AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

2. The performance of the IANA functions often relies upon the policies and procedures developed by a variety of entities within the Internet technicalcommunity such as the IETF, the RIRs and ccTLD operators. Should the IANA functions contract include references to these entities, the policies they develop and instructions that the contractor follow the policies? Please provide specific information as to why or why not. If yes, please provide language you believe accurately captures these relationships.

Proposed Reply

The challenge is to internationalize the management of the domain name system in furtherance of the greater global public interest.  Membership in the named technical communities is drawn from every area and region of the globe. It would be useful to note that the Internet is THE enabler of the work processes and acculturation of these communities of practice. To the extent that the IANA functions are central to the stability, availability and continued expansion of a global interoperable Internet and to the extent that we embrace the Internet as a critical global public infrastructure and public goods, a thoughtful recognition of these communities to names and numbers administration would inure to greater opportunities for internationalization. Contractual references and obligations to the output of these and like communities whose work significantly impact continued stability, availability and internationalization of the domain name system, is a good a good move, but only under specific conditions.  

Any contract would make references to the different entities but should not summon to follow the different policies developed by the entities in question. The IANA functions contract should ONLY include references to the entities such as the IETF, the RIRs and ccTLD operators but NOT policies that these entities should develop, neither the instructions that the contractor should follow these policies.

Further, given the operational culture and open policy-making framework that are definitive attributes of these communities, this action will add a quotient of transparency to the functional administration of IANA.  

The success of the Internet lies in the fact that it is characterised by a minimum of regulation or by self-regulation. The public in general should never have the impression that the US Government is trying to influence the policies of the entities through the IANA functions. Most of all, if any contractual arrangements were drawn up, they should not become an over-bearing burden.

  • No labels

6 Comments

  1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

    Two possibilities are offered, with some members favoring one or the other.

    1. contractual arrangement – the US Government renews the contract, using the same terms as the current contract in place. In this case, involving an additional set of sub-contracts between ICANN and the IETF, the RIRs and ccTLD operators will risk making the process of collaboration cumbersome, thus turning it into a very complex and burdensome entity. We therefore suggest that the IANA contract make reference to these entities without defining the relationship that ICANN should have with them.
    2. A new co-operative agreement. This would not involve contracts but would include co-operative agreements with the IETF, RIRs etc. The co-operative agreement with IANA as well as those developed between IANA and these entities would need to be designed from scratch. If any change to the current structure involves bylaw changes and an over-bearing burden for ICANN to take these changes into account, an extension of the current contractual arrangements might be a better solution.

    The length of contact/agreement may be 3, 5 or 10 years. A shorter contract/agreement might mean less stability. A longer contract/agreement term might slow down the IANA function within ICANN from developing and evolving as the Internet and its environment evolves. Our members have differing views on this.

  2. Carlton Samuels

    The challenge is to internationalize the management of the domain name system in furtherance of the greater global public interest.  Membership in the named technical communities is drawn from every area and region of the globe. It would be useful to note that the Internet is THE enabler of the work processes and acculturation of these communities of practice. To the extent that the IANA functions are central to the stability, availability and continued expansion of a global interoperable Internet and to the extent that we embrace the Internet as a critical global public infrastructure and public goods, a thoughtful recognition of these communities to names and numbers administration would inure to greater opportunities for internationalization.

    In our view, contractual references and obligations to the output of these and like communities whose work significantly impact continued stability, availability and internationalization of the domain name system is a good move.  Further, given the operational culture and open policy-making framework that are definitive attributes of these communities, this action will add a quotient of transparency to the functional administration of IANA.  

  3. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

    I forward Eric Brunner-Williams' note to the na-discuss list:

    2. The management of assigned numbers has changed substantially from
    the point in time when the new entity was designated, and v4
    allocations have entered a scarcity regime. There is little necessity,
    and apparently no utility, in the Assigned Numbers function being
    contained in a single common contractual basket.

  4. Dev Anand Teelucksingh

    Via several Caribbean ALSes in LACRALO:

    The challenge is to internationalize the management of the domain name system in furtherance of the greater global public interest.  Membership in the named technical communities is drawn from every area and region of the globe, with the Internet being the enabler of the work processes and acculturation of these communities of practice. To the extent that the IANA functions are central to the stability, availability and continued expansion of a global interoperable Internet and in acknowledgement that we embrace the Internet as a critical global public infrastructure and commodity; a thoughtful recognition of these communities by IANA would lead to greater global legitimacy and consistency.

    In our view, contractual references and obligations to the output of these and like communities (whose work significantly impacts the continued stability, availability and internationalization of the domain name system) is a good move. Further, given the operational culture and open policy-making framework that are definitive attributes of these communities, this action will increase the level of transparency of the functional administration of IANA.

    1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

      Dev - please note that this text was already forwarded by Carlton. :-)

  5. Dave Kissoondoyal

    The contract should make references to the different entities but should not summon to follow the different policies developed by the entities in question

    The IANA functions contract should ONLY include references to the entities such as the IETF, the RIRs and ccTLD operators but NOT policies that these entities should develop, neither the instructions that the contractor should follow these policies.

    The success of the Internet lies in the fact that it is characterised by a minimum of regulation or in short by self-regulation. The public in general should never have the impression that the US Government is trying to influence the policies of the entities through the IANA functions