Diff: rfc7979.original

	rfc7979.original	rfc7979.txt


	IANAPLAN E. Lear, Ed.	Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Lear, Ed.
	Internet-Draft	Request for Comments: 7979
	Intended status: Informational R. Housley, Ed.	Category: Informational R. Housley, Ed.
	Expires: January 29, 2017 July 28, 2016	ISSN: 2070-1721 August 2016

	Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)	Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)

	Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries	Request for Proposals on the IANA Protocol Parameters Registries
	draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-10

	Abstract	Abstract


	The U.S. NTIA solicited a request from ICANN to propose how the NTIA	The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration
	should end its oversight of the IANA functions. After broad	(NTIA) solicited a request from the Internet Corporation for Assigned
	consultations, ICANN in turn created the IANA Stewardship Transition	Names and Numbers (ICANN) to propose how the NTIA should end its
	Coordination Group. That group solicited proposals for thre three	oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
	major IANA functions: names, numbers, and protocol parameters. This	functions. After broad consultations, ICANN in turn created the IANA
	document contains the IETF response to that solicitation for protocol	Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. That group solicited
	parameters. It was included in an aggregate response to the NTIA	proposals for the three major IANA functions: names, numbers, and
	alongside those for names and numbering resources that are being	protocol parameters. This document contains the IETF response to
	developed by their respective operational communities. A reference	that solicitation for protocol parameters. It was included in an
	to that response may be found in the introduction, and additional	aggregate response to the NTIA alongside those for names and
	correspendence is included in the Appendix.	numbering resources that are being developed by their respective
		operational communities. A reference to that response may be found
		in the introduction, and additional correspondence is included in the
		Appendix.

	Status of This Memo	Status of This Memo


	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the	This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.	published for informational purposes.

	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.


	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months	This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any	(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference	received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."	Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
		approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
		Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.


	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2017.	Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
		and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
		http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7979.

	Copyright Notice	Copyright Notice

	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.	document authors. All rights reserved.

	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents	publication of this document. Please review these documents

	skipping to change at page 2, line 18	skipping to change at page 2, line 21
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.	described in the Simplified BSD License.

	Table of Contents	Table of Contents

	1. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2	1. IETF Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3	2. The Formal RFP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

	5. IAB Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19	5. IAB Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19	6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

	Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23	Appendix A. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination
	A.1. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23	Group (ICG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
	A.2. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23	Appendix B. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
	A.3. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23	Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	A.4. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24	Appendix C. Correspondence of the IETF to the ICG . . . . . . . 32
	A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	A.6. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	A.7. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	A.8. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	A.9. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination
	Group (ICG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group
	Request for Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
	Appendix D. Correspondence of the IETF to the ICG . . . . . . . 34
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

	1. IETF Introduction	1. IETF Introduction


	In March of 2014 the U.S. National Telecommunications & Information	In March of 2014, the U.S. National Telecommunications and
	Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition oversight of	Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition
	Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions [NTIA-Announce].	oversight of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions
	In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for	[NTIA-Announce]. In that announcement, NTIA asked the Internet
	Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a process to deliver	Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to establish a
	a proposal for transition. As part of that process, the IANA	process to deliver a proposal for transition. As part of that
	Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) was formed. The	process, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) was
	charter for the ICG can be found in Appendix B. The ICG in turn	formed. The charter for the ICG can be found in Appendix A. The ICG
	solicited proposals regarding post-transition arrangements from the	in turn solicited proposals regarding post-transition arrangements
	names, numbers, and protocol parameters communities in order to put	from the names, numbers, and protocol parameters communities in order
	forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal (RFP)	to put forth a proposal to the NTIA. The final request for proposal
	can be found in Appendix C. The response from the ICG to the NTIA	(RFP) can be found in Appendix B. The response from the ICG to the
	may be found at [ICG-Response].	NTIA may be found at [ICG-Response].

	While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and	While there are interactions between all of the IANA functions and
	IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol	IETF standards, this document specifically addresses the protocol
	parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an	parameters registries function. Section 1 (this section) contains an
	introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2	introduction that is sourced solely within the IETF. Section 2
	contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal	contains the questionnaire that was written by the ICG and a formal
	response by the IETF. We have quoted questions from that	response by the IETF. We have quoted questions from that
	questionnaire with ">>> ", and we have prefaced answers to questions	questionnaire with ">>> ", and we have prefaced answers to questions
	being asked with "IETF Response:". Note that there are small changes	being asked with "IETF Response:". Note that there are small changes
	to the questions asked in order to match the RFC format.	to the questions asked in order to match the RFC format.


