Second CWG proposal from the names community on the IANA Stewardship Transition

On April 23 the names community released its second proposal for public comment. The deadline for input is open until May 20. In the last months, the CWG has produced an intense work which managed to produce a proposal that contemplates the different groups which form part of this community. It is worth noting that until March there were seven models on the table for the IST. Thanks to the intense work of the group and the different design teams set up to accelerate the process, a proposal has been consolidated which satisfies the following requisites: security; stability of the operations; guarantee of independence and separation between the operational aspects of the IANA and the policy functions; appeal mechanisms and corrections in case of deviations and the representativeness from the wider community of stakeholders contained within the ICANN structure. More information here

Highlights of the proposal:
1. The IANA operations (IANA Functions Operator – IFO) is maintained within the ICANN system.
2. A new corporate body will be created called the “Post- Transition IANA” (PTI) whose legal entity will be that of an ICANN affiliate and will have its own board of directors. The accountability mechanisms will be addressed within the ICANN structure, who will additionally provide the material, financial and staff resources to guarantee the operational continuity.
3. ICANN would enter into a contract, substantially similar to the current NTIA contract, with PTI for the provision of the IANA services. There would also be ‘service level expectations’ (SLEs) to ensure ongoing quality of service.
4. The PTI will have two supporting groups:
a. A multistakeholder group called the IANA Functions Review (IFR) which will hold the following functions:
i. Develop periodic reviews every five years (the first will take place two years after the transition in order to provide greater safeguards to the transition).
ii. It will be part of the process installed in the case there are systemic failures.
iii. Develop recommendations on improvements and innovations on the IANA functions.
b. A Customer Standing Committe (CSC) comprised by 2 gTLDs, 2 ccTLDS, 1 IAB representative and a liaison with IANA with the following objectives:
i. Monthly meetings to review the performance metrics of the IANA.
ii. Guarantee the satisfactory performance of the IANA functions.
iii. Report to the IFR.

5. There will be an escalation mechanism in case of IANA failures to comply with the performance levels.
a. Customer service complaint resolution process
b. Problem resolution process (for customers only)
c. Root emergency process: 24/7 emergency procedure for TLD managers

6. Separation Review: a new IANA Functions Operator (IFO) can be appointed if the escalation mechanism failed to correct the situation. This separations review is dependent on the work of the CCWG Accountability.
7. The role of NTIA as approver of changes to root zone content is dropped. This will trigger a review of their (continuing) contract with Verisign as the root zone maintainer, as Verisign would contractually have to wait for the NTIA approval.
8. The role of NTIA as approver of structural changes to the root zone (e.g. introducing DNSSEC) will be taken over by another to be created entity.
9. The IFO maintains the control over the authorization of structural changes in the root zone (example: such as DNSSEC). (This role is currently performed by the NTIA).
10. The proposal reconfirms that the roles of the IANA functions operator and the root zone maintainer (currently Verisign) should not be merged.
11. ccTLD delegation and redelegation appeals mechanism should not be introduced in the transition period.

The full document proposal with the annexes is available in the following link:
For more background information:
The slideshow presentation of the proposal: