Fifth
Status Report to the United States Department of Commerce
Re: Progress Toward Objectives of Memorandum of Understanding
Q4 2002
Contents:
A. Introduction and Background
B. The Effect of Amendment 5 on the Project
C. Current Status of the Project
1. ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process
a. Steps Completed
b. Major Continuing Reform Issues
c. Enhancing Participation of Key Stakeholders
2. Progress Toward Other Specific Objectives of the
MOU
a. Technical Management of the DNS
b. Improved Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms
c. Improved Mechanisms for Governmental Input
d. Continued Process of Implementing New TLDs
e. Improved Mechanisms for Informed Participation
in ICANN
D. Conclusions
Appendix A: Summary of IANA Activities, September-December
2002
A. Introduction and Background
On 19 September 2002, the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC")
and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN")
entered into Amendment 5
to the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") originally
entered into by those same parties on 25 November 1998. Amendment
5 was a substantial reformation of the original MOU, and among other differences,
calls for quarterly rather than annual reports of ICANN's progress toward
the objectives of the MOU.
This is the first of those quarterly reports, covering progress since
the signing of Amendment 5.
B. The Effect of Amendment 5 on the
Project
Amendment 5, building on the experience of the previous four years, significantly
sharpened the focus of the MOU. It more clearly recognized the reality
that building a private body designed to facilitate global consensus on
policy issues related to the Domain Name System (DNS) was an extremely
difficult undertaking. It also recognized, again building on experience
and the ongoing evolution and reform process underway at ICANN, that national
governments, including but certainly not limited to the United States
Government, had a crucial role to play in any such organization if it
was to be successful. Finally, it anticipated the completion of ICANN's
ongoing evolution and reform process, and set forth goals and aspirations
reflected in that effort.
Importantly, the MOU reflects the continuing policy goal of the DOC to
"privatiz[e] the technical management of the DNS in a manner that
promotes stability and security, competition, coordination, and representation."
Equally importantly, it reflects the DOC's continuing acceptance of its
critical role in reaching that goal, through its collaboration in developing
a process "for making the management of the root server system more
robust and secure"; for encouraging (in collaboration with the other
members of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee) "the creation
of stable agreements between ICANN and the Regional Internet Registries";
and for advancing (again working with other members of the GAC) "ICANN's
efforts to achieve stable agreements with organizations operating country
code top level domains (ccTLDs)."
The MOU also restates, in a more focused way than previous versions of
the MOU, the continuing objectives of ICANN, including the continued improvement
of ICANN's consensus policy-development process; the accomplishment, as
noted above, of appropriate agreements with the RIRs, with ccTLDs, and
with the root server operators so that global policy issues relating to
those communities are considered and resolved through ICANN's consensus
policy-development process; and the continuation of the process of introducing
new top-level domains into the DNS with appropriate care and consideration
of the likely effects on the DNS and the global Internet community.
C. Current Status of the Project
There has been considerable progress over the past four months. ICANN’s
reform process launched last February with a paper
by ICANN’s President and CEO, and carried forward by the Evolution
and Reform Committee (ERC) appointed by the ICANN Board
reached a key milestone in the adoption of New
Bylaws for ICANN. While reform has occupied much of the attention
and energy of both volunteers and staff, ICANN and its constituent bodies
also have a significant volume of ongoing responsibilities. This report
incorporates progress over both reform and the full range of ICANN's ongoing
activities.
1. ICANN's Evolution
and Reform Process
a. Steps Completed
On 15 December 2002, the ICANN Board of Directors completed
the adoption of New Bylaws, reflecting almost nine months of extensive
dialogue and debate within the ICANN community. These New Bylaws,
and the structure and processes that they adopt and incorporate, are
designed to build on the successes and to learn from the
experiences and failures of ICANN's existence to date.
The reform process was intended to improve ICANN's future performance,
recognizing that it was highly improbable that ICANN was launched
initially with every detail permanently and correctly in place, especially
since no similar organization had ever existed that could be used
as a model. The overall purpose of the reform effort was to strengthen
ICANN’s role as an organization firmly rooted in the private sector
but capable of facilitating the public/private partnership necessary
to achieve the goals of all those involved in its creation.
