Background

The IETF stores parameters for protocols it defines in registries.
These registries are maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA), and are the subject of the "IANA Considerations"
section in many RFCs.

For a number of years, the IANA function has been provided by the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The
IETF's relationship with IANA was formalized through a Memorandum of
Understanding codified in 2000 with the publication of RFC 2860; over
time processes and role definitions have evolved, and have been
documented in supplemental agreements.

ICANN has historically had a contract with the US Department of
Commerce (DoC), undertaken through the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). In March of 2014, NTIA announced
its intention to complete the evolution begun in 1997, meaning that
NTIA would not need to renew its contract with ICANN when that
contract expires 30 September 2015. NTIA requested a transition
proposal be prepared to outline the necessary arrangements. In the
case of the IETF, we expect these arrangements to consist largely of
the existing well-documented practices.

Tasks

The WG will review, comment on, evaluate, and if need be prepare text
for a proposal about protocol parameters registries. It will assume
the following documents continue to be in effect:

• RFC 2850 (especially section 2(d))
• RFC 2860
• RFC 6220
• IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000
  (http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-ICANN-MOU_2000.pdf)
• ICANN-IETF Supplemental Agreements
  (updated yearly since 2007, the 2014 version is available at
  http://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/2014-ICANN-IETF-MoU-Supplemental-Agreement-Executed.pdf)

It is possible that RFC 3777 and its updates are also implicated.

This work is chartered exclusively to create the proposal that is
needed for the transition. Possible improvements outside that scope
will be set aside for future consideration. Avoiding alterations in
outcomes should be pursued, even if the eventual structure (without
the overarching NTIA contract) requires procedural changes in order to
address the new structure.

The WG will also review, comment on, and evaluate proposals from other
communities about the NTIA transition, to the extent that those
proposals impinge on the protocol parameters registries or the IETF.

The results of any WG consensus on protocol parameters registries
will, of necessity, be input but not necessarily firm restrictions on
any contractual terms that are ultimately adopted by the IAB and any
future IANA functions provider, or contractual terms ultimately
adopted by the IAOC and any future IANA functions provider.
Statements of principle and desired outcomes are more important items
to be delivered by the working group than are detailed terms for
future agreements.

It is expected that much of the work of the WG will lie in reviewing
materials produced by the IAB in its role as the interface to other
organizations.