3,197
edits
Changes
IANA Functions Stewardship Transition (view source)
Revision as of 20:03, 29 July 2021
, 2 years ago→ICANN 52 - Working Group Reports and Progress
This phase of the meeting also addressed interactions with and expectations around both the IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship), and the CCWG-Accountability.<ref name="51icg" />
This phase of the meeting also addressed interactions with and expectations around both the IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship), and the CCWG-Accountability.<ref name="51icg" />
==ICANN 52 - Working Group Reports and Progress==
==ICANN 52 - Working Group Reports and Progress==
By the time of [[ICANN 52]], the work of the three operational communities had coalesced around three working groups: IETF's IANAPLAN working group (IANAPLAN WG) for protocols; the Number Resources Community's CRISP (Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal) Team; and the CWG-Stewardship team for the names community.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community IANA Stewardship Transition Archive - Operational Community Hub]</ref> These three teams joined the ICG in a joint presentation regarding their work on transition proposals.<ref name="52confab">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship.html ICANN 52 Archive - Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition], February 9, 2015</ref> The session came roughly three weeks after the deadline for proposals under the revised project timeline<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.pdf ICG Process Timeline], Updated January 7, 2015</ref> At the time, the IANAPLAN WG and CRISP Team had both submitted proposals.<ref>[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/09/ IETF Datatracker - Internet Draft: Draft Response to the ICG RFP (version 09)], January 6, 2015</ref><ref>[http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft NRO.net Archive - CRISP Team Proposal - 2nd Draft], January 8, 2015</ref> The CWG-Stewardship had not yet submitted a proposal.<ref name="stewhub">[https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship ICANN.org - IANA Stewardship Transition Overview and Timeline]</ref> Each team's presentation described their process and progress to date.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/presentation-ietf-ianaplan-wg-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - IANAPLAN WG Presentation Deck], February 9, 2015</ref><ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/presentation-overview-number-resources-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - CRISP Team Presentation Deck], February 9, 2015</ref><ref name="cwgdeck">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/presentation-iana-transition-cwg-naming-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - CWG-Stewardship Presentation Deck], February 9, 2015</ref> All three operational community working groups encouraged attendees to read the full proposals or, in the case of the CWG-Stewardship team, follow along with the group's progress and engage through public comment or other channels.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/transcript-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - Transcript, Responding to the ICG RFP], February 9, 2015</ref>
By the time of [[ICANN 52]], the work of the three operational communities had coalesced around three working groups: IETF's IANAPLAN working group (IANAPLAN WG) for protocols; the Number Resources Community's CRISP (Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal) Team; and the CWG-Stewardship team for the names community.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship/community IANA Stewardship Transition Archive - Operational Community Hub]</ref> These three teams joined the ICG in a joint presentation regarding their work on transition proposals.<ref name="52confab">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship.html ICANN 52 Archive - Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition], February 9, 2015</ref> The session came roughly three weeks after the deadline for proposals under the revised project timeline<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-process-timeline-07jan15-en.pdf ICG Process Timeline], Updated January 7, 2015</ref> At the time, the IANAPLAN WG and CRISP Team had both submitted proposals.<ref>[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/09/ IETF Datatracker - Internet Draft: Draft Response to the ICG RFP (version 09)], January 6, 2015</ref><ref>[http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft NRO.net Archive - CRISP Team Proposal - 2nd Draft], January 8, 2015</ref> The CWG-Stewardship had not yet submitted a proposal.<ref name="stewhub">[https://www.icann.org/en/stewardship ICANN.org - IANA Stewardship Transition Overview and Timeline]</ref> However, the working group had put together a first draft proposal in December 2014. This proposal was intended to capture the initial thoughts of the stakeholders within the naming operational community, and as a continued public consultation regarding the naming community's opinions on the proposed course.<ref name="CWGdraft1">[https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=50823498 CWG-Stewardship Workspace - Draft Proposal for Public Consultation], December 1, 2014</ref> Each team's presentation described their process and progress to date.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/presentation-ietf-ianaplan-wg-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - IANAPLAN WG Presentation Deck], February 9, 2015</ref><ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/presentation-overview-number-resources-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - CRISP Team Presentation Deck], February 9, 2015</ref><ref name="cwgdeck">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/presentation-iana-transition-cwg-naming-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - CWG-Stewardship Presentation Deck], February 9, 2015</ref> All three operational community working groups encouraged attendees to read the full proposals or, in the case of the CWG-Stewardship team, follow along with the group's progress and engage through public comment or other channels.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship/transcript-icg-rfp-iana-stewardship-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - Transcript, Responding to the ICG RFP], February 9, 2015</ref>