The New Bylaws have several features that will enable ICANN to better
meet its objectives:
- A key aspect of the reform process and the New Bylaws has been
to sharpen
the articulation of ICANN’s mission to coordinate the allocation
of the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers
in particular, to ensure the stable and secure operation of the
Internet's unique naming and addressing systems and
to coordinate policy development reasonably and appropriately related
to these technical functions. There has been much debate in the
community about this mission. The New Bylaws identify where consensus
has been reached. The New Bylaws also define
more precisely the core values that should inform the performance
of that mission by ICANN.
- The New Bylaws establish new
mechanisms for selecting the ICANN Board, designed to increase
the likelihood that it benefits from participation by thoughtful,
committed individuals with a broad array of perspectives. These
new mechanisms resolve for at least the foreseeable future the debates
about how the ICANN Board will be selected that have occupied a
significant portion of the ICANN community's attention since ICANN's
formation.
- The New Bylaws also establish a structured
policy-development process for issues relating to names policies
on the DNS, with the goal of increasing the analytical quality,
inclusiveness of views, and predictability of the process.1
They also establish a structure (the At-Large
Advisory Committee) for receiving and incorporating into the
policy-development process informed input from the general Internet
user community.2
- The New Bylaws establish an enhanced, formal structure for accountability
and dispute resolution within ICANN3,
thereby helping to ensure that all relevant inputs are appropriately
considered in establishing ICANN’s polices.
- Recognizing the importance of a robust public/private partnership,
the New Bylaws also clarify and strengthen how advice from governments,
via ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee, will be received and considered where public-policy
matters are involved.4 They also provide
new mechanisms for obtaining external expert advice, including on
issues of public policy.
b. Major Continuing
Reform Issues
The adoption of the New Bylaws is a critical step in the evolution
of ICANN into an effective organization that meets the objective of
open, transparent, consensus policy development for which it was founded.
But important steps remain. While the structure and policy-development
process relating to generic names is completed, work is still progressing
with respect to global addressing and country-code issues.
In addition, the transition from the historical ICANN structure to
that established by the New Bylaws is still underway. Changing from
the existing structures and processes cannot be accomplished overnight.
At its Amsterdam meeting on 15 December 2002, the ICANN Board adopted
a transition
plan. Many new processes must be implemented and many new positions
must be staffed. It is anticipated that the transition tasks will
be completed no later than the middle of 2003.
Although implementing the transition still requires significant continued
work, the lengthy process of introspection and discussion that has
produced the New Bylaws has already been an extremely healthy development
for ICANN, leaving it better able to effectively meet its intended
goals.
c. Enhancing Participation
of Key Stakeholders5
Obviously, to effectively carry out its intended responsibilities,
ICANN must have the participation of the several communities that
collectively are responsible for the infrastructure of the DNS. These
include the bodies responsible for the underlying Internet protocols,
the operators of the generic and country-code name registries ("ccTLDs"),
the operators of the Regional Internet (IP address) Registries ("RIRs"),
and the operators of the root name servers. To fulfill its mission,
ICANN must provide a forum for the development of policies to guide
the technical management of the Internet in which these important
stakeholders are willing to participate.
ICANN continues to enjoy the participation of Internet protocol developers
(through participation in ICANN's Technical
Liaison Group and on ICANN's Board and Nominating Committee) and
the operators of generic name registries and registrars (through participation
in ICANN's Generic
Names Supporting Organization).
While the operators of the RIRs, ccTLDs, and root name servers have
historically participated in ICANN, most have done so informally,
in the absence of agreements or other formal arrangements with ICANN.
Meeting the needs of these key stakeholders requires development of
suitable structures and processes for their effective participation,
and the actual effective use of those structures and processes.
The New Bylaws are still incomplete in their definition of fully
adequate arrangements for both the RIR and ccTLD communities. Significant
steps have, however, been taken toward the incorporation of both groups
into the ICANN structure and policy-development processes in appropriate
ways, as described below.
