[Internal-cg] Regarding a staged transition approach

Paul Wilson pwilson at apnic.net
Thu Jun 18 06:40:07 UTC 2015

Dear IGC,

Here is a set of brief discussion points in support of a staged approach 
to the IANA stewardship transition, as a contribution to today’s IGC 

1. The IANA stewardship transition planning process is built on an 
assumption by the ICG that there are 3 distinct sets of IANA services, 
and 3 identified “communities” for those Names, Numbers and Protocol 

2. The 3 IANA service sets are considered independent and disjoint 
enough that the ICG was able to call for separate transition proposals 
from the 3 respective communities.

3. Notably, there was no violent or substantial objection to this 
approach, and the 3 expected transition plans have now been successfully 
produced by the respective communities, after exhaustive development 

4. Given the recognised separability of these 3 sets of IANA services, 
the question arises as to whether the transition plans for each of those 
sets need to be implemented at the same time; or whether they can 
instead be sequenced, as steps within a single coherent transition plan 
produced by the ICG.

5. A staged transition would allow the transition of Protocols and 
Numbers services on the original planned transition date of 30 September 
2015, with the necessary renewal of the IANA contract from that date.  
It would then allow the Names services to be transitioned later, when 
its prerequisites have been met.

6. This approach will meet the expectations of the Protocols and Numbers 
communities, whose transition plans will be ready to be implemented on 
30 September, are who will otherwise be asked to wait unnecessarily for 
the Names plan to be ready for implementation at a later date.

7. A staged transition will demonstrate concrete progress in the 
transition process, and the concrete commitment of all parties to the 

8. A failure to implement any transition steps on 30 September may be 
otherwise taken (or characterised) as a failure of the community process 
or of the US Government’s commitment to the IANA stewardship 

9. To allow the transition of Protocols and Numbers on 30 September 
would provide an opportunity from that time to demonstrate and validate 
the success of those transitions, giving more confidence in the 
subsequent transition of the Names services.

10. At this time, having received 3 complete IANA transition proposals, 
it is the ICG’s responsibility to identify and reconcile any 
inconsistencies between the 3 proposals, and produce a single complete 
transition plan.  It is perfectly feasible and not difficult for the ICG 
to also consider the implementation timing for the 3 components of the 
transition, and to specify a timed, staged approach within a single 
transition plan.

I am unable to identify any disadvantages to this approach.


Paul Wilson.

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list