ARIN and the Evolution of the IANA Functions

[ARIN]

** This announcement was also sent to arin-announce at arin.net. Our 
apologies if you receive duplicate messages. ** 	

On Friday 14 March, the United States Government announced that it 
intends to transition oversight of key Internet functions (including the 
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA) to the global 
multi-stakeholder community. It has asked ICANN to facilitate, in 
consultation with the global multi-stakeholder community, the 
development of a proposal for the transition.

Leaders of the I* Internet technical coordination organizations had met 
several times and in line with the Montevideo statement we had discussed 
some common principles for an evolution such as the one announced by the 
US Gov. Regular participants in those meeting, including their 
affiliated organizations, are noted here:
http://www.nro.net/news/statement-from-the-i-leaders-coordination-meeting

As outcome of their discussion, a common position was developed on the 
following points:

     * The roles of all Internet registry policy bodies stay unchanged. 
These bodies continue to hold policy authority for the protocol 
parameter, number, and name spaces, including responsibility to ensure 
the faithful registry implementation according to those policies.

     * The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to the role of ICANN as the 
IANA protocol parameter and IP address registry operator.

     * ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry 
functions in accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also 
provide affirmations to all stakeholders (including governments) that 
all Internet registry policy bodies and ICANN itself will continue to 
use open and transparent processes.

The full text summarizing these points is included at the end of this email.

Separately, ICANN released a timeline that details its expectations of 
the multi-stakeholder consultation process. More information on these 
plans will undoubtedly come out of the upcoming ICANN Meeting in 
Singapore from 23-27 March. The timeline document is available here:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf

While this timeline focuses on ICANN meetings and events, it is clear 
that this process will not take place only in ICANN venues. The five RIR 
communities are key stakeholders in this process, and it is vital that 
we discuss these issues both within our regional communities and 
globally to ensure that our voices are heard and our concerns 
recognized. The stable, accurate and professional management of the IANA 
functions, including management of the global IP address pool, is 
fundamental to the operation of the Internet. It is important that we 
not lose sight of this fact as management of the IANA evolves to more 
faithfully reflect the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet community.

In the ARIN community, these discussions will take place via the 
communication and discussion channels already in place, including the 
upcoming ARIN 33 meeting in Chicago this April. ARIN will continue to 
facilitate discussion and ensure that the output is effectively 
channeled into the global process.

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions at this time, I 
encourage you to raise them on ARIN's Public Policy mailing list, 
arin-ppml at arin.net.

If you aren't currently on this list, you can subscribe at: 
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

I look forward to receiving your input on the mailing list and to 
further discussion at ARIN 33.

Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


			*******

Agreed text by the Leaders of I* organizations:

In order to ensure global acceptance and affirmation of ICANN's role as 
administrator of the IANA functions, we are now pursuing the transition 
of USG's stewardship of the IANA functions from the USG to ICANN. The 
roles of all Internet registry policy bodies (such as the RIRs, IAB, 
IETF, ASO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, and gNSO) stay unchanged. These bodies 
continue to hold policy authority for the protocol parameter, number, 
and name spaces, including responsibility to ensure the faithful 
registry implementation according to those policies.

This transition from the USG has been envisaged since the early days of 
ICANN. It is now feasible due to the growing maturity of ICANN and other 
organisations in the Internet ecosystem. ICANN's structures and 
accountability mechanisms continue to evolve and advance guided by the 
AoC community reviews, including ATRT. In addition, ICANN will continue 
to embrace its aggressive roadmap to truly globalize its structures.

In order to operationalize the transition from USG, ICANN will engage 
with the Internet community in a bottom-up public consultation process 
to ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms. In addition, ICANN will 
work with the names, numbers, and protocol communities to formalize 
relationships, commitments, and mutual responsibilities.

When community stakeholders have input about the policies emanating from 
the names, numbers, and protocol communities, they would be directed to 
pursue their interests through the relevant Internet communities (such 
as the gNSO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their 
mechanisms for consideration and potential redress.

The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent processes. 
They also are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol 
parameter and IP address registry operator. The accountability 
mechanisms for ICANN's administration of these core internet functions 
will provide escalation routes that assure the names, numbers, and 
protocol communities that if IANA's performance is lacking, those 
communities can pursue defined processes for improving performance, 
including pre-agreed independent 3rd party arbitration processes.

ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry functions 
in accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also provide 
affirmations to all stakeholders (including governments) from all 
Internet registry policy bodies and itself that all of us will use open 
and transparent processes.