voiced support for the 855 document. There were several editorial comments that resulted in 856 changes, as well as some discussion of more substantial comments some 857 of which resulted in text changes. There was some discussion of 858 comments already discussed earlier in the process, and but no new 859 objections were raised during the IETF last call. A summary of the 860 last call comments can be found from here: 862 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01477.html 864 New draft versions were prepared that took into account all the 865 agreed changes from the last call. The final version was then 866 approved by the IESG. 868 3. IANA Considerations 870 This memo is a response to a request for proposals. No parameter 871 allocations or changes are sought. 873 4. Security Considerations 875 While the agreement, supplements, policies, and procedures around the 876 IANA function have shown strong resiliency, the IETF will continue to 877 work with all relevant parties to facilitate improvements while 878 maintaining availability of the IANA registries. 880 5. IAB Note 882 The IAB supports the response in this document. 884 6. Acknowledgments 886 This document describes processes that have been developed by many 887 members of the community over many years. The initial version of 888 this document was developed collaboratively through both the IAB IANA 889 Strategy Program and the IETF IANAPLAN WG. Particular thanks go to 890 Jari Arkko, Marc Blanchet, Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, John 891 Curran, Leslie Daigle, Heather Flanagan, Christer Holmberg, John 892 Klensin, Barry Leiba, Milton Mueller, Andrei Robachevsky, Andrew 893 Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Greg Wood, and Suzanne Woolf. 895 7. References 897 7.1. Normative References 899 [BCP9info] 900 "Information on "The Internet Standards Process -- 901 Revision 3"", . 903 [METRICS] "Performance Standards Metrics Report", 904 . 906 [MOUSUP] "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of Understanding 907 between the IETF and ICANN)", 908 . 910 [NTIA-Announce] 911 "NTIA Announcement of Intent to Transition Key Internet 912 Domain Name Functions", March 2014, 913 . 917 [NTIA-Contract] 918 "The NTIA Contract with ICANN", 919 . 922 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 923 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 925 [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and 926 Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. 928 [RFC2850] Internet Architecture Board and B. Carpenter, "Charter of 929 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", BCP 39, RFC 2850, 930 May 2000. 932 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 933 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 934 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000. 936 [RFC3307] Haberman, B., "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast 937 Addresses", RFC 3307, August 2002. 939 [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and 940 Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 941 Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. 943 [RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", BCP 944 95, RFC 3935, October 2004. 946 [RFC4071] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF 947 Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 948 4071, April 2005. 950 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 951 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 952 May 2008. 954 [RFC5771] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., and D. Meyer, "IANA Guidelines for 955 IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", BCP 51, RFC 5771, 956 March 2010. 958 [RFC6220] McPherson, D., Kolkman, O., Klensin, J., Huston, G., and 959 Internet Architecture Board, "Defining the Role and 960 Function of IETF Protocol Parameter Registry Operators", 961 RFC 6220, April 2011. 963 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 964 RFC 6761, February 2013. 966 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman, 967 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, RFC 968 6890, April 2013. 970 [RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 971 7282, June 2014. 973 7.2. Informative References 975 [I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis] 976 Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 977 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft- 978 leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11 (work in progress), November 979 2014. 981 [ProtoParamEvo14] 982 "IAB statement on Guiding the Evolution of the IANA 983 Protocol Parameter Registries", March 2014, 984 . 987 [RFC-INDEX] 988 RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments", RFC 989 Index, August 2014. 991 [RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines 992 and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, October 1996. 994 [RFC2870] Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M., and R. Plzak, "Root 995 Name Server Operational Requirements", BCP 40, RFC 2870, 996 June 2000. 998 [RFC3172] Huston, G., "Management Guidelines & Operational 999 Requirements for the Address and Routing Parameter Area 1000 Domain ("arpa")", BCP 52, RFC 3172, September 2001. 1002 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 1003 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 1005 [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet 1006 Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December 1007 2012. 1009 [RFC6852] Housley, R., Mills, S., Jaffe, J., Aboba, B., and L. St. 1010 Amour, "Affirmation of the Modern Paradigm for Standards", 1011 RFC 6852, January 2013. 