	We note that the following text was stated as footnote in the	We note that the following text was stated as a footnote in the
	original RFP:	original RFP:

	In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently	In this RFP, "IANA" refers to the functions currently
	specified in the agreement between NTIA and ICANN	specified in the agreement between NTIA and ICANN
	[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as	[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order] as
	well as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA	well as any other functions traditionally performed by the IANA
	functions operator. SAC-067	functions operator. SAC-067
	[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf]	[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf]
	provides one description of the many different meanings of the	provides one description of the many different meanings of the
	term "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the	term "IANA" and may be useful reading in addition to the
	documents constituting the agreement itself.	documents constituting the agreement itself.

	2. The Formal RFP Response	2. The Formal RFP Response

	The entire Request for Proposals, including introduction, can be	The entire Request for Proposals, including introduction, can be

	found in Appendix C.	found in Appendix B.

	>>>	>>>
	>>> 0. Proposal Type	>>> 0. Proposal Type
	>>>	>>>
	>>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this	>>> Identify which category of the IANA functions this
	>>> submission proposes to address:	>>> submission proposes to address:
	>>>	>>>

	IETF Response:	IETF Response:
	Protocol Parameters	Protocol Parameters

	skipping to change at page 7, line 40	skipping to change at page 7, line 30
	>>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there	>>> conduct of the services or activities described above. If there
	>>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for	>>> are distinct sources of policy or policy development for
	>>> different IANA activities, then please describe these	>>> different IANA activities, then please describe these
	>>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development,	>>> separately. For each source of policy or policy development,
	>>> please provide the following:	>>> please provide the following:
	>>>	>>>
	>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is	>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
	>>> affected.	>>> affected.
	>>>	>>>


	IETF Response: The protocol parameters registries.	IETF Response:

		The protocol parameters registries.

	>>>	>>>
	>>> A description of how policy is developed and established and	>>> A description of how policy is developed and established and
	>>> who is involved in policy development and establishment.	>>> who is involved in policy development and establishment.
	>>>	>>>

	IETF Response:	IETF Response:

	Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries	Policy for overall management of the protocol parameters registries
	is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents	is stated in [RFC6220] and [RFC5226]. The first of these documents

	skipping to change at page 8, line 41	skipping to change at page 8, line 33
	appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that	appropriate remedy is applied. In the case where someone claims that
	the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way	the procedures themselves are insufficient or inadequate in some way
	to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the	to address a circumstance, one may appeal an IAB decision to the
	Internet Society Board of Trustees.	Internet Society Board of Trustees.

	>>>	>>>
	>>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute	>>> References to documentation of policy development and dispute
	>>> resolution processes.	>>> resolution processes.
	>>>	>>>


	IETF Response: As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a	IETF Response:
	conflict resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working
	group procedures. Note that both of these documents have been	As mentioned above, [RFC2026] Section 6.5 specifies a conflict
	amended in later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX].	resolution and appeals process. [RFC2418] specifies working group
		procedures. Note that both of these documents have been amended in
		later RFCs as indicated in the [RFC-INDEX].

	>>>	>>>
	>>> B. Oversight and Accountability	>>> B. Oversight and Accountability
	>>>	>>>
	>>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is	>>> This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is
	>>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the	>>> conducted over IANA functions operator's provision of the
	>>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in	>>> services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in

	>>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountab le for	>>> which IANA functions operator is currently held accountable for
	>>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or	>>> the provision of those services. For each oversight or
	>>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the	>>> accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the
	>>> following as are applicable:	>>> following as are applicable:
	>>>	>>>
	>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is	>>> Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is
	>>> affected.	>>> affected.
	>>>	>>>


	IETF Response: the protocol parameters registries.	IETF Response:

		The protocol parameters registries.

	>>>	>>>
	>>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are	>>> If not all policy sources identified in Section II.A are
	>>> affected, identify which ones are affected.	>>> affected, identify which ones are affected.
	>>>	>>>


	IETF Response: All policy sources relating to the protocol parameters	IETF Response:
	registry are affected.
		All policy sources relating to the protocol parameters registry are
		affected.

	>>>	>>>
	>>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight	>>> A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight
	>>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals	>>> or perform accountability functions, including how individuals
	>>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities.	>>> are selected or removed from participation in those entities.
	>>>	>>>

	IETF Response:	IETF Response:

	The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the	The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is an oversight body of the

	skipping to change at page 20, line 17	skipping to change at page 20, line 28
	Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Greg Wood, and Suzanne Woolf.	Sullivan, Dave Thaler, Greg Wood, and Suzanne Woolf.

	7. References	7. References

	7.1. Normative References	7.1. Normative References

	[BCP9info]	[BCP9info]
	"Information on "The Internet Standards Process --	"Information on "The Internet Standards Process --
	Revision 3"", <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.	Revision 3"", <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.


