Background

The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries.
These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs.

For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The
IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over
time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been
documented in supplemental agreements.

ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of
Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced
its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that
NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that
contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition
proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the
case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of
the existing well-documented practices.

Tasks

The WG’s output is expected to be an IETF consensus document which
describes the expected interaction between the IETF and the protocol
parameters registries operator.

Given that we have a system today that works well for the IETF,
minimal change in the oversight of the protocol parameters registries
is preferred in all cases and no change is preferred when possible.
With a view to addressing implications of moving the NTIA out of its
current role with respect to IANA on the IETF protocol parameter
registry function, the WG will focus on documenting and ensuring the
continuation of the current arrangements. The
working group will assume the following documents continue to be in
effect:

• RFC 2850
• RFC 3777 and its updates
• RFC 2860
• RFC 6220
• IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000
  (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf)
• ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
  (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
  http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)

This working group is chartered solely with respect to the planning
needed for the transition. Possible improvements outside that scope
will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in
substantive outcomes should be the goal, even if eventual mechanisms
required to address the removal of the overarching NTIA contract
may require additional documentation or agreements.

Should proposals made to the NTIA by other communities regarding the transition of other IANA functions
affect the protocol parameter
registries or the IETF, the WG will also review and comment on them.

The output document of the WG need not be the complete transition
proposal regarding the oversight of the protocol parameters registries
to be handed to the NTIA. Specifically, if that transition proposal
requires documentation of some detailed terms of agreements or other
details of procedures that are normally delegated to and handled by
the IAB or IAOC, the IAB or IAOC can provide those details as part of
the submission; the WG does not need to come to consensus on those
parts of the submission.

The WG shall seek the expertise of the IAB IANA Strategy Program to
formulate its output. It is expected that members of the IAB IANA
Strategy Program will actively participate in the WG.

Milestones

January 2015 -- complete protocol parameters registries proposal
May 2015 -- review of other transition proposals, if needed
Sept 2015 -- close