Page History
Versions Compared
compared with
Key
- This line was added.
- This line was removed.
- Formatting was changed.
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Recommendation | Description | Current Phase | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recommendation 1 | The operational communities (protocol parameters, names, and numbers) that have been invited to submit proposals should determine 1) whether or not the requirements and deliverables defined in the IANA Functions Contract should be retained, and if so which ones; 2) whether or not additional external controls are necessary for requirements that should be retained; and 3) if additional external controls are necessary, how and by whom they should be administered. |
| ||||||
| Recommendation 2A | Each of the communities should determine whether or not existing mechanisms outside of the IANA Functions Contract are sufficiently robust to hold the IANA Functions Operator accountable to the affected communities for the proper performance of the IANA Functions after the IANA Functions Contract expires; and if they are not, the communities should determine what additional accountability mechanisms will be needed. |
| ||||||
| Recommendation 2B | Each of the communities should review and (if necessary) enhance its policy development process to ensure that all of the instructions that it provides to the IANA Functions Operator are clear and implementable. |
| ||||||
| Each of the communities should investigate and clarify the process for handling the possibility of governmental sanctions and restrictions (e.g., the protocol for obtaining OFAC licenses where U.S. sanctions might interfere with the ability to execute proper instructions to IANA) following the stewardship transition. |
| |||||||
| Recommendation 4 | As part of the transition process, each of the affected communities should consider the extent to which the importance of transparency and freedom from improper influence in the performance of the IANA Functions might require additional mechanisms or other safeguards. |
| ||||||
| Recommendation 5 | Noting the stability and efficiency of existing structures, processes, and mechanisms for the management of the root zone, the SSAC recommends that any proposal to replace NTIA's final authorization of root zone changes with an alternative be at least as reliable, resilient, and efficient as the current process. |
| ||||||
| Recommendation 6 | Effective arrangements should be made for the reliable and timely performance of all aspects of the root zone management process post-transition, including inter-organization coordination if the post-transition RZM process involves more than one root zone management partner. |
| ||||||
| Recommendation 7 | NTIA should clarify the processes and legal framework associated with the role of the Root Zone Maintainer after transition. |
|