(i)
RIRs:
ICANN's Evolution and Reform
Committee ("ERC") continues intense and regular discussions
with representatives of the RIRs to determine the most appropriate
form of involvement of the RIRs with ICANN in the new ICANN structure.
Those discussions have in principle led to a consensus among ICANN
and the RIRs on appropriate structures and policy-development processes,
which are now in the process of being committed to paper. The goal,
which now seems in sight, is revision of the Address
Supporting Organization’s policy-development process in a way
that better makes use of the RIRs' existing processes as a means
of achieving broadly supported coordinated global address policies
when and where appropriate.
Discussions with the RIRs have also concerned the proposed contractual
relationships between ICANN and the RIRs. Discussions are underway
concerning improved methods of allocations of numbering resources
among the various regions and other means of ensuring that the Internet’s
numbering resources are managed in a way that reflects the interests
of the RIRs' members and others who use the Internet.6
(ii)
ccTLD Operators:
With respect to the ccTLD community, a different but also promising
process has been underway now for more than three months. A ccNSO
(Country-Code Names Supporting Organization) Assistance Group,
made up of ccTLD administrators and other interested persons, has
been working through the unique issues relating to the interaction
between ICANN, a global consensus policy-development body, and the
ccTLDs, by definition entities focused on and primarily responsible
to national communities. This extremely hard-working group has already
produced seven reports and communiqués, and with the participation
of the broader ccTLD community is well on its way to the submission
of a set of recommendations concerning the proper structure and
operation of the ccNSO that is contemplated by the New Bylaws.
ICANN also continues to make slow but important progress in reaching
agreements with ccTLDs. This is a slow process because of the need
to reach appropriate arrangements that involve the ccTLD itself,
the relevant national government, and the local Internet community,
at times in difficult circumstances. ICANN now has written agreements
with seven ccTLDs: .au (Australia), .jp
(Japan), .bi (Burundi), .mw
(Malawi), .sd (Sudan), .la
(Lao People’s Democratic Republic), and .ke
(Kenya). These are several more agreements in the pipeline. Some
of these situations also involve complex redelegations that must
be approached with care to ensure that the interests of all affected
parties are respected. These agreements all represent forward progress
in improving stability of the Domain Name System.7
(iii)
Root-Nameserver Operators:
With respect to arrangements with root server operators, there
is little progress to report. The appropriate form of arrangements
between ICANN and root server operators is unclear at this time,
and there is fundamental work to be done with all parties involved.
2. Progress Toward
Other Specific Objectives of the MOU
a. Technical Management
of the DNS8
Notwithstanding the intense focus over most of the last year on reform
and evolution of ICANN, ICANN has a large number of ongoing operational
responsibilities that continue to require considerable attention.
These include:
(i)
Ongoing IANA Operations:
ICANN has carried out the responsibilities of the
IANA since ICANN's creation. These include coordination of the
assignment of technical protocol parameters, a large number of administrative
functions associated with root management (including technical oversight
of the introduction of new TLDs, redelegation of TLDs where appropriate,
and other technical functions), and the allocation of IP address
blocks. IANA activities during the months of September-December
2002 are summarized in Appendix A.
(ii)
Re-assignment of the Dot Org Registry:
Consistent with the revised
agreements signed
in May 2001 among ICANN, VeriSign, and the DOC, the dot org
registry has been re-assigned from VeriSign to Public Interest Registry
(PIR), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Internet Society (ISOC).
The actual transfer of operations will
occur between 1 January and 25 January 2003. The decision to
re-assign the registry to PIR followed a lengthy,
open, and transparent process of soliciting and evaluating proposals.
Eleven proposals were submitted in response to a Request for Proposals
(RFP) solicitation that detailed the specific criteria to be used
in the evaluation. The proposals were evaluated by three independent
teams assembled for specific aspects of the proposals.
Such process can never be perfect, and will always be subject to
some criticism, particularly and understandably by those disappointed
bidders who were ultimately unsuccessful but who had committed considerable
resources to preparing their proposals. Nevertheless, the process
was considerably improved over the late 2000 solicitation that led
to the selection of seven registries to operate new gTLDs, and indeed
the dot org solicitation and evaluation process benefited greatly
from the experience gained in the earlier solicitation.
