Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 114/Tuesday, June 14, 2011/Notices

34658

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

azimuth surveys [WAZ]), and ocean

bottom surveys [OBS], and (2) high

resolution surveys.

Deep Seismic Surveys

For 2D seismic surveys, a single

streamer is towed behind the survey

vessel, together with a single source or

airgun array. Seismic vessels generally

follow a systematic pattern during a

survey, typically a simple grid pattern

for 2D work with lines no closer than

half a kilometer (km). A 2D survey may

take many months depending on the

size of the geographic area.

A 3D survey uses multiple streamers

and an airgun array(s), to collect a very

large number of 2D slices, with

minimum line separations of only 25 to

30 meters (m) (82 to 98.4 feet [ft]). A 3D

survey may take many months to

complete (e.g., 3 to 18) and involves a

precise definition of the survey area and

transects, including multiple passes to

cover a given survey area. For seismic

surveys, 3D methods represent a

substantial improvement in resolution

and useful information relative to 2D

methods. Most areas in the GOM

previously surveyed using 2D have

been, or will be surveyed using 3D.

A typical 3D survey might employ a

dual array of 18 airguns per array. The

streamer array might consist of six to

eight parallel cables, each 3 to 12 km

(1.9 to 7.5 miles [mi]) long, and spaced

25 to 100 m (82 to 328.1 ft) apart. An

eight streamer array used for deep water

surveys is typically 700 m (2,296.6 ft)

wide. A series of 3D surveys collected

over time (commonly referred to as four-

dimensional [4D] seismic surveying) is

used for reservoir monitoring and

management (i.e., the movement of oil,

gas, and water in reservoirs can be

observed over time).

WAZ acquisition configurations

involve multiple vessels operating

concurrently in a variety of source

vessel to acquisition vessel geometries.

Several source vessels (usually two to

four) are used in coordination with

single or dual receiver vessels either in

a parallel or rectangular arrangement

with a typical 1,200 m (3,937 ft) vessel

spacing to maximize the azimuthal

quality of data acquired. It is not

uncommon to have sources also

deployed from the receiver vessels in

addition to source-only vessels. This

improves the signal-to-noise ratio and

helps to better define the salt and sub-

salt structures in the deep waters of the

GOM. Coiled (spiral) surveys are a

further refinement of the WAZ

acquisition of sub-salt data. These

surveys can consist of a single source/

receiver arrangement or a multi-vessel

operation with multi-sources where the

vessels navigate in a coiled or spiral

pattern over the area of acquisition.

Deep seismic surveys (2D, 3D, or

WAZ) are typically deeper penetrating

than high resolution surveys and may

also be done on leased blocks for more

accurate identification of potential

reservoirs in ‘‘known’’ fields. This

technology can be used in developed

areas to identify bypassed hydrocarbon-

bearing zones in currently producing

formations and new productive

horizons near or below currently

producing formations. It can also be

used in developed areas for reservoir

monitoring and field management.

OBS surveys were originally designed

to enable seismic surveys in congested

areas, such as producing fields, with

many platforms and production

facilities. Autonomous nodes or cables

are deployed and retrieved by either

vessels or remotely operated vehicles

(ROVs). Nodes are becoming more

commonly used in the GOM. OBS

surveys have been found to be useful for

obtaining multi-component (i.e., seismic

pressure, vertical, and the two

horizontal motions of the water bottom,

or seafloor) information.

OBS surveys require the use of

multiple vessels (i.e., usually two

vessels for cable or node layout/pickup,

one vessel for recording, one vessel for

shooting, and two utility vessels). These

vessels are generally smaller than those

used in streamer operations, and the

utility vessels can be very small.

Operations are conducted ‘‘around the

clock’’ and begin by dropping the cables

off the back of the layout vessel or by

deployment of nodal receivers by ROVs.

Cable length or the numbers of nodes

depend upon the survey demands; it is

typically 4.2 km (2.6 mi), but can be up

to 12 km. However, depending on

spacing and survey size, hundreds of

nodes can be deployed and re-deployed

over the span of the survey. Groups of

seismic detectors, usually hydrophones

and vertical motion geophones, are

attached to the cable in intervals of 25

to 50 m (82 to 164 ft) or autonomous

nodes are spaced similarly. Multiple

cables/nodes are laid parallel to each

other using this layout method with a 50

m interval between cables/nodes.

Typically dual airgun arrays are used on

a single source vessel. When a cable/

node is no longer needed to record

seismic data, it is picked up by the cable

pickup vessel/ROV and is moved over

to the next position where it is needed.

A particular cable/node can be on the

seafloor anywhere from two hours to

several days, depending upon operation

conditions. Normally a cable will be left

in place about 24 hr. However, nodes

may remain in place until the survey is

completed or recovered and then re-

deployed by an ROV.

High Resolution Surveys

High resolution site surveys are

conducted to investigate the shallow

sub-surface for geohazards and soil

conditions, as well as to identify

potential benthic biological

communities (or habitats) and

archaeological resources in support of

review and mitigation measures for OCS

exploration and development plans. A

typical operation consists of a vessel

towing an airgun (about 25 m behind

the vessel) and a 600 m (1,968.5 ft)

streamer cable with a tail buoy (about

700 m behind the vessel). Typical

surveys cover one lease block, which is

4.8 km (3 mi) on a side. Including line

turns, the time to survey one block is

about 2 days; however, streamer and

airgun deployment and other operations

may add to the total survey time.

Additional information on seismic

surveys for purposes of G&G exploration

on the OCS in the GOM is contained in

the application, which is available upon

request (see

ADDRESSES

Information Solicited

Interested persons may submit

information, suggestions, and comments

related to BOEMRE’s request (see

ADDRESSES

). All information,

suggestions, and comments related to

BOEMRE’s request and NMFS’s

potential development and

implementation of regulations

governing the incidental taking of

marine mammals by the oil and gas

industry’s seismic surveys will be

considered by NMFS in developing, the

most effective regulations governing the

issuance of Letters of Authorization.

Dated: June 8, 2011.

Helen M. Golde,

Deputy Director, Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2011–14742 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

[Docket No. 110207099–1319–02]

[RIN 0660–XA23]

The Internet Assigned Numbers

Authority (IANA) Functions

AGENCY

: National Telecommunications

and Information Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION

: Further Notice of Inquiry.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34659

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

The current contract has an option to extend the

performance period for an additional six months. If

necessary, NTIA will exercise this option in order

to complete the contract procurement process. The

current contract is available on NTIA’s Web site at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/

iana.htm.

Notice of Inquiry, Request for Comments on the

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)

Functions, 76 FR 10569 (Feb. 25, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/

fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf.

The comments in their entirety are available for

review on the NTIA’s Web site at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/.

See e.g., Cisco Comments at 2 (March 28, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/attachments/Cisco.pdf; ictQatar

Comments at 1 (March 30, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=D5E26B75-D14A-40C6-820F-

7BBD8CC07412; NetChoice Comments at 1 (March

31, 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/

NetChoice%20on%20IANA%20Contract.pdf;

Shawn Gunnarson at 7 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=050ECD10-F12C-47E3-

AE78-793AFE1F67E0.

