[At-Large] Cross Community Working Group (CWG) draft proposal on IANA DNS transition

[Joly MacFie]

Administering the DNS root (and a couple of other TLDs) is only one of the
four IANA functions, the others are IP address delegation, protocol
parameters, and the time zone database. But it is the one that is
controversial and has critical accountability concerns. There are sure to
be plenty of comments over the next 3 weeks including - one hopes - yours!


 joly posted: "The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) tasked with
developing to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements
of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System (DNS)  has now
published its draft transition proposal for public commen"


[image: iana]The *Cross Community Working Group
<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Cross+Community+Working+Group+Home>*
(CWG)
tasked with developing to produce a consolidated transition proposal for
the elements of the *IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System
(DNS)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Domain_names>*
has
now published its *draft transition proposal
<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en>*
for
public comment. While emphasizing that the proposal is "interrelated and
interdependent " on results of the  *Cross Community Working Group on
Enhancing ICANN Accountability
<https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability>* ("CCWG-Accountability"),
the group proposes the following elements for the transition:

   - The current operational performance of the IANA Naming Functions is
   generally satisfactory to its direct customers, and the community generally
   believes that the current NTIA oversight arrangement has been successful in
   ensuring the accountability of the IANA Functions Operator in that role. As
   such, the objective of the CWG is largely to replicate the roles played by
   the NTIA in the execution and oversight of the IANA Naming Functions as
   faithfully as possible, while acknowledging that certain changes will be
   required to contractual terms and arrangements that are particular to
   contracts entered into with the U.S. government.
   - The CWG does not believe that there is a reason to transition the IANA
   Naming Functions outside of ICANN concurrent with the IANA Stewardship
   Transition. Maintaining this part of the status quo implies that the new
   arrangements post-transition should provide the possibility of replacing
   ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator at a later date, including by means of
   a Request for Proposal (RFP) or other tender process.
   - The proposed replacement solution should not seek to create another
   ICANN-like structure with associated costs and complexities.
   - The proposal should not seek to replace the role of the ICANN
   multi-stakeholder community with respect to policy development for the
   Names Community,  nor to affect existing TLD policies or how they are
   currently applied by the IANA Functions Operator.
   - The existing separation between ICANN as a policy body and ICANN as
   the IANA Functions Operator needs to be reinforced and strengthened.

The group outlines a 4 part structure:

   1. *Contract Co.* – This primary function of this entity (likely a
   non-profit corporation) is to be signatory to the contract with the IANA
   Functions Operator. This entity should be lightweight and have little or no
   staff.
   2. *Multistakeholder Review Team (MRT)* – The MRT would be a
   multi-stakeholder body with formally selected representatives from all of
   the relevant communities (exact composition TBD). The operation of the MRT
   would be based on the concept of maximum public transparency. The
   responsibilities of the MRT will include:
      - Developing the detailed contract terms for the agreement between
      Contract Co. and the IANA Functions Operator, based on the key contract
      terms proposed as part of this proposal and set forth as Annex 3
      - Making key decisions for Contract Co. (e.g., whether or not to
      enter into a rebidding (RFP) process for the operation of the IANA Naming
      Functions)
      - Conducting the IANA Functions Operator Budget Review
      - Addressing any escalation issues raised by the Customer Standing
      Committee (CSC) including the possibility of engaging in enforcement
      - Performing certain elements of administration (including periodic
      performance reviews) currently set forth in the IANA Functions
Contract and
      currently being carried out by the NTIA
      - Managing a re-contracting or rebidding (RFP) process for the
      operation of the IANA Functions, both as an enforcement option
and as part
      of a regular rebidding procedure

   The CWG is in the process of discussing whether there is an additional
   enforcement role for the MRT related to policy implementation by the IANA
   Functions Operator; specifically, whether the MRT should be able to
   commence a proceeding before the Independent Appeals Panel.
   3. *Customer Standing Committee (CSC)* – While the exact composition is
   still to be determined, the CSC would primarily be made up of a number of
   representatives of registry operators, including ccTLD and gTLD
   registries. Input from the CSC would feed into and inform the work of the
   MRT. It is possible that the CSC would also include additional individuals
   with relevant expertise and/or liaisons (or representatives) from
otherSO/ACs.
   The CSC would:
      - Work with the MRT to establish Service Levels and Performance
      Indicators for the performance of the IANA Naming Functions
      - Receive reports from the IANA Functions Operator including regular
      performance reports.
      - Review these reports against established service levels and
      escalate any significant issues to the MRT
   4. *Independent Appeals Panel (IAP)* – The CWG recommends that all IANA
   actions which affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database be subject
   to an independent and binding appeals panel. The Appeals Mechanism should
   also cover any policy implementation actions that affect the execution of
   changes to the Root Zone File or Root Zone WHOIS and how relevant policies
   are applied. This need not be a permanent body, but rather could be handled
   the same way as commercial disputes are often resolved, through the use of
   a binding arbitration process using an independent arbitration organization
   (e.g., ICDR, ICC, AAA) or a standing list of qualified people under rules
   promulgated by such an organization.

The CWG requests public comments
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/> on
on some specific aspects of  future root management process, including NTIA
involvement, as well as an "alternative" proposal for ICANN itself to take
over the IANA functions. *Deadline for comments is December 22 2014*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7266#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7266#comments>





*Permalink*
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7266



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-