(iii)
Preparation for Deployment of Internationalized Domain Names:
ICANN's Internationalized Domain Names
(IDN) Committee is a multi-disciplinary group responsible for
monitoring the development of new DNS protocols that will allow
for the translation of non-ASCII characters (such as Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, and Cyrillic characters, and Romance
language diacritics), and making appropriate policy recommendations.
The IDN Committee has produced, for example, recommendations on
the exclusion of non-language Unicode code points, selection criteria
for internationalized DNS registries based on TLD string semantics,
and the inadvisability of a dotted notation format in non-DNS keyword
systems.
In December 2002, the effort to internationalize the domain name
system took a major step forward when the IETF's Internet Engineering
Steering Group (IESG) approved publication of three interrelated
standards-track documents that together define a mechanism for the
recognition of non-ASCII characters at the application layer.
The IDN Committee has been monitoring the IETF's work closely,
and is currently working to finalize a set of policy recommendations
for those DNS registries that intend to implement the IDNA standard
for domain names at the second level and below. At this stage, the
locus of internationalization efforts has shifted from the IETF
to the DNS registries. Accordingly, the ICANN Board has directed
ICANN's
CEO to convene a President's IDN Registry Implementation Committee,
which will be composed of interested registries, registrars, and
technical experts to consider and exchange information on ways to
resolve the issues associated with implementation of IDN capabilities
in existing top-level domains.
(iv)
Improved Protections for gTLD Domain-Name Registrants:
Following careful analysis and recommendations by gTLD Registrars
and Registries, and by the DNSO Names Council, ICANN adopted a policy
establishing a "Redemption
Grace Period" that will lower the chances of registrants
accidentally losing their domain names because of unintentional
deletion of failure to renew. It is anticipated that the policy
will be implemented for the .com and .net TLDs beginning in January
2003, and in other gTLDs afterward. A one-year
trial of a new Wait Listing Service proposed by VeriSign Registry
was also approved for implementation after the Redemption Grace
Period policy is in place. This service would allow individuals
or entities to purchase "options" on existing domain names,
should the incumbent registrant choose not to renew.
(v)
GNSO Policy Development Activity:
Work continued in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO,
which has replaced the former DNSO) on review of new or revised
policies in several areas:
- Whois Task Force Report
On 30 November 2002, the DNSO Names Council's Whois Task Force
issued its policy
report on Whois accuracy and bulk access. On 14 December 2002,
the DNSO
Names Council delayed action on that report until 16 January
2003, but formed an implementation/cost analysis committee to
analyze the cost of implementing the recommendations. The implementation
analysis is scheduled to be completed by 30 January 2003, after
which the matter will be reviewed by the GNSO Council.
- Transfers Task Force Report
On 30 November 2002, the DNSO Names Council's Transfers Task Force
issued its final
report and recommendations concerning Policies and Processes for
Gaining and Losing Registrars. On 14 December 2002, the DNSO
Names Council accepted the policy recommendations in that
report and formed an implementation analysis committee consisting
of the registry and registrar representatives with ICANN staff
and user liaisons from the transfer task force. The implementation
analysis is scheduled to be completed by 30 January 2003, after
which the matter will be reviewed by the GNSO Council.
- Ongoing Work in Deletes Task Force
The DNSO (now GNSO) Deletes
Task Force was formed in November 2003 and has been engaged
in formulating recommendations since then.
- Ongoing Work in UDRP Task Force
The DNSO (now GNSO) UDRP
Task Force was formed in September 2001 and has been engaged
in a broad range of activities to evaluate the UDRP since then.
Its activities include conducting a survey and reviewing various
third-part analyses of the UDRP’s operation.
(vi)
DNS Security and Stability:
The Security and Stability Advisory
Committee was formed in 2002 following the ICANN
meeting in November 2001 that focused on DNS security. The Committee
began its work with the goal of producing a single document with
four major sections: a description of the DNS system and its related
and ancillary systems; a list and description of the known and potential
vulnerabilities; a security architecture for a desirable improved
system; and a measurement framework to permit a regular and real-time
assessment of the stability of the system. In light of recent incidents,
these broad areas of focus have proven to encompass an unexpectedly
large range of sub-topics. Accordingly, the Committee has decided
to focus on producing individual recommendations on a quicker schedule,
addressing "current events." In doing so, the Committee
intends to avoid delaying advice on those issues while work on the
broader and more complex areas proceeds.