See e.g., Country Code Names Supporting

Organization (ccNSO) Comments at 2 (March 29,

2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/

ACF31A.pdf; Internet Architecture Board (IAB)

Comments at 2 (March 30, 2011), available at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=5EBBB0ED-CBE1-44EA-

9FAF-0AFC662A1534; Internet Society (ISOC)

Comments at 2 (March 30, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/ISOC%20Response_

Docket%20110207099-1099-01.pdf.

See ICANN Comments at 3 (March 25, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/attachments/ACF2EF.pdf;

European Telecommunications Network Operators

(ETNO) Comments at 2 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=0658E8D9-D4A9-4121-

B7D9-4E26A9587859; Minds and Machines

Comments at 1 (March 31, 2011), available at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=994F7CBE-F46D-45B8-

82E1-BABCAE6046A2.

See Canadian Internet Registration Authority

(CIRA) Comments at 1 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=68F1E2E0-5671-4F26-

9770-1701FD41BBE2, Coalition for Online

Accountability (COA) Comments at 2 (March 31,

2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

comments/110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=

68F1E2E0-5671-4F26-9770-1701FD41BBE2;

International Trade Mark Association (INTA)

Comments at 3 (March 31, 2011), available at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/attachments/Comments%20of%20the%20

International%20Trademark%20

Association%20%28INTA%29.pdf; Tech Freedom

Comments at 2 (April 1, 2011), available at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/attachments/

IANA%20NOI%20Comments%20-Final.pdf; PayPal

Comments at 1 (March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/PayPal-NTIA-Response.pdf.

SUMMARY

: Critical to the Internet

Domain Name System (DNS) is the

continued performance of the Internet

Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)

functions. The IANA functions have

historically included: (1) The

coordination of the assignment of

technical Internet protocol parameters;

(2) the administration of certain

responsibilities associated with Internet

DNS root zone management; (3) the

allocation of Internet numbering

resources; and (4) other services related

to the management of the ARPA and

INT top-level domains (TLDs). The

Internet Corporation for Assigned

Names and Numbers (ICANN) currently

performs the IANA functions, on behalf

of the United States Government,

through a contract with United States

Department of Commerce’s National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA). On February 25,

2011, NTIA released a Notice of Inquiry

(NOI) to obtain public comment on

enhancing the performance of the IANA

functions. NTIA received comments

from a range of stakeholders:

Governments, private sector entities,

and individuals. After careful

consideration of the record, NTIA is

now seeking public comment through a

Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI) on a

draft statement of work (Draft SOW), a

key element of the procurement process

for the new IANA functions contract.

DATES

: Comments are due on or before

July 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES

: Written comments may be

submitted by mail to Fiona M.

Alexander, Associate Administrator,

Office of International Affairs, National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC

20230. Comments may be submitted

electronically to

[email protected].

Comments provided via electronic mail

should be submitted in a text searchable

format using one of the following: PDF

print-to-PDF format, and not in a

scanned format, HTML, ASCII, MSWord

or WordPerfect format (please specify

version). Comments will be posted to

NTIA’s Web site at http://www.ntia.doc.

gov/ntiahome/domainname/IANA

FunctionsFNOI.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: For

questions about this FNOI contact:

Vernita D. Harris, Deputy Associate

Administrator, Office of International

Affairs, National Telecommunications

and Information Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 1401

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4701,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4686; e-mail: [email protected].

Please direct media inquiries to the

Office of Public Affairs, NTIA, at (202)

482–7002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: Critical to

the Internet DNS is the continued

performance of the IANA functions. The

IANA functions have historically

included: (1) The coordination of the

assignment of technical Internet

protocol parameters; (2) the

administration of certain

responsibilities associated with Internet

DNS root zone management; (3) the

allocation of Internet numbering

resources; and (4) other services related

to the management of the ARPA and

INT TLDs. ICANN currently performs

the IANA functions, on behalf of the

United States Government, through a

contract with NTIA. The current

contract is set to expire on September

30, 2011.

NTIA issued an NOI on February 25,

2011, seeking public comment to inform

the procurement process leading to the

award of a new IANA functions

contract.

The NOI requested comments

on a detailed set of questions related to

enhancing the performance of the IANA

functions. The NOI represented the first

comprehensive review of the IANA

functions contract since the award of

the initial contract in 2000.

Comment Summary and Policy

Discussion

NTIA received over 80 comments in

response to the NOI.

This summary

identifies key issues and themes raised

in the docket and frames a draft

statement of work for which we seek

comment in this notice. The following

summary does not intend to respond to

all the comments received in response

to the NOI. To the extent that NTIA has

included specific language in the Draft

SOW to address a comment, NTIA

provides a brief explanation of its policy

rationale.

General Comments

Some commenters stated that the

IANA functions are performed for the

benefit of the global Internet community

and therefore accountability,

transparency, and trust are required.

While not specific to the questions

asked in the NOI, most commenters

stated their support for multi-

stakeholder, private sector-led technical

coordination of the DNS.

Some commenters expressed the view

that NTIA should transition the IANA

functions to ICANN.

However, other

commenters did not share this view and

stated that no changes should be made

to the current structure of the IANA

functions contract.

These commenters

expressed concerns about transparency

and accountability of the current

contractor’s decision-making. Some

commenters proposed a multi-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34660

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

See China Internet Network Information Center

(CNNIC) Comments at 2 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=3A835CB9-68ED-4ABF-

A376-7A4FF0F430A6; Kenya Comments at 2

(March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/

Kenya%20comments%20on%20Notice%20

of%20Inquiry%20by%20NTIA%20on%20IANA

%20Contract%20v4.pdf; United Arab Emirates

(UAE) Comments at 3 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=9342F887-C549-4A01-

AB56-D50F1C7460DF.

See e.g., Internet Governance Capacity Building

(IGCBP) 2011 Comments at 1 (March 31, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=AB73A9F5-

4283-4783-9E10-D547EE1D9179.

In 2005, NTIA issued a statement of U.S.

Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and

Addressing System, available at www.ntia.doc.gov/

ntiahome/domainname/

USDNSprinciples_06302005.pdf.

In 2008, NTIA sent a letter to ICANN stressing

that the United States Government, while open to

operational efficiency measures that address

governments’ legitimate public policy and

sovereignty concerns with respect to the

management of their country code top-level

domains, ‘‘has no plans to transition management

of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN.’’ Letter

from Meredith Baker, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Communications and Information, U.S. Department

of Commerce, to Peter Dengate-Thrush, ICANN

Chairman of the Board (July 30, 2008), available at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/

ICANN_080730.html.

