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.