Operational Community's Coordination Critical to Success of IANA Proposal, Say ICG Members
LOS ANGELES -- Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Coordination Group (ICG) members implored the ICG’s three operational groups during a panel Thursday to coordinate their proposal processes. The operational groups -- names, numbers and protocol parameters communities -- are those most directly affected by the IANA functions, and they're developing proposals that will be reviewed and consolidated by the ICG members. The operational groups are entering the substantive period of their proposal process and maintaining communication between those global parties will be critical to avoiding confusion when they submit their proposals to the ICG, said ICG members.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The ICG filed a request for proposals and submitted a tentative timeline for the operational communities last month (http://bit.ly/WJWITF) (see 1409110077). Proposals are due Jan. 15. The ICG will develop draft responses to the proposals Jan. 15-March 13. The draft process will be reviewed March 13-May 15. Testing and review of the final IANA transition proposal will take place March 13-July 17. The proposal will be submitted to NTIA between July 17 and July 31; NTIA will have until Sept. 30 to approve it.
There’s some “overlap” among the IANA functions, which needs to be monitored by community members paying attention to some or all of the operational communities, said ICG Chairwoman Alissa Cooper. Regional Internet registries are being asked to develop a proposal for numbering resources; the Internet Engineering Task Force is responsible for protocol parameters; and the new Cross Community Working Group will oversee the proposal for the naming function, said Cooper. The operational communities will need to be wary of potential conflicts of interest when developing their proposals, said Narelle Clark, ICG Internet Society member. Clark said the ICG has planned accordingly to ensure such a scenario doesn’t occur.
The operational communities aren’t “one-size-fits-all,” said Keith Drazek, Verisign policy director. It’s “critical” that the ICANN community and the ICG recognize that each of the operational communities has “unique interests,” he said. After the operational communities submit their proposals to the ICG, it can “identify any gaps, any conflicts or any opportunities” to make the process more efficient, said Drazek. It’s “essential” that the operational groups communicate with one another, said Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, ICG Generic Names Supporting Organization member. The groups must begin developing their proposals “immediately,” if they’re to submit them on schedule, he said.
The “ball” is in the community’s “court,” said Milton Mueller, ICG Generic Supporting Names Organization member. Mueller emphasized the importance of coordination between the operational proposals and ICANN’s accountability review. The IANA transition and the accountability process may not be in “perfect synchronization” now, he said. Coordinating those processes should be handled by the names community before the proposals come to the ICG, said Mueller. The ICG doesn’t want to chose among “competing” proposals, he said.
The transition process is now moving away from process to substance, said Martin Boyle, ICG Country Codes Supporting Names Organization member. That’s “important,” he said. Because the country code top-level domain community isn’t “contractually bound” to ICANN, it’s likely that community will offer a broad range of proposals, said Boyle.