Cooperative agreements are a form of Federal

financial assistance. Federal agencies are required

to have specific legislative authority to make

Federal financial assistance awards. NTIA does not

have specific legislative authority to make Federal

financial assistance awards in the area of Internet

domain name services. Federal agencies, however,

have inherent authority to procure goods and

services. Thus, NTIA and previously the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency have been able

to obtain the performance of the IANA functions

under contract since the 1970s.

See IAB Comments at 1; ccNSO Comments at

1; ISOC Comments at 2; SIDN Comments at 3 (April

1, 2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/

SIDN%20position%20NTIA%20NoI%20IANA%20

March%202011.pdf; ICANN Comments at 8; The

Number Resource Organization (NRO) Comments at

2 (March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=519C0531-4C81-4761-9FCC-

9AF8D47BC69C.

See IAB Comments at 1; ICANN Comments at

8; ictQatar Comments at 1; UAE Comments at 5.

See Internet New Zealand (InternetNZ)

Comments at 3 (March 30, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/NTIA%20Submission%20-

%20IANA%20NOI.pdf; Bill Manning Comments at

1 (March 11, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=8B430831-4634-4A6B-845B-

97673CD97842.

See Bill Manning Comments at 1; Tech

Freedom Comments at 8.

See Christopher Wilkinson Comments at 2

(March 30, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/NTIA_IANA_NOI_2.pdf; Jean-Jacques

Subrenat, Beau Brendler, and Eric Brunner-

Williams Comments at 7 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=E17DCD8A-B324-4979-

9359-4FA67E9429D5; NetChoice Comments at 3;

Tech Freedom Comments at 9.

See Cisco Comments at 4; IAB Comments at 4;

Netnod Comments at 2 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=7EEEB455-7C85-4B20-

B7A4-13ECE382F210.

See Cisco Comments at 4; IAB Comments at 4;

Netnod Comments at 2.

See ccNSO Comments at 1; Hong Kong Internet

Registration Corporation Ltd (HKIRC) Comments at

1 (March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/HKIRC%20Response%20to

%20NTIA%20NoI

%20on%20IANA%20functions.pdf.

stakeholder group be established to

manage the IANA functions without the

involvement of NTIA.

Other

commenters suggested the IANA

Functions Operator should become an

independent organization.

Commenters also expressed their

views on the current contractual

framework. Some commenters suggested

that the IANA functions contract be

transitioned to a Cooperative

Agreement. Some commenters raised

concerns that short-term contracts create

instability in the IANA functions

process and would prefer to see longer

contracts.

NTIA Response: As stated in the NOI,

NTIA is committed to the multi-

stakeholder process as an essential

strategy for dealing with Internet policy

issues. However, there is a need to

address how all stakeholders, including

governments collectively, can operate

within the paradigm of a multi-

stakeholder environment and be

satisfied that their interests are being

adequately addressed. Resolving this

issue is critical to a strong multi-

stakeholder model and to ensure the

long-term political sustainability of an

Internet that supports the free flow of

information, goods, and services.

NTIA’s continued commitment to

openness and transparency and the

multi-stakeholder model is evidenced

by the manner in which it is proceeding

with this procurement.

Given the Internet’s importance to the

world economy, it is essential that the

underlying DNS of the Internet remain

stable and secure. Consistent with the

2005 U.S. Principles on the Internet’s

Domain Name and Addressing System,

the United States is committed to

maintaining its historic role and will

take no action that would adversely

impact the effective and efficient

operation of the DNS.

In addition,

with this FNOI, NTIA reiterates that it

is not in discussions with ICANN to

transition the IANA functions nor does

the agency intend to undertake such

discussions.

NTIA does not have the legal

authority to enter into a cooperative

agreement with any organization,

including ICANN, for the performance

of the IANA functions.

In addition,

NTIA does not view the previously

awarded IANA functions contracts as

short-term contracts. Typical contracts

are for one year, while the previous

IANA functions contracts had terms,

once options were exercised, of five

years.

Question 1: The IANA functions have

been viewed historically as a set of

interdependent technical functions and

accordingly performed together by a

single entity. In light of technology

changes and market developments,

should the IANA functions continue to

be treated as interdependent? For

example, does the coordination of the

assignment of technical protocol

parameters need to be done by the same

entity that administers certain

responsibilities associated with root

zone management? Please provide

specific information to support why or

why not, taking into account security

and stability issues.

Commenters were divided on whether

the IANA functions should be

separated. Some commenters opposed

the idea of splitting the IANA functions

and having the functions managed by

separate organizations.

These

commenters emphasized the need for

keeping the functions together to ensure

Internet stability and security, to

capture the synergy and

interdependencies between the

functions, and to obtain the benefits of

economies of scale and efficiency by

operating the functions together.

Other commenters supported separating

the functions, citing the absence of any

underlying technical or critical Internet

security or stability reason for keeping

them together.

Other commenters

opposed the current contractor’s role in

INT and ARPA TLD registry operations,

noting that such registry operations are

in conflict with ICANN’s bylaws.

These commenters believed a plan

should be put in place to separate the

management of INT and ARPA TLDs

from the IANA functions contract.

However, some commenters noted the

interdependency of the ARPA TLD with

the other IANA functions such as

protocol parameters (e.g., URI.ARPA) as

well as address related information (e.g.,

IN–ADDR.ARPA, IP6.ARPA).

These

commenters do not believe the ARPA

TLD should be separated from the other

IANA functions.

A number of

commenters stated that separation of the

IANA functions must be approached

with caution and consultation.

Further, commenters stated that if the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34661

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

See ISOC Comments at 2; Paul Kane Comments

at 2 (March 30, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/IANA-NoI.pdf.

See Dmitry Burkov Comments at 1 (March 26,

2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=0922CC0D-62FF-4A91-90A8-

C87C8CFA9527; ISOC Comments at 3.

See ictQatar Comments at 2.

See Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse

(CADNA) at 2 (March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=0EF012AA-6B7D-4DAC-8E2A-

8C871A182CC7; IAB Comments at 5; InternetNZ

Comments at 2; Internet Governance Project

Comments at 1 (March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=A9CC728A-75A7-4898-AA66-

70B6B3656CDD.

See ccNSO Comments at 1; Fahd A. Batayneh

Comments at 1 (April 1, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=34B162CD-1B19-470F-B257-

BBA8B19991C8; InternetNZ Comments at 2; Federal

Office of Communications (OFCOM) and SWITCH

Comments at 4 (March 31, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

attachments/Response-NTIA-IANA-NoI-

2011_31113_05.pdf; Tech Freedom Comments at 7.

See Dmitry Burkov Comments at 1; COA

Comments at 2.

See Google Comments at 4 (March 31, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=A3F206A1-

CDE5-4F2D-BC50-E0FCF9DF384C.

See Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association

(APTLD) Comments at 1 (March 31, 2011), available

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=FFB3621F-CC64-4E33-

92E9-0CF7920BF8DA; InternetNZ at 4; OFCOM and

SWITCH Comments at 4.

