IANA Stewardship Transition To Be Completed By July-September 2016

Both the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability and the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) responses to NTIA's request for an estimated completion date (including implementation period) for the IANA stewardship transition, indicate a target completion date by the end of July 2016, with the CCWG advising that additional time may be required until September, 2016. The current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the US government's Commerce Department ends September 30, 2015, but by its terms may be extended. Based on these responses, one would expect an extension of the contract period in order to provide for completion of the IANA stewardship transition by the estimated July-September 2016, time period.

The CCWG-Accountability's letter was sent to NTIA Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling on July 3rd and states (emphasis added):

"CCWG-Accountability will aim to get that final proposal to our chartering organizations by October, hoping to receive their approvals by the conclusion of the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin in late October. If all goes as planned, we could submit our final proposal to the ICANN Board by November, along with bylaws changes that are ready for adoption by the Board. We anticipate our proposal would then be forwarded to your office without delay, meaning that NTIA could potentially begin its review in November. You indicated in Buenos Aires that NTIA anticipates 4-5 months for its review, including the 30 legislative days that Congress would require per pending legislation [DOTCOM Act of 2015]. Once NTIA and Congress have completed their review, CCWG-Accountability and ICANN would complete the required implementation tasks that go beyond bylaws adoption. We expect to have implementation of Work Stream 1 issues finalized by the end of July 2016 and have any remaining items duly committed by that same date in order to enable transition. Please note that our assessment is based on best case scenarios and that this timeline could slip if further adjustments to the proposal should be needed in order to find consensus within our group. It may therefore be prudent to anticipate that CCWG-Accountability might need additional time, perhaps until September 2016."

Likewise, the response of ICG states (emphasis added):

"... As noted in your letter and discussed during ICANN 53, there are three phases remaining before the transition will be complete: (1) the finalization of the transition proposal, (2) the U.S. Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and (3) the implementation of the work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the transition. Phase 1: Transition proposal finalization - The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number resources and protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just received the domain names proposal from the CWG on June 25. The finalization steps that remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly further work in the operational communities depending on the results of the assessments and public comment analysis ...The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to NTIA via the ICANN Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October ... Phase 2: U.S. Government evaluation ... the U.S. Government’s evaluation period is estimated to last four to five months. Assuming the transition proposal is finalized in the ICANN 54 time frame, this would imply that the U.S. Government’s evaluation could conclude around March 2016. Phase 3: Implementation of prerequisites - The ICG inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are included at the end of this letter ... Taken together, the responses indicate that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require three to four months. Many of the preparatory steps for implementation across the three communities can take place in parallel assuming availability of community and ICANN staff resources to complete those steps. Those preparatory steps may occur throughout all three phases before the transition is complete in its entirety. For other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at present. Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum three to four months will be required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved by the U.S. government. This would imply that at the earliest the transition could complete in the July 2016 time frame."

Correspondence Links: (pdf)
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150703/4f315121/CCWG_NTIA_reply-0001.pdf

http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/2015-07-06-Letter-from-ICG-to-to-NTIA.pdf

Responses to ICG time frame inquiries:

IETF: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000607.html
CRISP: Team and NRO EC: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000688.html
CWG-Stewardship: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000636.html
ICANN Board: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000665.html

Follow @DomainMondo

ICANN Board and CWG address IANA Trademarks and Domain Name

The ICG requests that the CWG [-Stewardship] communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue [IANA trademarks and domain name] by July 2 at 23:59 UTC.--ICG (IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group), June 19, 2015

The CWG-Stewardship (Names community) and the ICANN Board of Directors have both now responded to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) on the subject of the IANA trademarks and domain name:

The CWG-Stewardship response (included in its entirety at the end of this post) essentially states:

•  ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org domain and the owner of the IANA trademarks, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed;
• Addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone; 
• The CWG-Stewardship proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark[s][and domain name] and therefore in "our firm view" is specifically not in conflict with the CRISP or IANAPLAN (IETF) proposals.

