<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Dear colleagues,</p>
<p> On Friday 14 March, the United States Government announced
that it intends to transition oversight of key Internet
functions (including the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or
IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community. It has asked
ICANN to facilitate, in consultation with the global
multi-stakeholder community, the development of a proposal for
the transition.</p>
<p> Leaders of the I* Internet technical coordination
organisations had met several times and in line with the <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2013-declaracion-montevideo">Montevideo
statement</a> we had discussed some common principles for an
evolution such as the one announced by the US Gov. Regular
participants in those meeting, including their affiliated
organisations, are noted here:</p>
<p> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.nro.net/news/statement-from-the-i-leaders-coordination-meeting">http://www.nro.net/news/statement-from-the-i-leaders-coordination-meeting</a></p>
<p> As outcome of their discussion, a common position was
developed on the following points:</p>
<ul>
<li> The roles of all Internet registry policy bodies stay
unchanged. These bodies continue to hold policy authority for
the protocol parameter, number, and name spaces, including
responsibility to ensure the faithful registry implementation
according to those policies.</li>
<li> The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to the role of ICANN
as the IANA protocol parameter and IP address registry
operator.</li>
<li> ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA
registry functions in accordance with the respective policies.
ICANN will also provide affirmations to all stakeholders
(including governments) that all Internet registry policy
bodies and ICANN itself will continue to use open and
transparent processes.</li>
</ul>
<p> The full text summarizing these points is included at the end
of this email.</p>
<p> Separately, ICANN released a timeline that details its
expectations of the multi-stakeholder consultation process. More
information on these plans will undoubtedly come out of the
upcoming ICANN Meeting in Singapore from 23-27 March. The
timeline document is available here:</p>
<p> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf</a></p>
<p> While this timeline focuses on ICANN meetings and events, it
is clear that this process will not take place only in ICANN
venues. The five RIR communities are key stakeholders in this
process, and it is vital that we discuss these issues both
within our regional communities and globally to ensure that our
voices are heard and our concerns recognised. The stable,
accurate and professional management of the IANA functions,
including management of the global IP address pool, is
fundamental to the operation of the Internet. It is important
that we not lose sight of this fact as management of the IANA
evolves to more faithfully reflect the multi-stakeholder nature
of the Internet community.</p>
<p> In the LACNIC community, these discussions will take place via
the discussion channels already in place, including the recently created "Internet
Governance" mailing list in order to
reach the broad LACNIC community. Also, LACNIC meeting in Cancun
this May will have a special session for discussing this.<br>
<br>
LACNIC will work, as ever, to facilitate these discussions and
ensure that their output is effectively channeled into the
global process.<br>
<br>
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions at this time, we
invite you to subscribe on the <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/internet-gov" target="_blank">Internet Governance list</a> and we look
forward to further discussion at LACNIC 21.</p>
<p> Best regards,</p>
<p> </p>
<p> <strong>Raúl Echeberría</strong><br><em>CEO, LACNIC</em></p><div><br></div><div>------------<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; "> </span></div><p align="center"><strong>Agreed text by the Leaders of I*
organizations as starting point of the discussion:</strong></p>
<p><br></p><p> In order to ensure global acceptance and affirmation of
ICANN's role as administrator of the IANA functions, we are now
pursuing the transition of USG's stewardship of the IANA
functions from the USG to ICANN. The roles of all Internet
registry policy bodies (such as the RIRs, IAB, IETF, ASO, ccNSO,
ccTLD ROs, and gNSO) stay unchanged. These bodies continue to
hold policy authority for the protocol parameter, number, and
name spaces, including responsibility to ensure the faithful
registry implementation according to those policies.</p>
<p> This transition from the USG has been envisaged since the
early days of ICANN. It is now feasible due to the growing
maturity of ICANN and other organisations in the Internet
ecosystem. ICANN's structures and accountability mechanisms
continue to evolve and advance guided by the AoC community
reviews, including ATRT. In addition, ICANN will continue to
embrace its aggressive roadmap to truly globalize its
structures.</p>
<p> In order to operationalize the transition from USG, ICANN will
engage with the Internet community in a bottom-up public
consultation process to ensure appropriate accountability
mechanisms. In addition, ICANN will work with the names,
numbers, and protocol communities to formalize relationships,
commitments, and mutual responsibilities.</p>
<p> When community stakeholders have input about the policies
emanating from the names, numbers, and protocol communities,
they would be directed to pursue their interests through the
relevant Internet communities (such as the gNSO, ccNSO, ccTLD
ROs, ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their mechanisms for
consideration and potential redress.</p>
<p> The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent
processes. They also are committed to the role of ICANN as the
IANA protocol parameter and IP address registry operator. The
accountability mechanisms for ICANN's administration of these
core internet functions will provide escalation routes that
assure the names, numbers, and protocol communities that if
IANA's performance is lacking, those communities can pursue
defined processes for improving performance, including
pre-agreed independent 3rd party arbitration processes.</p>
<p> ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry
functions in accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will
also provide affirmations to all stakeholders (including
governments) from all Internet registry policy bodies and itself
that all of us will use open and transparent processes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span><br>
</p>
</div>
<br>
</body></html>