See Ken-Ying Tseng Lee and Li Comments at

1 (March 29, 2011), available at http://

www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-1099-01/

comment.cfm?e=D6DDA78C-3994-4492-A46B-

9486A5B10798.

ccNSO Comments at 3; InternetNZ Comments

at 3; Nominet Comments at 2 (March 30, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=46E70603-

6139-4106-B74E-CBDB5C66A7BE; SIDN Comments

at 3.

For more information on the ccNSO

Framework, see Charter FoI WG (Adopted 16 March

2011), available at http://ccnso.icann.org/

workinggroups/charter-foiwg-16mar11-en.pdf.

See ccNSO Comments at 2; ICANN Comments

at 11; ISOC Comments at 3; InternetNZ Comments

at 3; Nominet Comments at 2.

IANA functions were to be performed

by a different entity or separated, it

would be important to clearly articulate,

and build in sufficient time, for the

community and all involved

organizations to understand the change

in order to avoid user confusion, deliver

improvements to service efficiencies,

and react appropriately.

NTIA Response: NTIA concludes that

these three core functions should

remain bundled for now and be

performed by a single entity. In reaching

this conclusion, we give substantial

weight to the fact that the entities that

could most likely independently

perform any of the functions, if

unbundled, support keeping the

functions together. NTIA also agrees

with those commenters that stated there

is an associative relationship between

the ARPA TLD and the protocol

parameter and Internet numbering

resources. Therefore, the management of

the ARPA TLD will continue to be

bundled with the IANA functions.

NTIA, however, sees merit in further

exploring separating the management of

the INT TLD from the IANA functions

contract, and have included in the Draft

SOW at paragraph C.2.2.1.5.2 language

to provide a process for doing so. NTIA

will conduct a public consultation next

year to see how best to transition the

INT TLD.

Question 2: The performance of the

IANA functions often relies upon the

policies and procedures developed by a

variety of entities within the internet

technical community such as the IETF,

the RIRS and CCTLD operators. Should

the IANA functions contract include

references to these entities, the policies

they develop and instructions that the

contractor follow the policies? Please

provide specific information as to why

or why not. If yes, please provide

language you believe accurately

captures these relationships.

Some commenters believe it

appropriate to reference the entities and

relevant stakeholders responsible for the

development of policies and procedures

related to the IANA functions in the

IANA functions contract. Commenters

that supported this approach also

expressed caution that referencing other

entities and stakeholders could be

perceived as expanding the scope of the

IANA functions and lead to the

contractor asserting unnecessary

authority over those stakeholders.

Commenters noted that any reference, if

included, needs to be able to evolve as

the Internet multi-stakeholder model

evolves.

Some commenters stated that

the IANA functions contractor should

not be involved in policy development

discussions and suggested that the

IANA functions contract recognize the

distinction between acting in

accordance with versus developing

policy for each discrete IANA

function.

NTIA Response: NTIA recognizes that

the IANA functions contractor, in the

performance of its duties, requires close

constructive working relationships with

all interested and affected parties if it is

to ensure quality performance of the

IANA functions. NTIA agrees with

suggestions by commenters that there

must be functional separation between

the processing of the IANA functions

and the development of associated

policies. As such, the Draft SOW

includes paragraph C.2.2.1.1, which

requires that all staff dedicated to

executing the IANA functions remain

separate and removed from any policy

development that occurs related to the

performance of the IANA functions.

Question 3: Cognizant of concerns

previously raised by some governments

and CCTLD operators and the need to

ensure the stability of and security of

the DNS, are there changes that could

be made to how root zone management

requests for CCTLDS are processed?

Please provide specific information as

to why or why not. If yes, please

provide specific suggestions.

Commenters provided comments on

the root zone management process

related to country code top-level

domains (ccTLDs), including

Internationalized Domain Name ccTLD

(IDN ccTLDs), as well as generic TLDs

(gTLDs). The comments were diverse,

but contained a few common themes.

One common theme related to how and

who developed policies and procedures

affecting ccTLDs, IDN ccTLDs, and

gTLDs.

In addition some commenters

were of the view that the introduction

of new gTLDs should be carried out in

the interest and for the benefit of the

global Internet community.

If a

conflict arose with regard to public

policy issues arising from specific gTLD

proposals, some commenters asserted

that ICANN’s Government Advisory

Committee (GAC) should provide

input.

Some commenters stated that

ICANN’s Country Code Names

Supporting Organization (ccNSO),

ccTLD operators/managers, ICANN’s

Generic Names Supporting Organization

(GNSO) and the GAC should develop

policies and procedures related to

ccTLDs, IDN ccTLDs, and gTLDs and

not the IANA functions contractor.

fact, when determining matters

regarding delegation and redelegation of

domain names, some commenters

recommended that no decision should

be made without the consultation with

or consent of GAC, ccNSO, and/or

relevant ccTLD operators.

Many

comments focused on the lack of

consistency in the current delegation

and redelegation process and

procedures.

The NOI record reflects

support for the ccNSO’s ongoing

development of a ‘‘Framework of

Interpretation’’

process that would

provide guidance to the IANA functions

contractor on how to interpret the range

of policies, guidelines, and procedures

relating to the delegations and

redelegations of ccTLDs.

Another

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34662

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

ccNSO Comments at 3; InternetNZ Comments

at 3; Nominet Comments at 2; SIDN Comments at

CENTR Comments at 8 (March 31, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=77DDAEE0-

C79B-4E78-A706-FEC09F89DE78; Paul Kane

Comments at 3; AFNIC Comments at 3.

ccNSO Comments at 3; InternetNZ Comments

at 3; Nominet Comments at 2; SIDN Comments at

Commenters believed that Questions 2, 3, 4,

and 5 were closely related. See e.g., ccNSO

Comments at 4; CENTR Comments at 3.

See ARIN Comments at 3–4 (March 31, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=9BEFA8A5-

655F-4AE5-95AA-66BED9A9F2C4; ccNSO

Comments at 4; ISOC Comments at 4; SIDN

Comments at 5.

See Hutchinson Comments at 1 (March 31,

2011), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

comments/110207099-1099-01/attachments/

NTIA%20NOI%20on%20IANA.pdf.

See ARIN Comments at 3; ccNSO Comments at

4; CNNIC at 1; InternetNZ Comments at 5; Kenya

Comments at 3; SIDN Comments at 5.

See ccNSO Comments at 4; SIDN Comments at

See ALAC Comments at 7 (March 31, 2011),

available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/

110207099-1099-01/comment.cfm?e=7669299A-

100A-4A45-AEC7-E236AA41E643; AFNIC

Comments at 3 (March 31, 2011), available at

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/110207099-

1099-01/comment.cfm?e=513BA51F-85C2-43BD-

B6EB-E50F5DC724BD; CENTR Comments at 3;

Kenya at 3.

theme focused on automating root zone

management processes. Some

commenters addressed the need for full

automation and development of audit

trails in the root zone management

process.

For some commenters, full

automation is an automatic, secure, and

authenticated process that allows root

zone changes to be made directly by the

Registry Managers.

Commenters stated

that automating the root zone

management process must be a priority

for all three root zone management

partners.

This was emphasized in

particular due to the impending

expansion of gTLDs.

NTIA Response: NTIA recognizes that

policies, technical standards, and

procedures related to each of the IANA

functions are developed outside the

purview of the IANA functions contract

and should be implemented. Since these

policies affect a critical part of the

Internet infrastructure, NTIA believes

that these policies must be clear and

concise to allow the IANA functions

contractor to operate in accordance with

the policies developed by the relevant

stakeholders. To address this concern

the Draft SOW includes a new

paragraph C.2.2.1.3.2 (Responsibility to

and Respect of Stakeholders) that

requires the contractor, in consultation

with all relevant stakeholders, to

develop a process for documenting the

source of the policies and procedures

and how it has applied the relevant

policies and procedures in processing

all TLD requests.

In addition, NTIA agrees with

commenters that there has been a lack

of clarity in delegation and redelegation

policies, process, and procedures. NTIA

fully supports the work of the ccNSO’s

development of a ‘‘Framework of

Interpretation’’ process and believes this

process will in the future provide much

needed guidance to the IANA functions

contractor when processing delegation

and redelegation requests for ccTLDs.

Furthermore, NTIA agrees with

commenters that the inconsistencies in

delegation and redelegation policies

might not have occurred if there had

been functional separation between

execution of the IANA functions and the

associated policy development

processes. To address this issue, as

previously noted, the Draft SOW

includes a paragraph C.2.2.1.1 that

requires that all staff dedicated to

executing the IANA functions remain

separate and removed from any policy

development that occurs related to the

performance of the IANA functions.

NTIA also supports commenters’

views that it is critical that the

introduction of individual new gTLDs

reflects community consensus among

relevant stakeholders and is in the

global public interest. As such, the Draft

SOW includes, in paragraph C.2.2.1.3.2,

a requirement that delegation requests

for new gTLDs include documentation

demonstrating how the string proposed

reflects consensus among relevant

stakeholders and is supportive of the

global public interest.

NTIA likewise supports commenters’

views that the IANA functions

contractor be required to document the

source of relevant policies and

procedures when processing requests

for delegation and redelegation of a TLD

in such a manner to be consistent with

relevant national laws of the jurisdiction

which the registry serves. The Draft

SOW addresses this issue in paragraph

C.2.2.1.3.2, which requires the

contractor to act in accordance with the

relevant national laws of the jurisdiction

which the TLD registry serves.

NTIA notes that, while not directly

stated by commenters, the technical

process for deploying TLDs in the root

zone is the same for ccTLDs and gTLDs.

NTIA agrees with commenters that

automating the root zone management

process must be a priority especially

with the increased workload associated

with the introduction of new gTLDs. In

the third quarter of 2011, the current

root zone management partners will

launch the Root Zone Management

System (RZMs). RZMs is intended to

automate some aspects of the process

that are currently performed manually.

This should improve the overall

processing time and current accuracy of

the root zone management function. As

identified and recommended by a

number of commenters, the Draft SOW

includes paragraph C.2.2.1.3.3 (Root

Zone Automation), which requires a

minimum set of automated functions for

a root zone automation system. NTIA

believes this modification will address

commenters’ concerns regarding secure

communications as well. While the

Draft SOW does not require full

automation of the root zone

management process, NTIA plans to

conduct public consultation next year to

ascertain how best to fully automate the

root zone management process.

As for the requirement of audit trails

identified by commenters, the Draft

SOW now includes a new paragraph

C.5.2 (Root Zone Management Audit

Data), which requires that the contractor

generate a monthly audit report to track

each root zone change request and

include the identification of the policy

under which the changes were made.

Question 4: Broad performance metrics

and reporting are currently required

under the contract. Are the current

metrics and reporting requirements

sufficient? Please provide specific

information as to why or why not. If

not, what specific changes should be

made?

Transparency was a major theme

raised in the responses to this question.

Some comments called for complete

transparency in the IANA functions

process. Commenters suggested that

relevant stakeholders develop

performance metrics for each discrete

IANA function and that performance

results be published monthly.

Some

suggested that the performance metrics

for root zone management include: the

number of change requests, the number

of requests declined due to

noncompliance, and a report on

statistics for global deployment of IPv6

and DNSSEC.

Some commenters

noted the absence of Service Level

Agreements (SLAs), especially for the

root zone management and IP

addressing functions and suggested that

SLAs be developed in collaboration

with the communities they serve.

Commenters suggested that SLAs could

include framework parameters, service

levels, and responsibilities relating to

root zone management.

Some

commenters stated that root zone

management documentation should be

published in all six United Nations’

languages.

The NOI record reflects

some commenters’ concern regarding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34663

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

See AFNIC Comments at 3; CENTR Comments

at 3; Netnod Comments at 3.

See AFNIC Comments at 3; CENTR Comments

at 3; Netnod Comments at 3.

See ARIN Comments at 3–4; ccNSO Comments

at 4; ISOC Comments at 4; SIDN Comments at 5.

See ARIN Comments at 3–4; ccNSO Comments

at 4; ISOC Comments at 4; SIDN Comments at 5.

For a description of the current process flow,

please see the diagram posted on NTIA’s Web site

at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/

CurrentProcessFlow.pdf.

See ccNSO Comments at 4; AFNIC Comments

at 2.

See ccNSO Comments at 5; CENTER Comments

at 2; Kenya Comments at 2; SIDN Comments at 5;

OFCOM and SWITCH Comments at 5.

See ccNSO Comments at 5; SIDN Comments at

5; Paul Kane Comments at 4.

See InternetNZ Comments at 7; ccNSO

Comments at 4.

See Dmitry Burkov Comments at 1; COA

Comments at 2; Netchoice Comments at 4.

the unknown operational costs of

coordinating the IANA functions. Some

commenters stated that more detailed

and open financial reports for the IANA

functions are necessary.

These

commenters recommended the IANA

functions contractor be required to

develop a process for tracking costs.

NTIA Response: NTIA agrees with

commenters that there should be

transparency and accountability in the

performance of the IANA functions.

NTIA supports commenters’ views that

the IANA functions contractor should

meet certain performance standards for

each discrete IANA function and that

these performance standards and

metrics should be developed in

conjunction with the relevant

stakeholders for these services. NTIA,

however, does not support the

development of specific SLAs with each

stakeholder or groups of stakeholders.

Given that the IANA functions are

performed under contract with the U.S.

Government, such agreements would be

subject to government procurement laws

and regulations. NTIA believes that the

concerns expressed by commenters can

be addressed without the formality of

such agreements. Accordingly, NTIA

provides language in paragraphs

C.2.2.1.2, C.2.2.1.3, C.2.2.1.4 and

C.2.2.1.5 of the Draft SOW to require

that the IANA functions contractor

develop performance standards and

metrics for each discrete IANA

functions in consultation with the

relevant stakeholders.

