Fifth Status Report Under ICANN/US Government Memorandum of Understanding

(8 January 2003)


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.