ALL:
My colleague fwded this message to me.
Any comments related to CORE, PAB or POC.
Extended USGov Fund from End of March to September 98.:-?)
Hope we will have more atmosphere here.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 20:25:36 +0100
>From: Paul Ridley <Paul.Ridley@ripe.net>
>To: tld-wg@ripe.net, lir-wg@ripe.net
>Subject: IANA Progress Report
>
>Dear all,
>
>This short report and attached document aim to keep you informed as
>to the developments involving IANA and the role that the RIPE NCC
>is playing in this.
>
>Discussions on the future of IANA are currently intensifying. During
>the recent IETF meeting Rob Blokzijl and Daniel Karrenberg, on behalf
>of the RIPE community, pursued this matter with all concerned.
>
>The US government plans to continue funding IANA until September 1998,
>at which time US government funding will definitely cease. The University
>of Southern California still holds our initial contribution and will use it
>if necessary.
>
>Jon Postel is working on a plan to incorporate IANA as a legal entity and
>to get support from IANA's direct users as well as the community at large.
>Incorporation is planned for the first half of this year.
>
>Consensus is emerging about the IANA services.
>
>Attached is a position paper that Rob, Daniel and myself wrote and sent
>as input for that process. This position paper can shortly be found on the
>tld-wg and lir-wg websites.
>A more detailed report including the latest
>developments will be given at the RIPE meeting.
>
>Regards
>
>Paul Ridley
>RIPE NCC Business Manager
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Position Paper
>
> on
>
> IANA Structure
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rob Blokzijl
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Paul Ridley
>
>
> Document: IANA-paper
>
>
> Status
>
> This document is a position paper reflected the
> views of the three authors.
>
> Scope
>
> The intended audience for this position paper is all
> interested parties concerned with the future struc-
> ture of IANA. Comments to the authors are welcome.
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> The position paper looks at the activities carried
> out by IANA and at the direct users of these activi-
> ties. A organisational structure for IANA is then
> proposed based upon the principle of bottom-up gov-
> ernance, in which the direct users of the IANA
> activities govern IANA.
>
> 2. Activities
>
> The activities that IANA now carries out have been,
> and will continue to be, critical for the growth and
> stability of the Internet. Since these activities
> are critical they should stand central in any
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 1
> Position Paper on IANA Structure
>
> Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley
> ____________________________________________________
>
> discussion of the future structure of IANA. The
> activities currently carried out by IANA are the
> following:
>
> 2.1. Address Space Allocation and global policy forum
>
> * Provides an address space allocation/registra-
> tion service to the regional IRs (RIR).
>
> * Provides a process to establish global address
> space related policies.
>
> * Establishes a process for arbitration of con-
> flicts regarding these policies.
>
> * Provides coordination services to RIRs.
>
> 2.2. DNS TLD Allocation and Registration; Operation of Root
> Name Servers
>
> * Registers all TLDs.
>
> * Maintains root zone information.
>
> * Allocates nTLDs. gTLDs are allocated in a pro-
> cess outside IANA
>
> * Operates root name servers (may be delegated to
> individual operators).
>
> 2.3. Assigning Unique Parameters for Internet Protocols
>
> * Assigns and registers other unique parameters.
>
> 2.4. RFC Editor
>
> * Edits the RFC series of documents.
>
> * Provides a repository for these documents.
>
> 2.5. Internet Monthly Report (IMR)
>
> 3. Activity users
>
> Who are the direct users for these activities? It is
> stressed that the focus should be on the *direct*
> users as opposed to indirect users since persons
> even remotely connected with the Internet community
> could be classed as users. In order to allow scala-
> bility direct users who are inherently accountable
> (in good bottom-up fashion) to minor indirect users
> need to be the focus.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 2
> Position Paper on IANA Structure
>
> Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley
> ____________________________________________________
>
> If direct users are mapped to activities the follow-
> ing direct user groupings appear.
>
> 3.1. IP number allocation, RIR coordination and global policy
> forum
>
> This activity has the following direct users:
>
> * RIPE NCC
>
> * ARIN
>
> * AP-NIC
>
> * Any future RIR
>
> 3.2. DNS TLD Allocation and Registration; Operation of Root
> Name Servers
>
> This activity has the following direct users:
>
> * CORE
>
> * Any future coordinating points for individual
> TLD registries since individual representation
> does not scale
>
> 3.3. Assigning unique parameters for Internet protocols
>
> This activity has the following direct users:
>
> * IETF
>
> 3.4. RFC editor
>
> This activity has the following direct users:
>
> * IETF
>
> 3.5. Internet Monthly Report (IMR)
>
> This activity has the following direct users:
>
> * The Internet community in general, however it
> should be borne in mind that this activity is
> very minor in comparison to the others. It
> merely compliments them.
>
> From this direct user to activity mapping it becomes
> apparent that there are three main groupings of
> direct users. They are the RIRs the TLD coordination
> points (TLD Coord), and the IETF. It is apparent
> that direct users are typically regional or global
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 3
> Position Paper on IANA Structure
>
> Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley
> ____________________________________________________
>
> entities. If at any time in the future other enti-
> ties than those mentioned become direct users of the
> IANA activities, then they should be recognised as
> such.
>
> In the discussion that follows this position paper
> other direct user groups will probably be mentioned.
> A few of these other groups are highlighted below
> with a explanation of why it is thought that they
> are not direct users but indirect users of the IANA
> activities.
>
> ISP's
>
> By means of the global bottom-up structures
> that are in place at the RIRs, the individual
> ISP has a voice within his own RIR community;
> the consensus of which the RIR brings to IANA.