1013 [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The 1014 Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, August 2013. 1016 [RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, May 1017 2014. 1019 Appendix A. Changes 1021 NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication. 1023 A.1. Changes from -07 to -08 1025 o Update text describing the consensus process. 1027 o Insert IAB approval text. 1029 o Point to the proceedings of IETF 91 for IANAPLAN WG agenda and 1030 minutes. 1032 A.2. Changes from -06 to -07 1034 o Merge "No new changes are needed" with "No new organizations or 1035 structures are required". Fewer words to say the same thing. 1037 o consult to consult and coordinate. 1039 o RFC Editor comments. 1041 o Edits resulting from Security Area review by Sean Turner. 1043 o Edits resulting from AD comments. 1045 A.3. Changes from -05 to -06 1047 o Inclusion of agreed substantial comments from the AD. 1049 o Editorial changes. 1051 A.4. Changes from -04 to -05 1053 o Change to simpler text for answer about stability and security. 1055 o Mention of RFC 5226bis. 1057 A.5. Changes from -03 to -04 1059 o Additional text regarding what is needed in Section III. 1061 o Appropriate language modifications in section IV to match the 1062 above changes in III. 1064 o Acknowledgments edits. 1066 A.6. Changes from -02 to -03 1068 o Terminology consistency. 1070 o Add IAB section. 1072 o Changes based on WG discussion on what we prefer as part of the 1073 transition regarding IPR. 1075 o Add discussion about .ARPA domain. 1077 o Elaboration of what registries are involved. 1079 o Additional text around coordination with ICANN. 1081 o Working groups can adopt items within their charters. 1083 o IAB appointments generally last two years. 1085 o Add mention of the Trust. 1087 o Security Considerations update. 1089 A.7. Changes from -01 to -02 1091 o A better description special registries and BGP ASNs. 1093 o Clarity on how the address space and ASNs are delegated. 1095 o Many editorials corrected. 1097 o Mention of the annual review as part of the SLAs. 1099 o Change about how overlap is presented. 1101 o A number of small wording changes based on feedback. 1103 A.8. Changes from -00 to -01 1105 o Front matter greatly reduced. 1107 o Appendices with charter and RFP added. 1109 o Jurisdiction text changed. 1111 o Proposed changes include supplemental agreement(s) to address 1112 jurisdiction, dispute resolution, and IPR, including names and 1113 marks. 1115 o Transition implications slightly modified to reference 1116 supplemental agreement. 1118 Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG 1120 Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10 1122 (August 27, 2014) 1124 The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one 1125 deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National 1126 Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding 1127 the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the 1128 global multi-stakeholder community. The group will conduct itself 1129 transparently, consult with a broad range of stakeholders, and ensure 1130 that its proposals support the security and stability of the IANA 1131 functions. 1133 The group's mission is to coordinate the development of a proposal 1134 among the communities affected by the IANA functions. The IANA 1135 functions are divided into three main categories: domain names, 1136 number resources, and other protocol parameters. The domain names 1137 category falls further into the country code and generic domain name 1138 sub-categories. While there is some overlap among all of these 1139 categories, each poses distinct organizational, operational and 1140 technical issues, and each tends to have distinct communities of 1141 interest and expertise. For those reasons it is best to have work on 1142 the three categories of IANA parameters proceed autonomously in 1143 parallel and be based in the respective communities. 1145 The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a 1146 parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. 1147 While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier 1148 governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is 1149 focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA 1150 functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the 1151 expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes 1152 are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately 1153 coordinate their work. 1155 The coordination group has four main tasks: 1156 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties, including the three 1157 "operational communities" (i.e., those with direct operational 1158 or service relationship with IANA; namely names, numbers, 1159 protocol parameters). This task consists of: 1160 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1161 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1162 affected by the IANA functions 1163 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1164 compatibility and interoperability 1165 (iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition 1166 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1167 Describing each in more detail: 1168 (i) Liaison 1169 a. Solicit proposals 1171 The ICG expects a plan from the country code and generic name 1172 communities (possibly a joint one), a plan from the numbers 1173 community, and a plan from the protocol parameters community. 