The IANA functions contract has

traditionally been performed at no cost

to the United States Government. Under

the current contract, the contractor may

establish and collect fees from third

parties to cover the costs of its

performance of the IANA functions. The

fees must be fair and equitable, and in

the aggregate, cannot exceed the cost of

providing the services. The Government

has reserved the right to review the

contractor’s accounting data at any time

fees are charged to verify that these

conditions are being met.

The U.S. Government cannot require

a contractor to release information to the

public that it considers to be business

confidential and/or proprietary, which

may include its costs for the provision

of service. It can, however, ensure that

any fees charged are reasonable and

cost-based. Accordingly, it is NTIA’s

intention to award any future contract

with the same requirements that all fees

are fair and equitable, and the right to

review the contractor’s accounting data

to ensure that these requirements are

met.

The NOI record reflects a

recommendation that the IANA

functions contractor be required to

gather and report on statistics regarding

global IPv6 and DNSSEC deployment.

NTIA has not included this as a

requirement in the Draft SOW because

it is not clear whether there is

consensus to include this as a new

requirement of the IANA functions

contract or rather whether this is a

matter for which the community seeks

additional information through ICANN.

NTIA asks specific questions on this

issue below as part of this FNOI to

obtain clarification.

Question 5: Can process improvements

or performance enhancements be made

to the IANA functions contract to better

reflect the needs of users of the IANA

functions to improve the overall

customer experience? Should

mechanisms be employed to provide

formalized user input and/or feedback,

outreach and coordination with the

users of the IANA functions? Is

additional information related to the

performance and administration of the

IANA functions needed in the interest

of more transparency? Please provide

specific information as to why or why

not. If yes, please provide specific

suggestions.

The NOI record demonstrates the

need for transparency in the root zone

management process.

Commenters

stated that the root zone management

process should be more open and

transparent and include reporting on all

root zone management partners’

activities.

For example, commenters

would like to see real time status of

every root zone change request all the

way through the process. This would

include action taken at any given stage

of the process flow for root zone

management.

Some commenters

stated there should be a process for

ccTLDs to appeal root management zone

decisions made by the IANA functions

contractor, in the event it does not

follow existing and documented

policies.

They also noted the need for

the IANA functions contractor to

consistently interpret broad policy

guidance such as RFC 1591, ICP–1 and

the GAC ccTLD Principles and publish

information that documents the root

zone change request process.

Commenters suggested that the IANA

functions contractor should better

respect national sovereignty as it relates

to ccTLDs, including the legitimate

interests of governments, the local

Internet communities, and the primacy

of national laws, which have been

clearly stated by the GAC in its ccTLD

Principles, and the 2005 U.S. Principles

on the Internet’s Domain Name and

Addressing System.

Some

commenters also expressed an interest

in an annual or biennial survey of the

IANA functions customers to determine

customer satisfaction.

The NOI record

reflects commenters’ concern whether

ICANN will implement the new gTLD

program in the interest and for the

benefit of global Internet users, and if

there are checks and balances on root

zone changes to ensure the security and

stability of the DNS.

NTIA Response: NTIA agrees with

statements made by commenters that

the root zone management process

should be more transparent to the users

of the IANA functions. As a result,

paragraph C.4.2 (Root Zone

Management Dashboard) of the draft

SOW requires the IANA functions

contractor to work with NTIA and

VeriSign to collaborate in the

development and implementation of a

dashboard to track the process flow for

root zone management. The United

States fully supports the fact that

governments have a legitimate interest

in the management of their ccTLDs. The

United States is committed to working

with the international community to

address these concerns, bearing in mind

the fundamental need to ensure stability

and security of the Internet DNS. As

stated earlier, NTIA plans to conduct

public consultation next year to

ascertain how best to fully automate the

root zone management process.

NTIA supports the need for

accountability with respect to root zone

management decisions. Accordingly, as

discussed above, NTIA has included

provisions in the draft SOW at

paragraph C.2.2.1.3.5 that requires the

IANA functions contractor to establish a

process that would allow customers to

submit complaints regarding the root

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34664

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

See ccNSO Comments at 5; InternetNZ

Comments at 6; SIDN Comments at 6.

ARIN, at 5; ccNSO, at 5; SIDN, at 6.

ISOC Comments at 5; IAB Comments at 6.

ARIN Comments at 5; IAB Comments at 6;

ISOC Comments at 6.

See InternetNZ Comments at 5.

zone management process for

resolution.

Lastly, NTIA agrees with commenters

that the new gTLD program must benefit

the global Internet users and not

jeopardize the security and stability of

the DNS. Accordingly, the draft SOW

includes paragraph C.2.2.1.3.2

(Responsibility and Respect for

Stakeholders) that provides checks and

balances for TLD root zone management

changes, to ensure the continued

stability and security of the DNS.

Question 6: Should additional security

considerations and/or enhancements be

factored into requirements for the

performance of the IANA functions?

Please provide specific information as

to why or why not. If additional

security considerations should be

included, please provide specific

suggestions.

With respect to root zone

management, some commenters

recommended the IANA functions

contractor utilize a secure

communications system for customer

communications that would include the

following: better authentication

processes for the receipt and

management of change requests, a

process for issuing confirmations,

moving from open online forms to

signed and secure mechanisms, better

availability of information related to

root zone management such as outages,

and more notice of planned

maintenance or new developments.

Some commenters recommended that

the next IANA functions contract

include a requirement that the

performance of the IANA functions

undergo a security audit annually by

external, independent, specialized

auditors against relevant international

standards such as ISO 27001.

Commenters also expressed concern

with describing in detail security

considerations and/or enhancements in

the IANA functions contract.

Some

commenters recommended that, at a

minimum, that the contract employ best

practices in information security to

ensure the protection of data and

security and stability of its operations.

One commenter recommended the

following be included in the next IANA

functions contract: ‘‘A requirement for

regular external reviews of process and

security using a number of methods

including document audits, penetration

testing and international standards

benchmarking; the results of these

reviews should be made public within

a specified timeframe to allow for any

corrective measures to be taken; a

published disaster recovery plan for the

operator that is regularly consulted

upon; a documented emergency process

for customers to follow if they are

experiencing an emergency, which

includes private emergency contact

numbers for the operator to be contacted

on.’’

NTIA Response: NTIA agrees with

commenters that the IANA functions

contractor needs to be able to

communicate with service recipients in

a secure and confidential manner. NTIA

notes, however, that the IANA functions

contractor needs to have some flexibility

in the manner in which it secures

communications to accommodate the

needs and capabilities of all service

recipients. Accordingly, the paragraph

C.3 (Security Requirements) requires the

IANA functions contractor to implement

a secure communications system and

data storage system. NTIA considers the

designation of a qualified Director of

Security as key personnel and is an

essential component of the Contractor’s

ability to provide secure data services.

As a result, in paragraph C.3.5, NTIA

will require the Contractor to designate

a Director of Security and consult with

NTIA on any changes in this critical

position. During the procurement

process, NTIA will also require the

identification of this key personnel and

a demonstration of their qualifications

for the position prior to contract award.

