[lac-discuss-en] Fwd:SEEKING INPUTS- US Department of Commerce IANA Notice of Inquiry

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Fri Mar 4 03:20:03 UTC 2011


FYI

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Graham <graham at isoc.org>
Date: Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:57 PM
Subject: [ISOC] [SEEKING INPUTS} US Department of Commerce IANA Notice of
Inquiry
To: Chapter Delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>,
isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org


Dear Chapter Delegates and Members,

As you are probably aware, the Government of the United States released its
long-awaited Notice of Inquiry on the IANA functions on Friday last week.
 I'm attaching a pdf version that is easier to read than the Federal
Register version on their web site <See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/>.  The
deadline for comments is 31 March 2011, so we need to begin developing our
response now.

The evolution of the IANA function is an issue of immediate and great
interest to all parts of ISOC and our companion organizations.  I am seeking
views from our membership on this important topic to use as inputs when
developing the ISOC response to the NOI.  I will also be drawing on the
Board discussions of the IANA function that have taken place over the past
few years.  And finally, I will be coordinating with the other I*
organizations.  I do not believe we should try to develop a joint response
to DoC, but we will want to ensure there are no surprises and, ideally, that
there is broad general agreement in what we provide to the decision making
process.

It is my believe that the US government is sincerely hoping to get a broad
range of responses from the US and elsewhere with concrete suggestions for
improvement of the way the IANA function is handled.  For example, they are
hoping to hear clear statements about what this community wants; e.g.,
whether and why there should be changes to how the .arpa and/or the .int are
treated in the contract, what should be the arrangements for the protocol
parameters, etc.  If the Internet technical community would like to see the
US government make changes, we need to participate in this process to build
a record of those recommendations.  Thus I encourage you to send me your
inputs by end of day Friday, 18 March, 2011.

The NOI is quite detailed, as you will see.  It describes the IANA function,
and then goes on to ask questions in six areas.  To paraphrase, those are:

1/ Whether the interdependent technical functions performed under the IANA
should continue to be treated as interdependent, or if there should be
changes to the present grouping?

2/ Recognizing that other Internet technical organizations' policies (e.g.,
IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLDs) impact on the performance of the IANA functions,
should those be referred to and specified in the IANA functions contract and
how?

3/ Should there be changes in the handling of root zone management requests
requests pertaining to ccTLDs to address the concerns of some governments
and ccTLD operators?

4/ Are the current performance metrics and reporting by the IANA functions
operator adequate, or should there be changes?

5/ Are there improvements that should be made to the IANA functions contract
to better address the needs of users of the IANA functions?  Here the NOI
specifically asks if additional information on the performance and
administration of the IANA function would make the process more transparent?

6/ Should additional security considerations or enhancements be included in
the requirements in the IANA functions contract?

In every case, the NOI requests *specific* information and *specific*
suggestions for improvements in the IANA contract.  This may be an area
where ISOC can contribute to the process in a very positive way.  I would
especially like to hear from you if you are in some direct way a participant
or user of the IANA functions, and if you have any specific experience that
indicates a need for improvement or alteration of the contract, and if so,
what your specific recommendations would be.  That kind of input would
improve the depth and credibility of the ISOC response.  Of course, as
always, you are welcome to make your own direct comments to the process, but
I would still very much appreciate hearing about your experiences and views.

While I have not prepared text for the submission, in general, I would like
to see ISOC explain how important it is to rely on the native Internet
institutions to play appropriate roles where their expertise contributes to
the smooth functioning of the Internet overall.  Thus it is important that
the roles of the IETF, IAB, RIRs, and ccTLD operators be recognized in the
system, and that there is a need to build international confidence in how
the IANA function is operated and administered.  That includes the need to
be more open, transparent and thus accountable in the administration of the
process, to match the openness and transparency provided by the operator's
extensive reporting.  I also foresee suggesting that the stability of the
IANA functions could be improved under different process than the current
redrawing and renewing of relatively short term IANA functions contracts.

I hope that you will read the full NOI, and I look forward to hearing your
views on the questions it asks, your experiences, and your recommendations
for improvement.

Once again, to make it possible for me to prepare the ISOC input, please
send me your inputs before end of day on March 18, 2011 or earlier if
possible.

Thank you in advance

Bill


_______________________________________________
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
https://portal.isoc.org/
Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IANA NOI in.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1332812 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20110303/1d136c7b/IANANOIin-0001.pdf 


More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list