The agenda of ICANN 52 was intensely focused on the IANA transition. At the Welcome Ceremony and President's Opening session, Steve Crocker took the unique step of inviting representatives from the SOs and ACs to discuss the transition and how it would impact their organizations and their relationship to names, numbers, and protocols. [[Ira Magaziner]] was also invited to speak on the history of the IANA functions and the equally historic decision to transition the functions to the global internet community.<ref name="52welcome">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-welcome/transcript-welcome-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - Transcript, Welcome Ceremony and President's Opening], February 9, 2015</ref> Fadi Chehade's opening remarks celebrated the progress that the community had made thus far, and urged faith in the institution and in the community as the work continued.<ref name="52welcome" />
The agenda of ICANN 52 was intensely focused on the IANA transition. At the Welcome Ceremony and President's Opening session, Steve Crocker took the unique step of inviting representatives from the SOs and ACs to discuss the transition and how it would impact their organizations and their relationship to names, numbers, and protocols. [[Ira Magaziner]] was also invited to speak on the history of the IANA functions and the equally historic decision to transition the functions to the global internet community.<ref name="52welcome">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/mon-welcome/transcript-welcome-09feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - Transcript, Welcome Ceremony and President's Opening], February 9, 2015</ref> Fadi Chehade's opening remarks celebrated the progress that the community had made thus far, and urged faith in the institution and in the community as the work continued.<ref name="52welcome" />
At the session devoted to updates from the IANA Transition and ICANN accountability enhancement work, Larry Strickling expressed both optimism and caution about the progress made so far. Noting that there were some aspects of the CWG-Stewardship's draft proposal that would involve substantial time, Strickling raised some points of concern:
<blockquote>That particular proposal proposes the creation of several new entities to be involved in the naming‐related processes. And we asked two weeks ago [at the 2015 [[State of the Net Conference]], and I ask again today, for the community to consider whether the creation of these new entities might interfere with the security and stability of the Domain Name System both during and after the transition. And I also ask that the community consider that given the need to develop, implement, and test these structures prior to a final transition, can they get it all done in a time frame consistent with the expectations of all stakeholders?<br />
I asked today at a meeting where some representatives of the CWG were present whether there had been any discussion or any estimate of the length of time it might take to implement some of these proposals that have been put on the table. And I have to say no one could answer that, and I hope everyone understands that implementation has to be factored into the time frame for transition. And if what's being proposed is going to take a year to implement, well, that will delay the ultimate transition of the IANA functions.<ref name="updatets">[https://archive.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability/transcript-iana-transition-08feb15-en.html ICANN 52 Archive - Transcript, IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability], February 8, 2015</ref></blockquote>
Strickling also raised concerns about the lack of attention thus far to the "actual operational needs of the registry community."<ref name="updatets" />
Ira Magaziner also spoke at the session, again recalling the history of ICANN and the birth of the Internet. He concluded with optimism:
<blockquote>So let me just finish my remarks by saying you have a real challenge now as a group, as the ICANN broader community, the multistakeholder community, to create a process. I know it doesn't have to be done in any particular time, as Larry said. I would suggest doing it as quickly as you can, because I think there's a window of opportunity here to get it done and you ought to seize that window. And I think you have a real responsibility to do this carefully and correctly because just as the past 19 years have worked out pretty well for the Internet, it is in your hands how the next 50 years are going to work out, to make sure that this is all done properly.<br />
So it is worth your time, it is worth your energy, and if you do this right, the world's going to continue to benefit from the Internet in ways we can't even conceive, going forward.<ref name="updatets" /></blockquote>
As the session was drawing to a close, Strickling restated a concern that many had raised during the session:
<blockquote>It's apparent, just in the time I've been here, that the CWG work is becoming the critical path to getting this thing done. I think it should be apparent to anybody who has watched the presentations of the CWG and the presentations of the CCWG that much of what the CWG is looking at seems to me to be a direct overlap of the task that's been given to the CCWG, and I think that the community really ought to sit down and think hard about why there are two tracks looking at the same thing, and does it make sense to be more efficient and move the accountability questions into the CCWG.<ref name="updatets" /><blockquote>
==ICANN 53==
==ICANN 53==