NTIA supports commenters’

recommendations that the IANA

functions contractor work with the

relevant community of each discrete

IANA function to develop a

Contingency and Continuity of

Operations Plan (CCOP). Therefore, the

Draft SOW contains paragraph C.3.6

(Contingency and Continuity of

Operations Plan) to include this

requirement.

NTIA also agrees with the

recommendation that the performance

of the IANA functions undergo an

annual security audit by an external,

independent specialized compliance

auditor against relevant international

standards such as ISO 27001. NTIA has

included paragraph C.5 (Audit

Requirements) in the Draft SOW to

capture these audit concerns.

Draft Statement of Work (Draft SOW)

Below is the Draft SOW for which

NTIA seeks comment. The Draft SOW

details the work requirements for the

IANA functions and when finalized,

NTIA will incorporate it into the

procurement process for the IANA

functions contract.

C.1 Background

C.1.1 The U.S. Department of

Commerce (DoC), National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA) has initiated this

agreement to maintain the continuity

and stability of services related to

certain interdependent Internet

technical management functions, known

collectively as the Internet Assigned

Numbers Authority (IANA).

C.1.2 Initially, these interdependent

technical functions were performed on

behalf of the Government under a

contract between the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and

the University of Southern California

(USC), as part of a research project

known as the Tera-node Network

Technology (TNT). As the TNT project

neared completion and the DARPA/USC

contract neared expiration in 1999, the

Government recognized the need for the

continued performance of the IANA

functions as vital to the stability and

correct functioning of the Internet.

C.1.3 The Government

acknowledges that data submitted by

applicants in connection with the IANA

functions is confidential information.

To the extent permitted by law, the

Government shall accord any data

submitted by applicants in connection

with the IANA functions with the same

degree of care as it uses to protect its

own confidential information, but not

less than reasonable care, to prevent the

unauthorized use, disclosure, or

publication of confidential information.

In providing data that is subject to such

a confidentiality obligation to the

Government, the Contractor shall advise

the Government of that obligation.

C.1.4 The Contractor, in the

performance of its duties, has a need to

have close constructive working

relationships with all interested and

affected parties including to ensure

quality performance of the IANA

functions. The interested and affected

parties include, but are not limited to,

the Internet Engineering Task Force

(IETF) and the Internet Architecture

Board (IAB), regional registries, country

code top-level domain (ccTLD)

operators/managers, governments, and

the Internet user community.

C.2 Contractor Requirements

C.2.1 The Contractor must perform

the required services for this contract as

a prime Contractor, not as an agent or

subcontractor. The Contractor shall not

enter into any subcontracts for the

performance of the services, or assign or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34665

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

transfer any of its rights or obligations

under this Contract, without the

Government’s prior written consent and

any attempt to do so shall be void and

without further effect. The Contractor

must possess and maintain through the

performance of this acquisition a

physical address within the United

States. The Government reserves the

right to inspect the premises, systems,

and processes of all security and

operational components used for the

performance of these requirements,

which, in addition, shall all maintain

physical residency within the United

States.

C.2.2 The Contractor shall furnish

the necessary personnel, material,

equipment, services, and facilities, to

perform the following requirements

without any cost to the Government.

The Contractor shall conduct due

diligence in hiring, including full

background checks. On or after the

effective date of this purchase order, the

Contractor may establish and collect

fees from third parties (i.e., other than

the Government) for the functions

performed under this purchase order,

provided the fee levels are approved by

the Contracting Officer before going into

effect, which approval shall not be

withheld unreasonably and provided

the fee levels are fair and equitable and

provided the aggregate fees charged

during the term of this purchase order

do not exceed the cost of providing the

requirements of this purchase order.

The Government will review the

Contractor’s accounting data at anytime

fees are charged to verify that the above

conditions are being met.

C.2.2.1 The Contractor is required to

maintain the IANA functions, the

Internet’s core infrastructure, in a stable

and secure manner. In performance of

this purchase order, the Contractor shall

furnish the necessary personnel,

material, equipment, services, and

facilities (except as otherwise specified),

to perform the following IANA function

requirements.

C.2.2.1.1 The Contractor shall

ensure that any and all staff dedicated

to executing the IANA functions remain

separate and removed (not involved)

from any policy development that

occurs related to the performance of the

IANA functions.

C.2.2.1.2 Coordinate The

Assignment Of Technical Protocol

Parameters—This function involves the

review and assignment of unique values

to various parameters (e.g., operation

codes, port numbers, object identifiers,

protocol numbers) used in various

Internet protocols. This function also

includes the dissemination of the

listings of assigned parameters through

various means (including on-line

publication) and the review of technical

documents for consistency with

assigned values. Within six (6) months

of award, the Contractor shall submit to

NTIA performance standards and

metrics developed in collaboration with

relevant stakeholders for approval.

Upon approval by the Contracting

Officer’s Technical Representative

(COTR), the Contractor shall perform

this task in compliance with approved

performance standards and metrics. The

performance of this function shall be in

compliance with the performance

exclusions as enumerated in Section

C.6.

C.2.2.1.3 Perform Administrative

Functions Associated With Root Zone

Management—This function addresses

facilitation and coordination of the root

zone of the domain name system, with

24 hour-a-day/7 days-a-week coverage.

This function includes receiving

delegation and redelegation requests,

and investigating the circumstances

pertinent to those requests. This

function also includes receiving change

requests for and making routine updates

to all top-level domains (TLDs) contact

(including technical and administrative

contacts), nameserver, and delegation

signer (DS) resource record (RR)

information as expeditiously as

possible. Within six (6) months of

award, the Contractor shall submit to

NTIA performance standards and

metrics developed in collaboration with

relevant stakeholders for approval.

Upon approval by the COTR, the

Contractor shall perform this task in

compliance with approved performance

standards and metrics. The performance

of this function shall be in compliance

with the performance exclusions as

enumerated in Section C.6.

C.2.2.1.3.1 Transparency and

Accountability—The Contractor shall

process all requests for changes to the

root zone and the authoritative root

zone database, collectively referred to as

‘‘IANA root zone management

requests,’’ promptly and efficiently. The

Contractor shall, in collaboration with

all relevant stakeholders, develop user

documentation. The Contractor shall

prominently post on its Web site the

performance standards and metrics, user

documentation, and associated policies.

C.2.2.1.3.2 Responsibility and

Respect for Stakeholders—The

Contractor shall, in collaboration with

all relevant stakeholders for this

function, develop a process for

documenting the source of the policies

and procedures and how it has applied

the relevant policies and procedures,

such as RFC 1591, to process requests

associated with TLDs. In addition, the

Contractor shall act in accordance with

the relevant national laws of the

jurisdiction which the TLD registry

serves. For delegation requests for new

generic TLDS (gTLDs), the Contractor

shall include documentation to

demonstrate how the proposed string

has received consensus support from

relevant stakeholders and is supported

by the global public interest.

