This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/cooperation-wg@ripe.net/
[cooperation-wg] Initial text for the Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Webinars Announced: CWG On Naming Related Functions Public Consultation on Draft Transition Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda - CRISP Team Teleconference 1 - Tuesday, 9 December 2014
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrei Robachevsky
andrei.robachevsky at gmail.com
Tue Dec 2 14:46:45 CET 2014
Dear colleagues, As RIPE-selected members of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, part of our preparation for this process has involved drafting some initial text in response to the IANA Coordination Group’s Request For Proposals (RFP). This text takes what we understand to be the RIPE community’s position and principles and distills them into a specific proposal. In preparing this text we have noted the drafting work of other stakeholders, including the ARIN CRISP team and the IETF’s ianaplan Working Group. To be clear, this text will form the basis of our position as we begin discussions with representatives from the other RIR communities; the final response to the ICG’s RFP may look somewhat different, depending on outcome of the full CRISP team's discussions. We would like to share our draft text on Section 3 of the RFP document, which covers the details of the proposal itself. We would appreciate any community feedback on the proposal we have drafted: ======= > III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability > Arrangements > > This section should describe what changes your community is proposing > to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the > transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more > existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should > be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should be > described for the new arrangements. Your community should provide its > rationale and justification for the new arrangements. > > If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the > interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements > described in Section II.A, those implications should be described > here. > > If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in > Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should > be provided here. A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the continuity of Internet number-related IANA services provided by ICANN or the ongoing community processes for development of policies relating to those services. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system. The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA functions operator's accountability to the open, bottom-up numbers community. The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be established between the IANA functions operator and the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the global Internet number pools according to policies developed by the regional communities via the global Policy Development Process (gPDP). The agreement would include specific requirements for performance and reporting, and would specify consequences should the contractor fail to meet those requirements, the means for the resolution of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of the contract. The agreement should also require the IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry services. As noted in numerous NRO communications over the past decade, the RIRs have been very satisfied with the performance of ICANN in the role of IANA functions operator. Taking this into account, and considering the strong desires expressed in the five RIR communities' IANA stewardship discussions for stability and a minimum of operational change, the Internet numbering community believes that ICANN should remain in the role of IANA functions operator for at least the initial term of the new contract. - The RIRs will coordinate with their communities and the ICANN Board to develop an IANA Service Level Agreement by June 2015. The processes for developing, agreeing and implementing policy relating to management of the global Internet number resource pools would require no change to accommodate this new arrangement. The text of the ICANN ASO MoU (https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-understanding/) meets the current and anticipated requirements for a community-driven global policy development process. As an additional measure of security and stability, the RIRs have documented their individual accountability and governance mechanisms, and asked the community-based Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) to undertake a review of these mechanisms and make recommendations for improvements that may be warranted given the nature of the stewardship transition for Internet number resources. - The RIRs will coordinate with coordinate with the NRO NC to identify any areas covered by the RIR Governance Matrix that require further attention and address those issues by June 2015. ====== We will share further information on the timing of the upcoming CRISP team teleconference shortly. Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20141202/d24f86c4/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Webinars Announced: CWG On Naming Related Functions Public Consultation on Draft Transition Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda - CRISP Team Teleconference 1 - Tuesday, 9 December 2014
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]