1174 Members of the ICG will ensure that the communities from which they 1175 are drawn are working on their part of the transition plans. This 1176 involves informing them of requirements and schedules, tracking 1177 progress, and highlighting the results or remaining issues. The role 1178 of a coordination group member during this phase is to provide status 1179 updates about the progress of his or her community in developing 1180 their component, and to coordinate which community will develop a 1181 transition proposal for each area of overlap (e.g., special-use 1182 registry). 1184 While working on the development of their proposals, the operational 1185 communities are expected to address common requirements and issues 1186 relating to the transition, in as far as they affect their parts of 1187 the stewardship of IANA functions. 1189 b. Solicit broader input 1191 The ICG is open for input and feedback from all interested parties. 1192 While no set of formal requirements related to a transition proposal 1193 will be requested outside the operational communities, everyone's 1194 input is welcome across all topics. 1196 The ICG expects that all interested parties get involved as early as 1197 possible in the relevant community processes. Input received 1198 directly by the ICG may be referred to the relevant community 1199 discussion. 1201 The ICG members chosen from a particular community are the official 1202 communication channel between the ICG and that community. 1204 (ii) Assessment 1206 When the group receives output from the communities it will discuss 1207 and assess their compatibility and interoperability with the 1208 proposals of the other communities. Each proposal should be 1209 submitted with a clear record of how consensus has been reached for 1210 the proposal in the community, and provide an analysis that shows the 1211 proposal is in practice workable. The ICG should also compile the 1212 input it has received beyond the operational communities, and review 1213 the impacts of this input. 1215 The ICG might at some point detect problems with the component 1216 proposals. At that point the role of the ICG is to communicate that 1217 back to the relevant communities so that they (the relevant 1218 communities) can address the issues. It is not in the role of the 1219 ICG to develop proposals or to select from among competing proposals. 1221 (iii) Assembling and submitting a complete proposal 1223 The assembly effort involves taking the proposals for the different 1224 components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, 1225 meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and 1226 that the whole fits together. The whole also needs to include 1227 sufficient independent accountability mechanisms for running the IANA 1228 function. The ICG will then develop a draft final proposal that 1229 achieves rough consensus within the ICG itself. The ICG will then 1230 put this proposal up for public comment involving a reasonable period 1231 of time for reviewing the draft proposal, analyzing and preparing 1232 supportive or critical comments. The ICG will then review these 1233 comments and determine whether modifications are required. If no 1234 modifications are needed, and the coordination group agrees, the 1235 proposal will be submitted to NTIA. 1237 If changes are required to fix problems or to achieve broader 1238 support, the ICG will work with the operational communities in a 1239 manner similar to what was described in task (ii) above. Updates are 1240 subject to the same verification, review, and consensus processes as 1241 the initial proposals. If, in the ICG's opinion, broad public 1242 support for the proposal as articulated by the NTIA is not present, 1243 the parts of the proposal that are not supported return to the 1244 liaison phase. 1246 (iv) Information sharing 1248 The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information 1249 about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat 1250 maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under 1251 its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are 1252 announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As 1253 the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is 1254 important that information about ongoing work is distributed early 1255 and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the 1256 detection of potential issues. 1258 Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for 1259 Proposals 1261 IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals 1263 8 September 2014 1265 Introduction 1267 Under the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) 1268 Charter, the ICG has four main tasks: 1270 (i) Act as liaison to all interested parties in the IANA 1271 stewardship transition, including the three "operational 1272 communities" (i.e., those with direct operational or service 1273 relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names, 1274 numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of: 1276 a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities 1277 b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities 1278 affected by the IANA functions 1280 (ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for 1281 compatibility and interoperability 1283 (iii) Assemble a complete 1284 proposal for the transition 1286 (iv) Information sharing and public communication 1288 This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG 1289 Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the 1290 non-operational communities. 1292 0. Complete Formal Responses 1294 The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks 1295 complete formal responses to this RFP through processes which are to 1296 be convened by each of the "operational communities" of IANA (i.e., 1297 those with direct operational or service relationships with the IANA 1298 functions operator, in connection with names, numbers, or protocol 1299 parameters). 