Specifically, the Committee has been involved in
- Evaluating and reporting on the October 2002 Distributed Denial
of Service Attacks. In addition to the cooperative work with the
RSSAC and others the Committee will shortly produce its own recommendation
regarding "securing the edge," which more generally
addresses operational issues.
- Commenting on the Zone Transfer/AXFR controversy. Focusing on
security and stability, the Committee developed both essential
and desirable requirements for zone transfers. The requirements
are being used by a joint working group of ccTLDs, IANA, and the
SAC to resolve procedural concerns.
- Developing a recommendation with respect gTLD Whois which included
suggestions for both ICANN and IANA that address the privacy of,
access to, and quality of Whois data.
b.
Improved Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms9
ICANN's New Bylaws include several provisions directly focused on this
goal. First, the Bylaws establish an Office
of Ombudsman, which is responsible for intake of complaints about
unfair or inappropriate actions by the ICANN Board or staff, and the
attempted resolution of those complaints. Second, the New Bylaws create
both a process
for reconsideration of ICANN actions or inactions, and a process
for independent review of the same where necessary. The New Bylaws
contemplate a significantly improved ICANN website, and create a staff
position directly responsible for coordinating the various aspects of
public participation in ICANN. The New Bylaws also contemplate the
provision of staff support to the various policy development and advisory
entities within ICANN, including the Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees. Work is underway on implementing these requirements.
c.
Improved Mechanisms for Governmental Input10
ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) continued its contributions
to the ICANN process. The GAC played an important and constructive role
in the ICANN reform discussion, advising
on structures and processes that would allow it to provide an appropriate
vehicle for governments' participation in ICANN.
Additionally, the GAC began a process to engage in discussions with
ccTLDs on ICANN-related issues of mutual importance. The dialogue between
ccTLDs, the GAC, and ICANN is an important part of the work to strengthen
the relationship between ccTLDs and ICANN. The GAC, together with ICANN
staff, also provided its members with information and guidance concerning
ccTLD delegation procedures. The GAC continued to advise on the implementation
of country names in .info.
Following the Shanghai ICANN Board meeting in late October, the GAC
secretariat began a transition from Australia’s National Office for
the Information Economy to the European Commission. In late November,
the GAC held its scheduled elections for its next Chair and Vice-Chairs.
The work by the GAC’s new leadership and Secretariat has begun.
d.
Continued Process of Implementing New TLDs11
On 23 August 2002, the ICANN Board accepted the report
of the ICANN New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force. The
NTEPPTF had been established to produce a suggested approach to evaluating
the effects on the DNS of the introduction of the seven new TLDs established
by ICANN in 2000. At that same meeting, the Board instructed the President
to develop a plan for action by the Board, and that Action
Plan Regarding New TLDs was presented for discussion at the Public
Forum during the Shanghai meeting of ICANN on 30 October 2002, and posted
for public comment on 8 November 2002. The Action Plan was also the
subject of discussion at the Public Forum during ICANN's Amsterdam meeting
on 14 December 2002.
The Action Plan recommended that various key recommendations of the
NTEPPTF be implemented; that certain questions regarding the future
evolution of the generic top-level namespace be referred for advice
to the new Generic Names Supporting Organization established under the
New Bylaws; and, in parallel, that steps be taken towards approval of
a limited number of new sponsored gTLDs in the near future. At its Amsterdam
meeting on 15 December 2002, the ICANN Board authorized
the President to take the steps necessary to implement those recommendations
of the NTEPPTF as specified in the Action Plan, asked the GNSO to provide
its recommendations on whether to structure the evolution of the generic
top-level namespace, and if so, how to do so, and directed the President
to develop a draft Request for Proposals for the Board's consideration
for the purpose of soliciting proposals for a limited number of new
sponsored gTLDs.
