Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Progress on the IANA stewardship transition from the numbers perspective
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Aug 19 17:34:48 UTC 2015
Sure and I believe the numbers proposal reflects maintenance of such
independence and relationship with ICANN as the IFO.
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 19 Aug 2015 17:53, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> The first thing I see in this that sets off alarm bells is the first
> paragraph. I sincerely hope NTIA realizes that there is much more at stake
> here than just DNS.
> While I realize that DNS and more specifically domain names are the cash
> cow tail that wags the IANA dog, if we are not careful in this transition
> process to make sure that IETF and Numbers retain their independence and an
> independent control of their relationship with the IANA functions provider,
> including the ability to select a new IANA functions provider for their
> purposes, thins can get very bad for the internet very quickly.
> On Aug 17, 2015, at 23:19 , Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
> Here is an interesting development from the US NTIA on the IANA transition
> to the global multistakeholder community. A summary is NTIA will extend its
> contract with ICANN for at least a year to September 2016 and a possibility
> of a 3 year extension to September 2018.
> An Update on the IANA Transition
> August 17, 2015 by Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
> and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling
> [image: Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA
> Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling]
> The Internet’s global multistakeholder community has made tremendous
> progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the historic
> stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s domain name system
> When we announced
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions> our
> intent in March 2014 to complete the privatization of the DNS, we noted
> that the base period of our contract with ICANN to perform technical
> functions related to the DNS, known as the IANA functions, expired on
> September 30, 2015. However, it has become increasingly apparent over the
> last few months that the community needs time to complete its work, have
> the plan reviewed by the U.S. Government and then implement it if it is
> Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition
> documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals.
> After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and
> implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take
> until at least September 2016 to complete this process. In response to
> their feedback, we informed Congress on Friday that we plan to extend our
> IANA contract with ICANN for one year to September 30, 2016. Beyond 2016,
> we have options to extend the contract for up to three additional years if
> This one-year extension will provide the community with the time it needs
> to finish its work. The groups are already far along in planning the IANA
> transition and are currently taking comments on their IANA transition
> proposals. As we indicated in a recent Federal Register notice
> we encourage all interested stakeholders to engage and weigh in on the
> In preparation for the implementation phase of the IANA stewardship
> transition, NTIA also asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal
> detailing how best to remove NTIA’s administrative role associated with
> root zone management, which the groups working on the transition were not
> asked to address. We asked Verisign and ICANN to submit a proposal
> detailing how best to do this in a manner that maintains the security,
> stability and resiliency of the DNS. Under the current root zone management
> system, Verisign edits and distributes the root zone file after it has
> received authorization to do so from NTIA. Verisign and ICANN have
> developed a proposal
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf> that
> outlines a technical plan and testing regime for phasing out the largely
> clerical role NTIA currently plays in this process. The testing will
> occur in a parallel environment that will not disrupt the current operation
> of the root zone management system.
> These developments will help ensure that the IANA transition will be done
> in a manner that preserves the security and stability of the DNS.
> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
> On 3 August 2015 at 08:57, Mwendwa Kivuva <Kivuva at transworldafrica.com>
>> Here is an update on the IANA stewardship proposal as it pertains the
>> numbering community. Community feedback is highly appreciated.
>> COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
>> The CRISP team has been exploring the best way of informing and engaging
>> the numbering community as it pertains to the IANA Stewardship transition.
>> In that regard, an easy to understand info-graphic has been released for
>> the community. The info-graphic is available here:
>> The NRO website has also been enhanced to make it more intuitive easy to
>> navigate. Check it here
>> On 8 July, the Africa Domain Name System Forum 2015 held in Nairobi had a
>> discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition.
>> REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER:
>> NRO developed the Review Committee Charter. The RIRs community was given
>> an opportunity to give feedback on the charter. The CRISP team did not find
>> any inconsistency between the Review Committee Charter and the numbering
>> community proposal.
