[IANAOversight] Questions to help us set a fromework for our proposal

Adiel Akplogan adiel at afrinic.net
Mon Oct 27 19:00:10 UTC 2014

Dear all,

Beside  Richard Hill’s proposal on this list, we have not seen any other substantial proposal regarding the transition. In order to move thing forward a little bit, I would like to share with you this set of questions which outcome can guide us in creating a proposal for our region but also for the overall number community. This set of question was developed by the 5 RIR and used by the other RIRs in different way (ARIN has just used them is a survey, RIPE is using it in their various consultations etc …). I suggest that we have a look at it as well (maybe also translate it into as survey?).

1. https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/rir-communications

2. The RIR communities have successful, long-established processes for making policy at the global and regional levels. These processes are defined as being open to all interested parties, transparent in their processes and operations, and driven by the community themselves via consensus decision-making (“bottom-up”). They operate predominantly at the regional level to create policies that address regional needs and interests. More rarely, they serve to create global policies for administering the top level of the Internet number registration hierarchy; these global policies are implemented by the IANA operator, a role filled by ICANN since 1997.

RIR policy development processes pre-date ICANN and the current NTIA IANA contract, and the incorporation of global Internet number policies into that contract has not directly affected those processes. The NTIA plays no explicit role in making or directing policy for the operation of those IANA functions relating to Internet number resources.

The current processes and structures have resulted in the satisfactory operation of the IANA functions by ICANN, under policy direction from the RIR communities.

AFRINIC is seeking agreement (or otherwise) on the following points regarding an AFRINIC community position on the future oversight of the IANA functions.

1. Do you agree that the following should be the primary priorities for the AFRINIC community?

1.1 There should be minimal operational change – the current processes for IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the participation of all interested parties.

1.2 Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the existing RIR community policy-making processes.

1.3 The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight mechanisms defined in a global proposal to NTIA.

1.4 Any other aspect that should be our priority while thinking about this?

2. Do you agree that a model for IANA oversight supported by the AFRINIC community should include the following elements?

2.1 ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well, and should continue to do so at this time.

2.2 The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the communities that it serves. Decisions regarding terms of service or duration and renewal of the contract should be made by specifically delegated representatives of those communities.

2.3 Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should be transparent and stable.2.4 Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a “bundle”, managed by a single operator.

2.5 This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight authority – any oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters.

2.6 Any other element(s) that you think should be taken into consideration here?
————————————————[End of Questions]————————————————

As Awe will be the last closing the loop of regional consultation in this process, we won’t have much time after the panel at AFRINIC-21 to consult everyone so we imperatively need to collect as much input into this process now. Maybe these questions will help?

- a.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 313 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Url : https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/ianaoversight/attachments/20141027/27cf1d5b/signature-0001.bin

More information about the ianaoversight mailing list