closed IANA Naming Function Review Bylaws Changes

Outcome

Four comments were received on the proposed Bylaws changes, including from the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Council and the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), which are two ICANN community groups that are charged with significant responsibilities within the IANA Naming Functions Reviews (IFRs). Three of the four commenters expressed support for the proposed Bylaws changes. The ccNSO Council noted that two additional provisions of the Bylaws, Sections 18.8(d) and 19.6(a), require amendment in order to align the IFR Chair selection process to the updated numbering within the composition sections, and the proposal will be updated prior to further consideration by the ICANN Board.

Comments were also received that suggest changes to other portions of the IFR-related Bylaws not proposed for amendment, including altering the timing between the convening of regular IFRs, as well as suggesting IFR reporting to other communities served by the IANA functions. As those changes would require more intensive community conversation, they are not appropriate to include in a further draft for Board consideration. Finally, comments were received seeking clarification on the impact on the next IFR.

The comments received validated the proposed changes and indicate that it is appropriate for the proposal to continue moving through the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process.

What We Received Input On

As part of the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment Process, ICANN seeks input on a comprehensive package of amendments to Articles 18 and 19 of the ICANN Bylaws, which define ICANN and the community’s obligations regarding the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Naming Function Reviews.

There are four types of changes:

1. The removal of a duplication at Article 18, Section 12(a), as identified by the first IANA Naming Function Review (IFR) Team in its Final Report.
2. Updates to the composition of IFR teams to address composition issues identified by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) in 2019.
3. Clarification of ambiguities on the IFR processes identified through the first IFR after the IANA Stewardship Transition.
4. Updates to the composition of the team exploring an IANA Naming Function Separation Process (Article 19), to conform to composition updates for the IFRs within Article 18.

Public Comment is a regular and required part of ICANN’s Bylaws amendment processes. For these proposals updating the IANA Naming Function Reviews, the ICANN community may comment on any relevant issues raised by the amendments. ICANN provides a redline version of the existing Bylaws to support the community in its review of these changes.

Background

The IANA Naming Function Review (IFR) was included in the ICANN Bylaws in 2016 as an outcome of the IANA Stewardship Transition. The IFR is a mechanism through which customers of the IANA naming function can confirm that the work is being performed pursuant to the IANA Naming Function Contract between ICANN and its affiliate, Public Technical Identifiers. There has been one IFR to date under the Bylaws. In forming the team for the first IFR, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) noted some challenges meeting the defined composition of the team, and the Bylaws were amended to update those requirements. The Registries Stakeholder Group, another key stakeholder comprising the IFR team, then noted additional challenges in its composition efforts, which are reflected in proposed edits to Section 18.8(c) of the proposed Bylaws amendments. As the Bylaws proposals were being developed, ICANN noted that the same language posing the same composition issues existed in the description of another review developed during the IANA Steward Transition, the Separation Community Working Group, at Section 19.5 of the Bylaws, and conforming changes are recommended there.

One of the outcomes of the first IFR is a recommendation to update the scope of the IFR as defined in Section 18.12 of the ICANN Bylaws, removing reference to the IANA Problem Resolution Process. This recommendation was accepted by the ICANN Board, and the proposed removal of that section is reflected in the document available for the community.

Finally, as ICANN and the community worked through the first IFR, ICANN realized that the cadence of Board consideration of the IFR recommendations was not clearly written in the Bylaws. The current Section 18.6 created confusion in the required timing of Public Comment and the cadence of who needed to act at which point on the recommendations for them to be effective. As a result, ICANN proposes clarification to language, carefully drafted to avoid any change to the intent of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposals, and also reflected the same changes in the description of the process for consideration of outcomes of a second type of IFR at Section 18.12.

For ease of reference, the table below summarizes the purpose of the Bylaws amendments at each section.