>> The NRO legal team drafted the SLA that is to be signed between the RIRs
>> and the IANA functions operator. This arrangement will directly reflect and
>> enforce the IANA Numbering Services Operator’s accountability to the
>> Internet Number Community. The community gave its feedback on the SLA. The
>> CRISP team also analysed the SLA for consistency with the numbering
>> community proposal. The SLA is available here
>> IPR ISSUE - IANA.org <http://iana.org/> and IANA trademark
>> The numbering community proposed the IPRs related to the IANA function be
>> held by an independent entity, preferably the IETF Trust. The other two
>> proposals have not contradicted this view but CWG proposal has not
>> expressly stated the position for the names community. ICG has requested
>> CWG to clarify their position on the IPR issue. CWG are still deliberating
>> on it, and have suggested to conduct a stress test on the whole IPR issue.
>> There are 3 trademarks involved: (i) "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority,"
>> (ii) "IANA", and (iii) the IANA Logo, which consists of IANA in stylized
>> letters plus Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.
>> The Internal ICG mailing list has this statement allegedly from the ICANN
>> board "The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of
>> the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to
>> use the intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be
>> granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational
>> communities unanimously designate."
>> THE TRANSITION AT US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
>> On June 23, the US House of Representatives passed the DOTCOM Act, a bill
>> that provides for congressional oversight of a U.S. government handoff of
>> oversight of the IANA functions. One takeaway from congressional hearings
>> on the handoff was that both sides agreed that the handoff of the IANA
>> functions from oversight by the National Telecommunications & Information
>> Administration to a multistakeholder model wouldn't be ready by the Sept.
>> 30, 2015 expiration date of the current contract with ICANN.
>> ICG PROGRESS
>> The IANA stewardship transition Coordination Group (ICG) has combined the
>> proposals from the numbering, protocol parameters , and names community
>> into one consolidated proposal. The three respective communities are
>> expected to study the document for compatibility and interoperability and
>> comment on any (in)consistencies and realignments with each other, and
>> ensure the proposal meet the NTIA requirements. The proposal is out for
>> public comment from July 31 to September 8, 2015.
>> Specific questions about which the ICG is seeking comment are listed
>> Questions Concerning the Proposal as a Whole
>> 1. Completeness and clarity: Is the combined proposal complete? Each of
>> the operational community proposals contains aspects to be completed in the
>> future when the proposal is implemented. Is the combined proposal specified
>> in sufficient detail such that it can be evaluated against the NTIA
>> 2. Compatibility and interoperability: Do the operational community
>> proposals work together in a single proposal? Do they suggest any
>> incompatible arrangements where compatibility appears to be required? Is
>> the handling of any conflicting overlaps between the functions resolved in
>> a workable manner?
>> 3. Accountability: Do the operational community proposals together
>> include appropriate and properly supported independent accountability
>> mechanisms for running the IANA functions? Are there any gaps in overall
>> accountability under the single proposal?
>> 4. Workability: Do the results of any tests or evaluations of workability
>> that were included in the operational community proposals conflict with
>> each other or raise possible concerns when considered in combination?
>> Questions Concerning NTIA Criteria
>> 5. Do you believe the proposal supports and enhances the multistakeholder
>> model? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what
>> proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
>> 6. Do you believe the proposal maintains the security, stability, and
>> resiliency of the DNS? If yes, please explain why. If not, please explain
>> why and what proposal modifications you believe are necessary.
>> 7. Do you believe the proposal meets the needs and expectations of the
>> global customers and partners of the IANA services? If yes, please explain
>> why. If not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe
>> are necessary. Please indicate if you are a customer or partner of the IANA
>> 8. Do you believe the proposal maintains the openness of the Internet? If
>> yes, please explain why. If not, please explain why and what proposal
>> modifications you believe are necessary.
>> 9. Do you have any concerns that the proposal is replacing NTIA’s role
>> with a government-led or inter-governmental organization solution? If yes,
>> please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are
>> necessary. If not, please explain why.
>> 10. Do you believe that the implementation of the proposal will continue
>> to uphold the NTIA criteria in the future? If yes, please explain why. If
>> not, please explain why and what proposal modifications you believe are
>> Questions Concerning ICG Report and Executive Summary
>> 11. Do you believe the ICG report and executive summary accurately
>> reflect all necessary aspects of the overall proposal? If not, please
>> explain what modifications you believe are necessary.
>> General Questions
>> 12. Do you have any general comments for the ICG about the proposal?
>> The full announcement and more information can be found at the ICG's
>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>> For the AFRINIC CRISP TEAM
>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
>> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD