Skip to main content

IAB response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee's Final Implementation Report, October 2002
statement-iab-icann-response-3-00

Document Type IAB Statement
Title IAB response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee's Final Implementation Report, October 2002
Published 2002-10-01
Metadata last updated 2023-08-09
State Active
Send notices to (None)
statement-iab-icann-response-3-00

IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee Final Implementation Report

October, 2002

The IAB has reviewed the proposals contained in the Final Implementation Report and Recommendations of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee, and the Second Supplemental Implementation Report (with Revised Bylaws). [<1>][<5>]

The review has been undertaken with specific reference to the IAB responses to ICANN Evolution and Reform of May 2002 [<2>] and September 2002 [<3>].

The issues that have been previously raised by the IAB are as follows:

1. Protocol Support Organization

The IAB reaffirms its agreement with the proposal not to continue with the Protocol Support Organization.

2. The Provision of Technical Advice to ICANN

The IAB notes the proposed charter for the Technical Liaison Group (TLG) [<4>][<5>] and in particular notes the caveats placed on the activities of this body such that it will have no role whatsoever in connection with the IANA’s work for the IAB/IETF/IRTF, and that it is not intended to establish unified positions, nor intended to create additional layers or structures within the TLG for the development of technical standards.

These caveats on the scope of the TLG address the major substance of the concerns previously stated by the IAB on this topic.

3. ICANN Board Positions

The IAB notes that there is provision for a non-voting liaison member of the Board to be appointed by the IETF. The IAB reaffirms that this proposed liaison addresses the concerns raised by the IAB with respect to this role.

4. IETF Protocol Parameters

The IAB has already noted deep concerns that the role of the management of protocol parameter assignments for IETF Internet-Standard protocols was not being adequately distinguished from the deeper issues concerning the role of ICANN with respect to the operation of the domain name system and unicast IP address assignment.

The IAB notes that these concerns have been addressed to some extent within the constraints placed on the proposed activities of the Technical Liaison Group.

The IAB will continue to monitor the functioning of the protocol parameter assignment function of IANA, to ensure that this role is undertaken in accordance with the relevant MoU with ICANN [<6>] and that this role meets the ongoing requirements of the IETF.

Leslie Daigle.

Chair, Internet Architecture Board

References:

[1] Final Implementation Report and Recommendations of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oct02.htm

[2] IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform

http://www.iab.org/DOCUMENTS/icann-response.html

[3] IAB Response to ICANN Evolution and Reform Second Interim Report

http://www.iab.org/DOCUMENTS/icann-response-2.html

[4] Proposed Charter of the ICANN Technical Advisory Committee

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm#XI-2.2

[5] Second Supplemental Implementation Report (with Revised Bylaws)

http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-supplemental-implementation-report-23oct02.htm

[6] Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, RFC 2850

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt