Name: ICANN Board
Organization: ICANN Board
Submission ID: 121

Please see attached.
Thank you.
Michelle BrightMichelle Bright
Board Support Content Manager, ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-­‐2536
Direct: REDACTED
Mobile: REDACTED
http://icann.org

ICANN Board Comment on the ICG Proposal
8 September 2015

ICANN as the current IANA Functions Operator and facilitator of the IANA
Stewardship Transition process welcomes this opportunity to provide comments onthe ICG Proposal.
First and foremost, the ICANN Board would like to express its appreciation for thehard work done by the ICG members and the three operational communities toproduce the ICG Proposal. The result of the work shows once again how amultistakeholder system works and the remarkable level of dedication of many
volunteers around the world who are committed to the stability and security of theIANA Functions.
The main focus of the ICANN Board’s comments is on the implementation of theproposals by ICANN as the current IANA Functions Operator. While the ICG has
asserted that there are no incompatibilities between the three operational
communities’ proposals received (also known as the CRISP, CWG-Stewardship,and IANAPLAN responses), there are some implementation details and foreseen
complexities that will need further coordination with the communities for clarity. As
implementation occurs, ways to address the elements of the proposal may evolve,
and in our comments below, we have endeavored to highlight some of these andprovide the ICG with implementation suggestions.
We do not believe that any of these issues poses a threat to the viability of the final
ICG Proposal. We hope that these implementation issues and details can beresolved in the implementation phase, but we urge the community and where
needed the ICG to consider these issues and begin to clarify as soon as practicablein the interests of a smooth IANA Stewardship Transition.
Our comments address overlaps and shared resources where coordination among
the three operational communities is an essential part of the solution. These include:
New Service Levels and other Operational changes: The aggregate of theproposals enumerate a number of requirements that the operational
communities expect to be completed in advance of the IANA StewardshipTransition. To implement these requirements, ICANN will need to change its
existing systems, procedures and tools, and the implementation of thesechanges will impact day-to-day IANA operations. We would appreciaterecommendations on how to prioritize the number of proposed development
projects that compete for the same resource pool of staff. A clear
identification of what needs to be completed before the transition, and what
can be postponed to after the transition will be very helpful for a transparent
implementation phase.

Registry overlaps: In some areas, two or more operational communities
jointly manage the IANA Functions. Examples of this include the IPv4 andPage 1 of 2

IPv6 space registries that serve both the RIRs and the IETF (for Special
Purpose Address Space – c.f. RFC6890). This same concept applies to thename space where the TLD registry is shared between Accredited TLD
registries and the IETF (for Special Purpose Reserved Names – c.f.
RFC6761). Given a future possible scenario of a split of the IANA Functions,
we note that these services may need to be split into separate registries. To
ensure operational security and stability in case of a split, the operational
communities will need to work with the IANA Functions Operator to agree on
a clear transition plan framework that takes into consideration all possible
overlap. ICANN commits to working with the operational communities shoulda transition be needed and welcomes the inclusion of any suggestions thatmay have already been discussed.
Relationship between ICANN, PTI, and the operational communities: The
ICG proposal introduces a new concept and structure for managing the IANA
Functions through a new entity known as the Post-Transition IANA (PTI). The
ICG Proposal implies that PTI will be providing all IANA Functions services tothe operational communities (c.f. ICG FAQ question #5). In addition, thenames community suggests an operational relationship directly with PTI,
while the other two communities propose agreements directly with ICANN.
The ICANN Board seeks more clarity on the implications of thesearrangements on ICANN and ICANN’s relationship with the operationalcommunities.

Process to determine a successor operator: In the case the IANA
Functions are split, the ICG Proposal lacks detail on the process that each
operational community will use to determine the escalation paths leading toseparability, ensuring accountability of a successor, and identifying asuccessor IANA Functions Operator. The CWG-Stewardship response
provided a framework that may be of use to the other operational
communities in determining their processes (c.f. P1. Annex M).

We look forward to working with the ICG and the operational communities to clarify
the process by which we would handle concerns raised during the comment period
and/or the implementation phase.
The ICANN Board has been intently following the IANA Stewardship Transition andrelated Enhancing ICANN Accountability & Governance processes, and has
submitted comments on operational community drafts before their submission to theICG. Concerns raised in this comment on the ICG Proposal have also been raised inprior comments. For a comprehensive lists of all the ICANN Board’s input into theprocesses,
pleasesee
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-inputstewardship-accountability-2015-07-10-en.

Page 2 of 2