	[METRICS] "Performance Standards Metrics Report",	[METRICS] IANA, "Performance Standards Metrics Report",
	<http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics>.	<http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics>.


	[MOUSUP] "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of Understanding	[MOUSUP] IAOC, "Supplements to RFC 2860 (the Memorandum of
	between the IETF and ICANN)",	Understanding between the IETF and ICANN)",
	<http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html>.	<http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html>.

	[NTIA-Announce]	[NTIA-Announce]

	"NTIA Announcement of Intent to Transition Key Internet	NTIA, "NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet
	Domain Name Functions", March 2014,	Domain Name Functions", March 2014,
	<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-	<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-
	announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-	announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-
	functions>.	functions>.

	[NTIA-Contract]	[NTIA-Contract]

	"The NTIA Contract with ICANN",	NTIA, "The NTIA Contract with ICANN",
	<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/	<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
	sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>.	sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf>.

	[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision	[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
	3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,	3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.

	[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and	[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
	Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,	Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, DOI 10.17487/RFC2418,
	September 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.	September 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418>.

	skipping to change at page 22, line 13	skipping to change at page 22, line 22
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.

	[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",	[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
	RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,	RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.

	7.2. Informative References	7.2. Informative References

	[I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]	[I-D.leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis]
	Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and D. Narten, "Guidelines for	Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and D. Narten, "Guidelines for

	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft-	Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", Work in
	leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-16 (work in progress), June	Progress, draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-17, July 2016.
	2016.

	[ICG-Response]	[ICG-Response]

	"Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet	IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group, "Proposal
	Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S.	to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned
	Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and	Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce
	Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global	Department's National Telecommunications and Information
	Multistakeholder Community", March 2016,	Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder
		Community", 11 March 2016,
	<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-	<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-
	stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf>.	stewardship-transition-proposal-10mar16-en.pdf>.

	[ProtoParamEvo14]	[ProtoParamEvo14]

	"IAB statement on Guiding the Evolution of the IANA	IAB Chair, "Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] Guiding the
	Protocol Parameter Registries", March 2014,	Evolution of the IANA Protocol Parameter Registries",
	<http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/	March 2014, <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/
	internetgovtech/4EQ4bnEfE5ZkrPAtSAO2OBZM03k>.	internetgovtech/4EQ4bnEfE5ZkrPAtSAO2OBZM03k>.

	[RFC-INDEX]	[RFC-INDEX]

	RFC Editor, , "Index of all Requests for Comments",	RFC Editor, "RFC Index",
	RFC Index, August 2014.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc-index.txt>.

	[RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines	[RFC2014] Weinrib, A. and J. Postel, "IRTF Research Group Guidelines
	and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC2014,	and Procedures", BCP 8, RFC 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC2014,
	October 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2014>.	October 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2014>.

	[RFC2870] Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M., and R. Plzak, "Root	[RFC2870] Bush, R., Karrenberg, D., Kosters, M., and R. Plzak, "Root
	Name Server Operational Requirements", RFC 2870,	Name Server Operational Requirements", RFC 2870,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2870, June 2000,	DOI 10.17487/RFC2870, June 2000,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2870>.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2870>.


	skipping to change at page 23, line 24	skipping to change at page 23, line 33

	[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The	[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
	Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020,	Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7020, August 2013,	DOI 10.17487/RFC7020, August 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.

	[RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249,	[RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7249, May 2014,	DOI 10.17487/RFC7249, May 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7249>.	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7249>.


	Appendix A. Changes	Appendix A. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group

	NOTE: This section to be removed by RFC Editor at publication.

	A.1. Changes from -08 to -09

	o Update URL for summary of the IETF Last Call.

	o Two minor editorial improvements.

	A.2. Changes from -07 to -08

	o Update text describing the consensus process.

	o Insert IAB approval text.

	o Point to the proceedings of IETF 91 for IANAPLAN WG agenda and
	minutes.

	A.3. Changes from -06 to -07

	o Merge "No new changes are needed" with "No new organizations or
	structures are required". Fewer words to say the same thing.

	o consult to consult and coordinate.

	o RFC Editor comments.

	o Edits resulting from Security Area review by Sean Turner.

	o Edits resulting from AD comments.

	A.4. Changes from -05 to -06

	o Inclusion of agreed substantial comments from the AD.

	o Editorial changes.

	A.5. Changes from -04 to -05

	o Change to simpler text for answer about stability and security.

	o Mention of RFC 5226bis.

	A.6. Changes from -03 to -04

	o Additional text regarding what is needed in Section III.

	o Appropriate language modifications in section IV to match the
	above changes in III.

	o Acknowledgments edits.