>
> TLD Registries
>
> By means of the bottom up structures that are
> in place in the case of CORE or in the process
> of being started within the Regional areas (to
> more or less degrees) the individual TLD reg-
> istry has a voice within his own TLD Coord area
> community; the consensus of which the TLD Coord
> brings to IANA.
>
> Industry
>
> Industry is there to serve its client, normally
> an individual ISP or TLD registry, who is
> already represented by a direct user. If an
> individual industry player wants to get more
> involved then the option exists to put more
> input into the IETF or the Regional technical
> meetings which give advice to the RIRs.
>
> Government
>
> If, as is constantly espoused, the majority of
> governments want the Internet to be self-regu-
> lating then they should not be classed as
> direct users influencing policy. Their rela-
> tionship to the IANA activities is without
> doubt that they are indirect users or an inter-
> ested party.
>
> End user or individual
>
> An individual is always able to get involved in
> the IETF or the Regional technical meetings
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 4
> Position Paper on IANA Structure
>
> Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley
> ____________________________________________________
>
> which give advice to the RIRs.
>
> 4. Direct user / IANA relations
>
> IANA provides (if all of the activities are kept
> within IANA) definite services to all three direct
> user groupings; the RIRs, the TLD Coords, and IETF.
> Thus the relationship between IANA and these groups
> should be concrete and governing, in the same manner
> as the RIRs relate with the ISPs in their region,
> i.e. truly bottom-up. In such a structured relation-
> ship only the three direct users would fund and gov-
> ern the IANA activities.
>
> 5. Proposed IANA organisational structure principles
>
> In order to be able to constructively discuss a pro-
> posed structure for IANA the various organs of the
> IANA organisation need to be defined. The aim here
> is to be clear as to what a particular organ is and
> does and not be discuss whether the name of a par-
> ticular organ is appropriate or not. It is proposed
> that there are three distinct organs in IANA; the
> general council, the executive board, and the man-
> agement.
>
> General Council
>
> This organ is the ruling organ in IANA and consists
> of representatives from every direct user.
>
> Executive Board
>
> This organ is subordinate to the general council and
> is responsible for the day-to-day governance of
> IANA. The members of the executive board are elected
> by the general council.
>
> Management
>
> This organ is subordinate to the executive board and
> is responsible for daily operations of IANA. The
> executive board hires the management
>
> In general the three organs are expected to interact
> in the following manner. All direct users have a
> right to have a representative(s) on the general
> council. Each individual direct user would be
> responsible for how his representative(s) are cho-
> sen. The general council being the ruling organ of
> IANA would have the responsibility to adopt annual
> accounts, budgets, charging schemes, and general
> activities of IANA. General council members would
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 5
> Position Paper on IANA Structure
>
> Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley
> ____________________________________________________
>
> also be the sole funders of IANA.
>
> The general council would elect the executive board
> of approximately five members. The general council
> would be allowed to elect general council represen-
> tatives or external persons to be an executive board
> member. The terms of executive board members would
> be three years in a staggered rotation. The execu-
> tive board being responsible for day-to-day gover-
> nance would be responsible for, monitoring the
> finances of IANA, ensuring appropriate business pro-
> cedures are in place (including dispute procedures)
> and being used, legally representing IANA, and
> deciding upon IANAs activities within the mandate
> given by the general council. The executive board
> would report to the general council.
>
> The executive board would hire a management compris-
> ing of one or more persons. The management being
> responsible for the day-to-day operations of IANA
> would be responsible for IANA personnel hiring, exe-
> cuting of all IANA activities, financial management.
> The management would report to the executive board.
>
> The proposed IANA organisational structure outlined
> above is the governing structure. There could also
> be an advisory structure that compliments the gov-
> erning structure, but this advisory structure is not
> a critical success factor in the setting up of IANA.
> For that reason and to avoid complication, discus-
> sion of an advisory structure is not a topic of this
> position paper.
>
> 6. Open issues
>
> There are many details of the the proposed organisa-
> tion structure and operational rules that are not
> covered above. These details, the open issues, many
> well take time to agree upon but they are not insur-
> mountable. The authors feel that it is more impor-
> tant to first agree upon the organisation principles
> as outlined in this position paper before delving
> into the open issue details. Examples of open issues
> that must be addressed are:
>
> * although the direct users have been outlined in
> general the specific direct users need to be
> identified.
>
> * what criteria will be used to determine how
> many representatives each individual direct
> user has in the general council.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 6
> Position Paper on IANA Structure
>
> Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley
> ____________________________________________________
>
> * what mechanism will be used to elect executive
> board members
>
> * what is the usefulness of the IMR and can it be
> developed
>
> * what are the activity related budgets for IANA
>
> * what mechanism is used to determine how much
> each individual direct user is charged for the
> IANA services.
>
> 7. Summary
>
> The outline proposal given above is, in the opinion
> of the authors, the fairest and most stable way of
> structuring IANA in the future and thus gives most
> stability to the Internet. This proposal is true to
> the aim of global bottom-up governance within the
> Internet and is definitely global industry self-reg-
> ulating. By following a true bottom-up model (i.e.
> governance and funding by the direct users) democ-
> racy is enhanced together with the crucial impar-
> tiality of IANA. If parties other than the direct
> users were structurally able to fund and influence
> the IANA activities then this bottom-up democratic
> aim would not be achieved and more importantly the
> crucial impartiality of IANA would be questionable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> IANA-paper.txt Page 7
>
Best Regards,
Teddy A. Purwadi
APJII, Secretary General
P:+62-21 526 8777
F:+62-21 526 8789
E:sekjen@apjii.or.id
http://www.apjii.or.id
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:19 PST