See contributions from ITU Member States, ITU Sector Members and Associates
 

Questionnaire Responses

Joint Contribution from Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better [RFC3935]. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. The Internet Standards Process is concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are used in or by the Internet, whether or not they are part of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The IETF assumes responsibility for the maintenance and extension of IPv4, IPv6, TCP, BGP, ENUM, DNS, IDNA, and multiple others.

In the case of protocols developed and/or standardized by other organizations, the Internet Standards Process is applicable to any extensions or updates to IETF-maintained specifications and parameters. Under guidance of the IAB the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) maintains a registry of technical protocol parameters.

For IETF specifications requiring registered parameters, the IETF specifies the creation and allocation policies for parameters in a registry. These policies document the appropriate method of allocation. This may require standards action by the IETF or review by IETF designated experts. IANA takes responsibility for the implementation of parameter registration policies in a coordinated fashion. The mutual responsibilities of the IETF and IANA are described in an MOU in an MOU between the IETF and ICANN, which operates the IANA function [RFC2860].

In addition to its responsibility of the maintenance of the Technical Parameters, IANA is responsible for the maintenance of Domain names and IP addresses. IANA does so under policies that are developed by the appropriate stake holders, where we note that the overall IP allocation schemes are set by the IETF [RFC4291, RFC2050, RFC1918].

Concluding, we wish to inform you that the IETF, as the SDO responsible for Internet routing and addressing architecture and specifications, has had many of the topics covered in the questionnaire under study since its inception. The IETF process is open to all concerned parties, and we believe the mechanisms and processes for ITU-T (and ITU members) to be involved in decisions pertaining to policies for allocation of Internet resources are established and well defined.

The IAB encourages the ITU to provide leadership to its members and encourage them to participate in and liaise with the organizations in the existing framework of standards and policy development.

Olaf Kolkman, IAB Chair, on behalf of the IAB.
Russ Housley, IETF chair.

About us:

IETF. The Internet Engineering Task Force is a worldwide and open organziation whose mission is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. See http://www.ietf.org IAB.

The Internet Architecture Board has a long history but is currently viewed as the senior committee working with the IETF that has both technical (architectural) functions and oversight functions for the development of the Internet. The latter also include oversight of the IANA functions performed for the IETF. See http:// www.iab.org

References:

[RFC1518] "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR" Y. Rekhter and T. Li, 1993 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1518.txt
[RFC1918] "Address Allocation for Private Internets" Y. Rekhter et al, 1996 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1918.txt
[RFC2050] "INTERNET REGISTRY IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES" K. Hubbard et al, 1996 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2050.txt
[RFC2860] "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", B. Carpenter et al, 2000 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2860.txt
[RFC4291] "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture Hinden and Deering, 2006 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt
[RFC3935] "A Mission Statement for the IETF", H. Alvestrand, 2004 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3935.txt 

Go back to list

Feedback from Internet Society Bulgaria

Go back to list

Feedback from Internet Society (ISOC) Québec

Funding of travel expenses to IGF and ICANN events for participants in developing countries.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from Nominet UK

- Focus on matters consistent with its mandate
- Make best use of limited resources
- Avoid duplication of effort

We believe that the ITU can achieve these objectives through more effective cooperation with existing organisations involved in the management of Internet resources. Specifically:

- The ITU can add value by enhancing its ongoing capacity building and development activities in developing countries.
- It should be easier for non-members to work with the ITU through informal dialogue and partnerships. Many of those involved in the management of Internet resources (such as Nominet), who have strong relevant expertise and experience in this area, are not ITU members.
 

Specifically, the ITU should continue to play a leading role in standardisation and coordination of international telecoms networks, and radio spectrum management. These are prerequisites of vibrant Internet growth. To make best use of resources, ITU should work in better collaboration with relevant stakeholders.
 

Through leveraging its existing networks in developing countries, ITU can encourage the development of national processes to support and feed into the Internet Governance Forum. One possibility would be to identify and share examples of good practice.

Through positive engagement with the IGF Advisory Group in its role as observer, ITU can work with other stakeholders to contribute to the IGF agenda. It can, for example, canvas its members for input into consultations.

ITU could be one of the organisations to give a “year in review” session at the Rio meeting.

ITU can use the Internet Governance Forum to build relationships and maintain effective networks with non-ITU members.
 

The ITU can play a constructive role by implementing structural changes to allow for greater participation from multi-stakeholders.

The ITU should continue its collaborative work with existing organisations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the W3 Consortium, and ICANN’s Technical Liaison Group, to ensure best use of resources and non-duplication of effort.
 

Like most organisations, Nominet has to make difficult choices about how best to allocate resources to the plethora of international Internet processes. Since Nominet would have no reason to be involved in the majority of ITU discussions (relating, as they do exclusively to the telecoms sector), it is hard to justify paying for sector membership, as well as the overhead in management time in attending meetings.

We encourage the ITU to open up its processes in order to capture views from a broader spectrum of stakeholders. It should be easier to get involved on an ad hoc basis. Through more open engagement, the ITU could benefit from a wider range of input and improved understanding of issues, leading to better decision-making.
 

For the ITU to enhance its existing activity in these areas would be most welcome, and could support the capacity building objectives of the Internet Governance Forum.

To make best use of limited resources, ITU should consider undertaking such work in collaboration with other bodies. We are aware, for example, that ISOC and ICANN have organised very successful workshops in developing countries.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from SIDN

The ITU should continue its collaborative work with existing organisations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force, the W3 Consortium, and ICANN’s Technical Liaison Group, to ensure best use of resources and non-duplication of effort.
 

ITU should be open to requests for assistance and seek to respond to these in the most effective and efficient ways. This, in our view, implies an active and collaborative approach towards the IGF as well as a direct collaboration with other organisations that conduct outreach activities, as for instance ICANN and ISOC.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from the United States Council for International Business

As a result, the ITU’s role may have the greatest impact if seen in terms of the responsibilities that it has already undertaken with respect to providing assistance for developing countries to participate as much as possible in international discussions on the issues covered in Resolution 102. ITU activities should be careful not to expand into those areas where activities are already well under way in other organizations. Developing and maintaining cooperative relationships with other technical standards and other bodies is critically important in this area since interoperability and quality are essential in supporting the Information Society, particularly as the benefits of the Internet become increasingly available to more people. The ITU should make it clear that it supports close collaboration and cooperation with these bodies.

We join with the ICC in looking forward to working closely with ITU Secretary General Toure and his new team. With his forward-looking leadership we are confident that the ITU will be able to provide added value while still conserving scarce resources. The beneficiaries will be the developing countries and the evolving global Information Society.
 

Go back to list

Feedback from Individual

Go back to list

Top of page