	A.7. Changes from -02 to -03

	o Terminology consistency.

	o Add IAB section.

	o Changes based on WG discussion on what we prefer as part of the
	transition regarding IPR.

	o Add discussion about .ARPA domain.

	o Elaboration of what registries are involved.

	o Additional text around coordination with ICANN.

	o Working groups can adopt items within their charters.

	o IAB appointments generally last two years.

	o Add mention of the Trust.

	o Security Considerations update.

	A.8. Changes from -01 to -02

	o A better description special registries and BGP ASNs.

	o Clarity on how the address space and ASNs are delegated.

	o Many editorials corrected.

	o Mention of the annual review as part of the SLAs.

	o Change about how overlap is presented.

	o A number of small wording changes based on feedback.

	A.9. Changes from -00 to -01

	o Front matter greatly reduced.

	o Appendices with charter and RFP added.

	o Jurisdiction text changed.

	o Proposed changes include supplemental agreement(s) to address
	jurisdiction, dispute resolution, and IPR, including names and
	marks.

	o Transition implications slightly modified to reference
	supplemental agreement.

	Appendix B. The Charter of the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group
	(ICG)	(ICG)

	Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10	Charter for the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group V.10

	(August 27, 2014)	(August 27, 2014)

	The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one	The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one
	deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National	deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National
	Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding	Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding
	the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the	the transition of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA functions to the

	skipping to change at page 28, line 30	skipping to change at page 26, line 30
	The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information	The ICG serves as a central clearinghouse for public information
	about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat	about the IANA stewardship transition process. Its secretariat
	maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under	maintains an independent, publicly accessible and open website, under
	its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are	its own domain, where status updates, meetings and notices are
	announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As	announced, proposals are stored, the ICG members are listed, etc. As
	the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is	the development of the transition plans will take some time, it is
	important that information about ongoing work is distributed early	important that information about ongoing work is distributed early
	and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the	and continuously. This will enable sharing of ideas and the
	detection of potential issues.	detection of potential issues.


	Appendix C. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for	Appendix B. IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for
	Proposals	Proposals

	IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals	IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals

	8 September 2014	8 September 2014

	Introduction	Introduction

	Under the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)	Under the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
	Charter, the ICG has four main tasks:	Charter, the ICG has four main tasks:

	skipping to change at page 29, line 8	skipping to change at page 27, line 8
	relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names,	relationships with the IANA functions operator; namely names,
	numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of:	numbers, protocol parameters). This task consists of:

	a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities	a. Soliciting proposals from the operational communities
	b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities	b. Soliciting the input of the broad group of communities
	affected by the IANA functions	affected by the IANA functions

	(ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for	(ii) Assess the outputs of the three operational communities for
	compatibility and interoperability	compatibility and interoperability


	(iii) Assemble a complete	(iii) Assemble a complete proposal for the transition
	proposal for the transition

	(iv) Information sharing and public communication	(iv) Information sharing and public communication

	This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG	This Request for Proposals (RFP) addresses task (i) of the ICG
	Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the	Charter. This RFP does not preclude any form of input from the
	non-operational communities.	non-operational communities.

	0. Complete Formal Responses	0. Complete Formal Responses

	The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks	The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) seeks

	skipping to change at page 33, line 50	skipping to change at page 31, line 48
	partners of the IANA functions;	partners of the IANA functions;
	o Maintain the openness of the Internet;	o Maintain the openness of the Internet;
	o The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led	o The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led
	or an inter-governmental organization solution.	or an inter-governmental organization solution.

	This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these	This section should explain how your community's proposal meets these
	requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA	requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA
	functions.	functions.

	VI. Community Process	VI. Community Process


	This section should describe the process your community used for	This section should describe the process your community used for
	developing this proposal, including:	developing this proposal, including:


	o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine	o The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to determine
	consensus.	consensus.
	o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and	o Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations and
	meeting proceedings.	meeting proceedings.
	o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's	o An assessment of the level of consensus behind your community's
	proposal, including a description of areas of contention or	proposal, including a description of areas of contention or
	disagreement.	disagreement.


	Appendix D. Correspondence of the IETF to the ICG	Appendix C. Correspondence of the IETF to the ICG

	The following messages were sent to the ICG:	The following messages were sent to the ICG:

	From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>	From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
	Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question from the ICG	Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Question from the ICG
	Date: 20 Feb 2015 23:46:20 GMT+2	Date: 20 Feb 2015 23:46:20 GMT+2
	To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>	To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, ICG <internal-cg@icann.org>
	Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>	Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>

	Dear Alissa and the ICG,	Dear Alissa and the ICG,

End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	200 lines changed or deleted	93 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/