This process is intended to move along as fast as possible, consistent
with the other obligations and workload of the ICANN staff. But it is
clear that there will be, in the foreseeable future, a process for the
introduction of new sponsored gTLDs, while at the same time evaluating
the effects of the recent introductions on the Internet root server
system and Internet stability to ensure that this process serves the
interests of the entire Internet community.
e.
Improved Mechanisms for Informed Participation in ICANN12
One of ICANN's core values, as incorporated in the New Bylaws, is to
facilitate "broad, informed participation reflecting the functional,
geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of
policy development and decision-making." This part of the ICANN
mission is reflected by the following recent activities:
(i)
Creation of the At-Large Advisory Committee:
As reported above, the New Bylaws create an At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC), composed of representatives selected
from all regions of the globe, to provide informed input on ICANN
policy and other decisions from the general Internet user community.
In support of this requirement, self-forming user organizations are
now coming together to form Regional At-Large Organizations, each
of which will elect members of the ALAC. The ALAC will then appoint
a Liaison to the ICANN Board. It is expected that this approach will
provide an important channel for informed input by involved users
into the ICANN policy-development process, a structure that may evolve
over time into a larger role as these organizations establish modes
of operation and attract greater user participation from around the
world. An Interim
ALAC will be appointed by the ICANN Board of Directors to act
until the statutory ALAC representatives are elected.
(ii)
Outreach and Education:
ICANN is regularly engaged in outreach activities with the ICANN
community and others interested in learning about the mission and
operations of ICANN. These efforts are designed to facilitate participation
in ICANN, educate ICANN on unique regional circumstances and needs,
and generally to improve understanding on the part of all parties
about the scope and limits of ICANN's mission and the best ways to
accomplish that in various contexts, so as to encourage informed public
participation in ICANN.
In this context, ICANN representatives recently participated in (1)
the Forum on Telecommunication Regulation in Africa, a regional meeting
in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, organized by the African Francophone
countries and the ITU-D; (2) the East Africa Internet Forum in Nairobi,
Kenya; (3) a regional outreach meeting for Latin Americans interested
in ICANN in Mexico City (with video representation from Brazil, and
a webcast); (4) the UN ECA ICT Addis meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;
(5) a meeting arranged with the support of the European Commission
and the Italian Registration Authority in Milan, Italy; (6) a meeting
arranged by the European Commission to further greater understanding
among European ccTLD managers and GAC representatives, and to foster
greater dialogue between ccTLD operators and the GAC; (7) the RANS
meeting in Moscow, Russia, which included participants from both Russia
and other parts of the former Soviet Union; and (8) the UN ICT World
Information Summit, in New York, USA.
ICANN representatives also consult as appropriate with GAC members,
such as national governments and international governmental bodies
(e.g., the World International Property Organization and the International
Telecommunications Union), and private-sector organizations of various
kinds. In addition, ICANN representatives are regularly asked to,
and frequently do, attend various meetings of ICANN participants,
including the RIRs, IETF, ccTLD regional meetings, and the like.
D. Conclusions
ICANN is nearing the end of an intensive and extremely productive period
of introspection and debate about its structure, operation, and policy-development
processes. The adoption of the New Bylaws, and the hoped-for completion
of ongoing discussions with the RIR and ccTLD communities, along with
the necessary transition steps, will produce a more functional and effective
ICANN. Assuming the successful completion of these ongoing efforts, the
remaining significant structural task will be the inclusion of the root
nameserver operators within the ICANN community through appropriate understandings
or agreements a task that has taken on new importance with
the world's increased emphasis on stability and security of critical infrastructure
such as the Internet.
All of this reform has occupied considerable attention from the ICANN
Board, senior staff and management, and many hard-working volunteers.
Nevertheless, there has been steady progress in: entering appropriate
agreements with several ccTLDs (often following complex and time-consuming
redelegation processes); pursuing opportunities for outreach and collaboration;
re-assigning the dot org registry following a complex proposal solicitation
and evaluation process; charting a course for considering expansion of
the top-level gTLD namespace and for evaluating those new gTLDs launched
over the past 18 months; preparing for deployment of internationalized
domain names; continuing to work toward improvements to DNS stability
and security; and developing policies in several areas for improved services
to registrants. And, as detailed above, the ongoing operational responsibilities
of ICANN and its constituent bodies have continued throughout this period.