The ICANN Board response, via ICANN Board member Wu Kuo-Wei, on the internal ICG mail list:

ICANN currently holds IANA.ORG and the IANA trademark for the benefit of the community and in support of ICANN's performance of the IANA functions. The [ICANN] board recognizes that the community is considering different models for the maintenance of the iana.org domain name and the related trademarks. The board wishes to reassure the community that in the event any of the IANA functions are transferred away from ICANN, appropriate rights to use the intellectual property associated with the IANA functions will be granted without delay to the new operator or to an entity the operational communities unanimously designate. It is important that any new model should maintain the stability of the technical operations of the IANA functions and continued ability to use the intellectual property associated with IANA for all of the operational communities.

The CWG-Stewardship co-chairs have extended an offer to have a call on July 7th to the leaders of the numbers (CRISP) and protocols (IETF/IANAPLAN) communities. The ICG next meets Wednesday, 15 July at 19:00-21:00 UTC.

Background:

In the IANA Stewardship Transition, the issue of the IANA trademarks and domain name iana.org, have become an issue which Domain Mondo previously reported on, see: IANA Transition: IANA Trademark and Domain Name Controversy Erupts (June 19, 2015) and IANA Trademarks and Domain Name, ICANN or IETF Trust? (June 21, 2015).

ICANN is the lawful owner of the IANA trademarks, and registrant of the domain name, which were originally property of the University of Southern California (USC) where Jon Postel worked, but later assigned and transferred  by USC to ICANN after it came into existence and became the "IANA functions operator."

The IANA trademarks and domain name are not mentioned in the RFP issued by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) to the three "operational communities"--names (CWG-Stewardship), numbers (CRISP), protocol parameters (IETF / IANAPLAN). The CRISP and IETF proposals submitted in January do not provide for any substantive change in their respective contractual relationships with ICANN in regard to the IANA functions--each community (numbers and protocols) has its own separate agreement with ICANN which either party can terminate. The protocols (IETF) proposal did not request any change or transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name. The CRISP plan however included in its proposal the following:

With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition.

Subsequently, the ICG asked the IETF, sole beneficiary of the IETF Trust, if the Trust would agree to accept transfer of the IANA trademarks and domain name, and the IETF consented.

The CWG-Stewardship response to the ICG via the CWG mail list, July 2, 2015 (emphasis added):

Dear Alissa, Patrik & Mohammed [ICG Co-Chairs]

In response to your request on 19 June, we would like to provide you with additional clarification on the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal text with regard to the IANA trademark.

In order for PTI to operate the IANA naming function as envisioned by the CWG-Stewardship, PTI assumes it will be able to make use of both the iana.org domain and the IANA trademark in the performance of its work. Because ICANN is currently the registrant for the iana.org domain and the owner of the IANA trademark, and since PTI will be an affiliate of ICANN, the CWG-Stewardship sees no reason PTI would be unable to make use of the domain name and IANA trademark as needed.   

Beyond the expectation described above, addressing the domain name registration and trademark issues is beyond the remit of the CWG-Stewardship alone, particularly in so  far as these may relate to how the use of the iana.org or IANA trademark impact the work of the other two operating communities. The text within the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that refers to the trademark is clearly defined as placeholder text (in square brackets) within an initial draft proposed term sheet that does not have the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship, save for as presented as Annex S in the Final Proposal.

In effect, the Final Proposal does not make a specific proposal with regard to the IANA trademark. Therefore it is our firm view that it is specifically not in conflict with either of the CRISP & IANAPLAN proposals on this subject. To reaffirm this, and to discuss a potential consolidated position, we have extended an offer to the leadership of the other two operational communities for a call on Tuesday, 7 July. We then intend to provide an update for discussion to the CWG-Stewardship at our next meeting on Thursday, 9 July. We are happy to provide you with a subsequent update on the outcomes of both discussions. 

Best wishes,

Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson

Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship

Follow @DomainMondo