IANA Globalization Consultation Process

Published on:Friday,21 March 2014

Dear Colleagues,

In October 2013, APNIC joined other Internet organizations in issuingthe “Montevideo Statement”, calling for a globalization of ICANN andIANA functions. In January 2014, these organizations met again todiscuss the basic principles for such a process.

On Friday 14 March 2014, the United States Government announced that it intends to transition its oversight of the IANA function to the global Internet community. It has asked ICANN to lead a consultation with the community to develop a proposal for this transition.

ICANN has now released a proposed timeline for its planned consultation process, and a consultation session during the upcoming ICANN Meeting in Singapore from 23 - 27 March.

The timeline focuses on ICANN meetings, but the consultation process will include other communities. All RIR community members are stakeholders in this process, and have an important opportunity to participate in these discussions.

The primary concern of APNIC is to ensure stability and accuracy in the management of the IANA functions, which include the global IP address registry, in compliance with global policies.  These functions are critical to APNIC, and to the operation of the Internet globally.

I have asked the APNIC EC to consider the best ways to facilitate discussions with the Asia Pacific community – through open sessions at APNIC Conferences and Regional Meetings, and online discussions. The EC will welcome additional suggestions on this process via the apnic-talk mailing list, and I hope will provide more information soon.


Paul Wilson
Director General

Statement from Internet Technical Organizations regarding IANA Transition

In order to ensure global acceptance and affirmation of ICANN's role as administrator of the IANA functions, we are now pursuing the transition of USG's stewardship of the IANA functions from the USG to ICANN. The roles of all Internet registry policy bodies (such as the RIRs, IAB, IETF, ASO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, and gNSO) stay unchanged.

These bodies continue to hold policy authority for the protocol parameter, number, and name spaces, including responsibility to ensure the faithful registry implementation according to those policies.

This transition from the USG has been envisaged since the early days of ICANN. It is now feasible due to the growing maturity of ICANN and other organizations in the Internet ecosystem. ICANN's structures and accountability mechanisms continue to evolve and advance guided by the AoC community reviews, including ATRT. In addition, ICANN will continue to embrace its aggressive roadmap to truly globalize its structures.

In order to operationalize the transition from USG, ICANN will engage with the Internet community in a bottom-up public consultation process to ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms. In addition, ICANN will work with the names, numbers, and protocol communities to formalize relationships, commitments, and mutual responsibilities.

When community stakeholders have input about the policies emanating from the names, numbers, and protocol communities, they would be directed to pursue their interests through the relevant Internet communities (such as the gNSO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their mechanisms for consideration and potential redress.

The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent processes. They also are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol parameter and IP address registry operator. The accountability mechanisms for ICANN's administration of these core internet functions will provide escalation routes that assure the names, numbers, and protocol communities that if IANA's performance is lacking, those communities can pursue defined processes for improving performance, including pre-agreed independent third party arbitration processes.

ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry functions in accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also provide affirmations to all stakeholders (including governments) from all Internet registry policy bodies and itself that all of us will use open and transparent processes.

Maintenance details
Affected services