We are pleased to announce that the Second Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) has shared its Final Report with the ICANN Board for consideration.
The IFR2 team carried out the review based on the scope defined in Article 18 of the ICANN Bylaws. In simple terms, this means we looked at how well Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) has been performing the IANA naming function, checking it against the requirements set out in the IANA Naming Function Contract and Statement of Work. Four recommendations and four incidental findings came out of the review.
Recommendation 1: The IFR2 recommends removing the specific Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) policy details from the IANA Naming Function Contract (see Annex A, 4 (i) (1)).
Recommendation 2: The IFR2 recommends identifying and pointing to the appropriate policy authority for DNSSEC in the IANA Naming Function Contract (see Annex A, 4 (i) (1)).
Recommendation 3: To improve transparency and to support the next IFR, the IFR2 recommends that the Contract, as amended, is made publicly accessible. If this is not possible, the review team suggests providing a clear mapping of which lines have been amended to sit alongside the original Contract.
Recommendation 4: The IFR2 recommends amending ICANN Bylaws Section 18.2(b) to read "once every five (5) years, measured from the date that the most recent IFR submits its Final Report to the ICANN Board of Directors." This is to ensure that the previous IFR recommendations are given time to be implemented with sufficient time included to observe their impact by subsequent review teams.
The IFR2 team also identified findings that did not rise to the level of a recommendation but are included in the report for consideration by ICANN, PTI, and future review teams. These relate to the following areas:
- Contract Drafting Improvements: The review team noted several areas in the IANA Naming Function Contract that, while not contentious, could benefit from editorial clarification. These updates would reflect the passage of time since the IANA transition and improve readability in today's context.
- Timestamping the Transition Plan: The team suggested adding a clerical timestamp each time the Transition Plan is reviewed and confirmed, even if unchanged. This would provide clarity and signal that the plan has been examined.
- Reporting on SLA Exceptions: Some Service Level Agreement (SLA) exceptions were straightforward, however, future review teams may benefit from alternative reporting approaches to provide more readily available information.
- Ombuds Role and Complaint Routing: The review identified underexplored provisions in the contract relating to the Ombuds and complaint-handling processes. The team recommended further examination of these elements in a broader context than the scope of the IFR.
We would like to thank the members of the IFR2 team for their dedication and work throughout the course of the review, and the community for its engagement and participation in the review process. We look forward to Board action on the Final Report.