1301 Proposals should be supported by the broad range of stakeholders 1302 participating in the proposal development process. Proposals should 1303 be developed through a transparent process that is open to and 1304 inclusive of all stakeholders interested in participating in the 1305 development of the proposal. In order to help the ICG maintain its 1306 light coordination role, all interested and affected parties are 1307 strongly encouraged to participate directly in these community 1308 processes. 1310 The following link provides information about ongoing community 1311 processes and how to participate in them, and that will continue to 1312 be updated over time: 1314 https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community 1316 In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently specified in 1317 the agreement between NTIA and ICANN 1318 [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as well 1319 as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA functions 1320 operator. SAC-067 1322 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf] 1323 provides one description of the many different meanings of the term 1324 "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the documents 1325 constituting the agreement itself. 1327 Communities are asked to adhere to open and inclusive processes in 1328 developing their responses, so that all community members may fully 1329 participate in and observe those processes. Communities are also 1330 asked to actively seek out and encourage wider participation by any 1331 other parties with interest in their response. 1333 A major challenge of the ICG will be to identify and help to 1334 reconcile differences between submitted proposals, in order to 1335 produce a single plan for the transition of IANA 1336 stewardship. Submitted Proposals should therefore focus on those 1337 elements that are considered to be truly essential to the transition 1338 of their specific IANA functions. The target deadline for all 1339 complete formal responses to this RFP is 15 January 2015. 1341 I. Comments 1343 While the ICG is requesting complete formal proposals through 1344 processes convened by each of the operational communities, and that 1345 all interested parties get involved as early as possible in the 1346 relevant community processes, some parties may choose to provide 1347 comments directly to the ICG about specific aspects of particular 1348 proposals, about the community processes, or about the ICG's own 1349 processes. Comments may be directly submitted to the ICG any time 1350 via email to icg-forum@icann.org. Comments will be publicly archived 1351 at . 1353 Commenters should be aware that ICG will direct comments received to 1354 the relevant operational communities if appropriate. The ICG will 1355 review comments received as time and resources permit and in 1356 accordance with the overall timeline for the transition. That is, 1357 comments received about specific proposals may not be reviewed until 1358 those proposals have been submitted to the ICG. The ICG may 1359 establish defined public comment periods about specific topics in 1360 the future, after the complete formal responses to the RFP have been 1361 received. 1363 Required Proposal Elements 1365 The ICG encourages each community to submit a single proposal that 1366 contains the elements described in this section. 1368 Communities are requested to describe the elements delineated in the 1369 sections below in as much detail possible, and according to the 1370 suggested format/structure, to allow the ICG to more easily 1371 assimilate the results. While each question is narrowly defined to 1372 allow for comparison between answers, respondents are encouraged to 1373 provide further information in explanatory sections, including 1374 descriptive summaries of policies/practices and associated 1375 references to source documents of specific policies/practices. In 1376 this way, the responses to the questionnaire will be useful at the 1377 operational level as well as to the broader stakeholder communities. 1379 In the interest of completeness and consistency, proposals should 1380 cross-reference wherever appropriate the current IANA Functions 1381 Contract[3] when describing existing arrangements and proposing 1382 changes to existing arrangements. 1384 0. Proposal type 1386 Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission 1387 proposes to address: 1388 [ ] Names [ ] Numbers [ ] Protocol Parameters 1390 I. Description of Community's Use of IANA Functions 1392 This section should list the specific, distinct IANA functions your 1393 community relies on. For each IANA function on which your community 1394 relies, please provide the following: 1396 o A description of the function; 1397 o A description of the customer(s) of the function; 1398 o What registries are involved in providing the function; 1399 o A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between your 1400 IANA requirements and the functions required by other customer 1401 communities. 1403 If your community relies on any other IANA service or activity 1404 beyond the scope of the IANA functions contract, you may describe 1405 them here. In this case please also describe how the service or 1406 activity should be addressed by the transition plan. 1408 II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements 1410 This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements 1411 work, prior to the transition. 