IANA Naming Function Review (IFR) Final Report

Why the Board is addressing the issue?

Board consideration of the recommendations of the IANA Naming Function Review (IFR) is a required and essential step of the IFR Process. The Board welcomes the work of the very first of the IFR teams, and thanks them for their work and diligence in the first testing of the IFR process. Additionally, under the Bylaws, the Board must take action on Recommendation 4, regarding an amendment to the IANA Naming Function Agreement, within 45 days of the last procedural requirement to support the Board's action. That last requirement was met on 24 March 2021 when the GNSO Council approved the proposed amendment. The Board now is acting on all of the IFR recommendations as set out in the scorecard, "Final IFR Recommendations for Board Action".

What is the proposal being considered?

The IFRT issued four (4) recommendations, set out below and in detail in the scorecard, "Final IFR Recommendations for Board Action":

Recommendation 1: that PTI publishes the IANA functions transition plan as required by the IANA Naming Function Contract.

Recommendation 2: that the Annual Attestation that PTI has complied with the requirements of Section 6.1 of the IANA Naming Function Contract be posted on https://www.iana.org/ annually.

Recommendation 3: The IFRT, in conjunction with the CSC, has identified a duplication in the ICANN Bylaws. The remedial action procedures as generated by the CSC and PTI are referred to as components in the initiation of the Special IFR as outlined in Section 18.12.a of the ICANN

Bylaws. However, the CSC and the IFRT have identified that section 18.12.a (ii) is redundant as the RAP and the IANA problem resolution process were combined into a single set of procedures (the RAPs) by the CSC. The recommendation is that the ICANN Board consider removing the redundant section 18.12.a (ii).

Recommendation 4: In Article 7 Section 7.1 (a), the IFRT recommends that this statement, "The relevant policies under which the changes are made shall be noted within each monthly report [Root Operations Audit Reports]," be removed from the contract as it is a legacy statement from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) contract that is no longer required. Implementation of this requirement has long been recognized as being operationally impracticable ever since the time of the NTIA contract, and the IFRT is satisfied that its continued inclusion in the contract adds no value to the reports.

ICANN org identifies no concerns with the recommendations as proposed by the IFR. Recommendations 1 and 2, related to publication of existing documentation, have already been completed by ICANN org as part of its commitment to transparency. To the extent applicable, the Board understands that ICANN org's implementation of those recommendations will identify how to bring those publication practices into standard operating procedures.

ICANN org recommended to the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC), that it is appropriate for all recommendations to be accepted, and the OEC, in March 2021, agreed to recommend the same to the Board.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The IFRT consulted with IANA functions subject matter experts, and on multiple occasions with the CSC. Personnel from the IANA Functions served as liaison to the IFR and contributed to the deliberations. The IFRT also convened a public comment on the Initial Draft of the Report.

Under the ICANN Bylaws, Recommendation 4 required additional consultations as it requires a IANA Naming Function Contract amendment. Per ICANN Bylaws, Article 18, Section 18.5.d.(a):

"The IFRT may recommend, among other things to the extent reasonably related to the IFR responsibilities set forth in Section 18.3, amendments to the IANA Naming Function Contract, IANA Naming Function SOW and/or the CSC Charter. The IFRT shall, at a minimum, take the following steps before an amendment to either the IANA Naming Function Contract, IANA Naming Function SOW or CSC Charter is proposed:

(i) Consult with the Board (such consultation to be conducted in parallel with other processes set forth in this Section 18.6(a)) and PTI;

(ii) Consult with the CSC;

(iii) Conduct a public input session for ccTLD and gTLD registry operators; and

(iv) Seek public comment on the amendments that are under consideration by the IFRT through a public comment period that complies with the designated practice for public comment periods within ICANN."

The IFRT consulted regularly with PTI through Kim Davies, Vice President, IANA Functions, who served as a liaison to the IFR. The IFRT also consulted with the CSC, with the ICANN Board, and performed a community webinar. The CSC and the Board responded that there were no concerns, while no issues were brought up during the community webinar.

Two public comments were held. The first, from 8 October 2020 to 2 December 2020, requested input on the IFRT's Initial Report and all the recommendations. That public comment forum received six comments, with all six supporting all of the IFR's recommendations with no objections stated.From 10 February 2021 to 22 March 2021 a public comment was held specifically on Recommendation 4. Three comments were submitted, all of which approved of the recommendation, with no objections stated.

In parallel with the second public comment, the ccNSO Council and GNSO Council were consulted and each approved Recommendation 4 with a supermajority vote.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

No substantive issues were raised during the two (2) public comments or through other engagements.

Under the Bylaws, the Empowered Community will have an opportunity to consider whether it will reject the Board's acceptance of Recommendation 4, which represents a final opportunity for the community to raise concerns.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the IFRT's Final Report.

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

ICANN org, including the IANA team, recommended all four recommendations be approved by the Board. Additionally, both the public comment for the Initial Report and the public comment for Recommendation 4 received support from all the comments submitted.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

Taking action on these recommendations will contribute to ensuring ICANN meets its commitments relative to its performance of the IANA naming function. The first two recommendations ensure that the performance of the IANA naming function is in full compliance with the IANA Naming Function Contract by publishing all documents as required by the contract.

Recommendation three (3) and four (4) each focus on a misalignment against current practices that occur within the Bylaws and the IANA Naming Function Contract and call for minor corrections.

Together, all four (4) recommendations ensure that the IANA Naming Function is performed in alignment with all obligations defined within the IANA Naming Function Contract and the Bylaws.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

No fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN, the community, or the public are expected as a result of implementing the IFRT's recommendations.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

No security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS are expected as a result of implementing the IFRT's recommendations.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

This action is within ICANN's Mission and mandate as it is a critical part of how ICANN performs its mission based role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System. This is in the public interest as it a fulfillment of a Bylaws' mandate to convene and consider the recommendations of an IANA Naming Function Review Team.

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

Two public comments were completed, and no further public comments are needed.