Respectfully submitted,
THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
8 January 2003
Appendix
A
Summary of IANA Activities, September-December 2002
New Protocol Registries Created:
September 2002:
SIP Privacy Header Values
Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) Package Registry
Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) Localconnectoptions Sub-Registry
SigComp Namespace Registry
October 2002:
Reason Protocols (sub-registry of SIP)
Semantics for "group" SDP Attribute (sub-registry of SDP)
November 2002:
RMT FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs
MPLS Label Values
DNS KEY Resource Record Protocol Octet Values
DSN Types
GMPLS Signaling Parameters
December 2002:
SIP Mechanism Name Registry
Protocol Parameters Assigned/Registered:
September 2002:
Character Sets - 3
Megaco Error Codes - 1
Megaco Public Packages - 19
MGCP Local Connection Options - 10
MGCP Packages - 1
Private Enterprise Numbers - 253
SDP Attributes - 2
SigComp Namespace Registrations - 1
SIP Header Fields - 5
SIP Option Tags - 2
SIP Privacy Headers - 1
User TCP/UDP Port Numbers - 23
October 2002:
DHCP Option Codes - 1
Experimental Numbers - 1
GSTN Extensions - 6
IANA ifType MIBs - 1
L2TP Attributes - 4
L2TP Result Codes - 2
Megaco Public Packages - 5
MIB-2 Numbers - 2
MIME Media Types - 5
Private Enterprise Numbers - 303
ROHC Profile Identifiers - 1
SCTP Payload IDs - 1
SDP Attributes - 7
Sieve Extensions - 1
SIP Methods - 1
SVRLOC Templates - 2
User TCP/UDP Port Numbers - 25
November 2002:
DSN Types - 3
GMPLS Actions - 4
GMPLS Generalized PIDs - 38
GMPLS Interface ID Types - 5
GMPLS LSP Encoding Types - 8
GMPLS Switching Types - 8
LDP Namespace TLVs - 13
MPLS Label Values - 1
Private Enterprise Numbers - 271
RMT FEC Encoding IDs - 2
User TCP/UDP Port Numbers - 16
December 2002:
Experimental Number - 1
Megaco Public Package- 1
MGCP Package - 1
MIME Media Types - 3
PPP Number - 1
Private Enterprise Numbers - 256
RSVP Parameters - 33
SIP Header Fields - 9
SIP Mechanism Names - 5
SIP Option Tags - 1
SIP Response Codes - 1
Transmission Numbers – 1
Allocation of Numbering Resources:
September 2002:
1 block of Autonomous System Numbers
October 2002:
2 IPv4 Multicast Addresses
November 2002:
1 block of Autonomous System Numbers
1 IPv4 /8
1 IPv6 /23
December 2002:
1 block Autonomous System Numbers
Root-Management Activities:
September 2002:
Requests Completed - 20
October 2002:
Requests Completed - 28
November 2002:
Requests Completed - 11
December 2002:
Requests Completed - 17
IANA Reports - 4
Notes:
1. MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(3), establishes "improv[ing] transparency
in the consideration and adoption of policies related to technical management
of the DNS" as one of the MOU's goals.
2. Section
II(C)(9) of MOU Amendment 5 provides that ICANN will "Continue
to develop, to test, and to implement appropriate mechanisms that foster
informed participation in ICANN by the global Internet community."
3. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(4).
4. MOU Amendment 5 notes the need for improved governmental
contributions to ICANN’s processes. See section
I(B)(11).
5. See MOU Amendment 5, sections II(C)(2),
(5) and (7).
6. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(2).
7. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(7).
8. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(1).
9. See MOU Amendment 5, sections II(C)(3)
and (4).
10. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(B)(11).
11. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(8).
12. See MOU
Amendment 5, section II(C)(9).
Comments concerning
the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.
Page Updated
15-Mar-2003
©2003 The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.
|