1413 [3] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ 1414 publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf 1416 A. Policy Sources 1417 This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which 1418 must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of 1419 the services or activities described above. If there are distinct 1420 sources of policy or policy development for different IANA 1421 functions, then please describe these separately. For each source of 1422 policy or policy development, please provide the following: 1424 o Which IANA function (identified in Section I) are affected. 1425 o A description of how policy is developed and established and who 1426 is involved in policy development and establishment. 1427 o A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. 1428 o References to documentation of policy development and dispute 1429 resolution processes. 1431 B. Oversight and Accountability 1433 This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is 1434 conducted over the IANA functions operator's provision of the 1435 services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in 1436 which the IANA functions operator is currently held accountable for 1437 the provision of those services. For each oversight or 1438 accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the following as 1439 are applicable: 1441 Which IANA functions (identified in Section I) are affected. If the 1442 policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, identify 1443 which ones are affected and explain in what way. 1445 o A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight or 1446 perform accountability functions, including how individuals are 1447 selected or removed from participation in those entities. 1448 o A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting scheme, 1449 auditing scheme, etc.). This should include a description of the 1450 consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the 1451 standards established by the mechanism, the extent to which the 1452 output of the mechanism is transparent and the terms under which 1453 the mechanism may change. 1454 o Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal basis 1455 on which the mechanism rests. 1457 III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability 1458 Arrangements 1460 This section should describe what changes your community is 1461 proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the 1462 transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more 1463 existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should 1464 be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should 1465 be described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide 1466 its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. 1468 If your community's proposal carries any implications for the 1469 interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements 1470 described in Section II.A, those implications should be described 1471 here. 1473 If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in 1474 Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should 1475 be provided here. 1477 IV. Transition Implications 1479 This section should describe what your community views as the 1480 implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These 1481 implications may include some or all of the following, or other 1482 implications specific to your community: 1484 Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity of 1485 service and possible new service integration throughout the 1486 transition. 1488 Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. 1489 Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence of the 1490 NTIA contract. Description of how you have tested or evaluated the 1491 workability of any new technical or operational methods proposed in 1492 this document and how they compare to established arrangements. 1493 Description of how long the proposals in Section III are expected to 1494 take to complete, and any intermediate milestones that may occur 1495 before they are completed. 1497 V. NTIA Requirements 1499 Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must 1500 meet the following five requirements: 1501 o Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 1502 o Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet 1503 DNS; 1504 o Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and 1505 partners of the IANA functions; 1506 o Maintain the openness of the Internet; 1507 o The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led 1508 or an inter-governmental organization solution. 1510 This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these 1511 requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA 1512 functions. 1514 VI. Community Process 1515 This section should describe the process your community used for 1516 developing this proposal, including: 1517 o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine 1518 consensus. 1519 o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and 1520 meeting proceedings. 1521 o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's 1522 proposal, including a description of areas of contention or 1523 disagreement. 1525 Appendix D. Completed ICG response for the NTIA 1527 To be filled in with completed response. 1529 Authors' Addresses 1531 Eliot Lear (editor) 1532 Richtistrasse 7 1533 Wallisellen, ZH CH-8304 1534 Switzerland 1536 Phone: +41 44 878 9200 1537 Email: lear@cisco.com 1539 Russ Housley (editor) 1540 918 Spring Knoll Drive 1541 Herndon, VA 20170 1542 USA 1544 Email: housley@vigilsec.com