Update on IANA Oversight Discussions: ICG Meeting and IETF 90
Dear colleagues, In recent weeks, two significant community discussions regarding the transition of oversight of the IANA functions have taken place. The following summaries are provided as feedback to the RIPE community - an online version of these summaries, containing links to more detailed reports and information, is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/update... Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC ——— First Meeting of the ICG The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) held its first meeting in London on 17-18 July 2014. This group has been established to coordinate input from the various relevant communities and IANA stakeholders, moving towards development of a global transition plan. Discussions and outcomes of the meeting are documented on the ICANN website. Adiel Akplogan and Paul Wilson, the CEOs of AFRINIC and APNIC respectively, took part in the meeting as representatives of the Number Resource Organization (NRO), and Hartmut Glaser, NRO Number Council member from the LACNIC region, represented the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). In addition, Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC Chief Scientist, participated as one of two representatives of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC). Key points from this meeting: • ICG members strongly asserted the group’s independence from ICANN. • The constructive atmosphere in the meeting resulted in the successful definition of a draft charter [PDF] and organisational principles for ICG. • The draft charter acknowledges that parts of the proposal will be developed in parallel across three main pillars (names, numbers and protocol parameters), coordinated by the respective operational communities. • The draft charter also makes it clear that the ICG does not expect to create substantive content in the proposals itself. Should serious further work be needed on the proposals, the ICG expects to send them back to the respective communities to do that work. • The group agreed to the request from the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) for five seats (rather than the proposed two). • The ICG recognised that there is a very tight schedule for developing a global proposal to the NTIA for transition of IANA oversight, and called on the various communities to produce input to a global proposal by the end of 2014. • There were around 100 remote observers for both days of the meeting. • The next meeting of the ICG is being planned for 6 September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. IETF 90 IANAPLAN BoF Session On 24 July 2014, during the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting in Toronto, a dedicated Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) session was held to discuss the IANA oversight transition. Approximately 150 people participated on-site, with more participating remotely. The session was chaired by Andrew Sullivan and Marc Blanchet. Session materials, including minutes and presentations, are available from the IETF website. Key points from this session: • Alissa Cooper reported on the first meeting of the ICG, and noted that the IETF community will take the lead in drafting a proposal regarding the protocol parameters. • Participants strongly supported the notion that the current arrangements (both contractual and operational) should not change significantly as a result of the transition process. • It was agreed that there should be reviews to ensure that: • Current procedures and relationships are sufficiently documented • The transition of oversight will not require significant changes of the current arrangements • In terms of IETF process, there was agreement that, while the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) should take a leading role, there should be a dedicated Working Group formed to act as sounding board and confirm rough consensus on the proposed transitioning plans. This working group could act as a focal point for other stakeholders to relay input back to the IETF.
Here is my personal take away from the ICG meeting and the general discussion: Note Aagain that this is about the arrangements for the *implementation* of a very small but important function that *implements* policies that govern Internet number distribution; roughly it is about the work of IANA delegating blocks of number spaces to the RIRs. The policies themselves are not discussed in this process and they are not expected to change. Neither is the policy development process discussed and neither is that expected to change. This is purely about the small part of *implementation* of global policies. The bulk of the Internet number related policies are implemented by the RIRs and the LIRs (ISPs) according to regional policies. This is not going to change. Finally I personally expect that the same people will continue performing this work for the time being, but under new arrangements. So we can expect operational stability. The time schedule that is emerging means that the RIPE community will have to come to consensus on a proposal by the end of this year. Many believe that the window of opportunity for change will close if NTIA chooses to renew the current arrangements with ICANN unchanged. Specifically the IETF is pushing hard to meet this deadline and at this moment no-one is questioning it. The IETF has done most of the preparatory work already and their arrangements with IANA are well defined and documented. So I expect that the IETF will decide to move ahead on their own if the other communities are not ready in time. Our proposal will have to explain the current arrangements under which IANA implements the global policies for Internet number distribution, essentially the arrangements under which IANA hands block of numbers to the RIRs. We should spend time on reminding ourselves of this first, so that the discussion about future arrangements stays focused. Then we need to agree on the proposed arrangements for a future time when NTIA does no longer hold a contract with ICANN for this work. Then we will need to describe explicitly how this proposal meets the accountability requirements of the RIPE community. We have to be aware that concurrently this discussion will be happening in the other regions and the result must be a proposal that has consensus in all the regions. Finally we have to take into consideration that it is likely that at least one of the domain name communities will not make the deadline. So we will have to generate a proposal that will stand alone. We will also have to consider what to do when it becomes clear that not everyone will be ready in time. As I have said in our Warsaw meeting: personally I strongly believe we should at least develop viable options for such an eventuality. The least this will do is to encourage the other communities to work harder on meeting the schedule. Apologies for the long and difficult prose during the summer months. If anything is unclear, I am happy to expand even further ;-). Daniel
participants (2)
-
Chris Buckridge -
Daniel Karrenberg