C.2.2.1.3.3 Root Zone Automation—

The Contractor shall work with NTIA

and VeriSign, Inc. (or any successor

entity as designated by the U.S.

Department of Commerce) to deploy an

automated root zone management

system within six (6) months after date

of contract award. The automated

system shall at a minimum include:

secure (encrypted) system for customer

communications; automated

provisioning protocol allowing

customers to develop systems to manage

their interactions with the Contractor

with minimal delay; an online database

of change requests and subsequent

actions whereby each customer can see

a record of their historic requests and

maintain visibility into the progress of

their current requests; and a test system,

which customers can use to check that

their change request will meet the

automated checks.

C.2.2.1.3.4 Root Domain Name

System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)

Key Management—The Contractor shall

be responsible for the management of

the root zone Key Signing Key (KSK),

including generation, publication, and

use for signing the Root Keyset.

C.2.2.1.3.5 Customer Service

Complaint Resolution Process—The

Contractor shall establish a process for

IANA function customers to submit

complaints for timely resolution.

C.2.2.1.4 Allocate Internet

Numbering Resources—This function

involves overall responsibility for

allocated and unallocated IPv4 and IPv6

address space and Autonomous System

Number (ASN) space. It includes the

responsibility to delegate of IP address

blocks to regional registries for routine

allocation, typically through

downstream providers, to Internet end-

users within the regions served by those

registries. This function also includes

reservation and direct allocation of

space for special purposes, such as

multicast addressing, addresses for

private networks as described in RFC

1918, and globally specified

applications. Within six (6) months of

award, the Contractor shall submit to

NTIA performance standards and

metrics developed in collaboration with

relevant stakeholders for approval.

Upon approval by the COTR, the

Contractor shall perform this task in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34666

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

compliance with approved performance

standards and metrics. The performance

of this function shall be in compliance

with the performance exclusions as

enumerated in Section C.6.

C.2.2.1.5 Other services—The

Contractor shall perform other IANA

functions, including the management of

the INT and ARPA TLDs. The

Contractor shall also implement

modifications in performance of the

IANA functions as needed upon mutual

agreement of the parties. The

performance of this function shall be in

compliance with the performance

exclusions as enumerated in Section

C.6.

C.2.2.1.5.1 ARPA TLD—The

Contractor shall operate the ARPA TLD

within the current registration policies

for the TLD, including RFC 3172. The

Contractor shall be responsible for

implementing DNSSEC in the ARPA

TLD consistent with the requirements of

the relevant stakeholders for this

function and approved by NTIA. Within

six (6) months of award, the Contractor

shall submit to NTIA performance

standards and metrics developed in

collaboration with relevant

stakeholders. Upon approval by the

COTR, the Contractor shall perform this

task in compliance with approved

performance standards and metrics.

C.2.2.1.5.2 INT TLD—The

Contractor shall operate the INT TLD

within the current registration policies

for the TLD. Upon designation of a

successor registry, if any, the Contractor

shall use commercially reasonable

efforts to cooperate with NTIA to

facilitate the smooth transition of

operation of the INT TLD. Such

cooperation shall, at a minimum,

include timely transfer to the successor

registry of the then-current top-level

domain registration data.

C.3 Security Requirements

C.3.1 Secure Systems—The

Contractor shall install and operate all

computing and communications

systems in accordance with best

business and security practices. The

Contractor shall implement a secure

system for authenticated

communications between it and its

customers when carrying out all IANA

function requirements within nine (9)

months after date of contract award. The

Contractor shall document practices and

configuration of all systems.

C.3.2 Secure Systems Notification—

Within nine (9) months after date of

contract award, the Contractor shall

implement and thereafter operate and

maintain a secure notification system at

a minimum, capable of notifying all

relevant stakeholders of the discrete

IANA functions, of such events as

outages, planned maintenance, and new

developments.

C.3.3 Secure Data—The Contractor

shall ensure the authentication,

integrity, and reliability of the data in

performing the IANA requirements,

including the data relevant to DNS, root

zone change request, and IP address

allocation.

C.3.4 Computer Security Plan—The

Contractor shall develop and execute a

Security Plan. The plan shall be

developed and implemented within

nine (9) months after date of contract

award, and updated annually. The

Contractor shall deliver the plan to the

Government annually.

C.3.5 Director of Security—The

Contractor shall designate a Director of

Security who shall be responsible for

ensuring technical and physical security

measures, such as personnel access

controls. The Contractor shall notify and

consult in advance the COTR when

there are personnel changes in this

position.

C.3.6 Contingency and Continuity of

Operations Plan (The CCOP)—The

Contractor shall, in collaboration with

relevant stakeholders, develop and

implement a CCOP for the IANA

functions within nine (9) months after

date of contract award. The Contractor

shall update and exercise the plan

annually. The CCOP shall include

details on plans for continuation of the

IANA functions in the event of a logical

or physical attack or emergency. The

Contractor shall deliver the CCOP to the

Government annually.

C.4 Performance Metric Requirements

C.4.1 Monthly Performance Progress

Report—The Contractor shall prepare

and submit to the COTR a performance

progress report every month (no later

than 15 calendar days following the end

of each month) that contains statistical

and narrative information on the

performance of the IANA functions (i.e.,

assignment of technical protocol

parameters administrative functions

associated with root zone management

and allocation of Internet numbering

resources) during the previous 30-day

period. The report shall include a

narrative summary of the work

performed for each of the functions with

appropriate details and particularity.

The report shall also describe major

events, problems encountered, and any

projected significant changes, if any,

related to the performance of duties set

forth in Section C.2.

C.4.2 Root Zone Management

Dashboard—The Contractor shall

collaborate with NTIA and VeriSign,

Inc., (or any successor entity as

designated by the U.S. Department of

Commerce) to develop and make

available a dashboard to track the

process flow for root zone management

within nine (9) months after date of

contract award.

C.4.3 Performance Standards

Metrics Reports—The Contractor shall

develop and publish consistent with the

developed performance standards and

metrics reports for each discrete IANA

function consistent with Section C.2.

The Performance Standard Metric

Reports will be published every month

(no later than 15 calendar days

following the end of each month)

starting no later than nine (9) months

after date of contract award.

C.4.4 Performance Survey—The

Contractor shall develop and conduct an

annual performance survey consistent

with the developed performance

standards and metrics for each of the

discrete IANA functions. The survey

shall include a feedback section for each

discrete IANA function. The Contractor

shall publish the Survey Report

annually on its Web site.

C.4.5 Final Report—The Contractor

shall prepare and submit a final report

on the performance of the IANA

functions that documents standard

operating procedures, including a

description of the techniques, methods,

software, and tools employed in the

performance of the IANA functions. The

Contractor shall submit the report to the

Contracting Officer and the COTR no

later than 30 days after expiration of the

purchase order.

C.5 Audit Requirements

C.5.1 Audit Data—The Contractor

shall generate and retain security

process audit record data for one year

and provide an annual audit report to

the Contracting Officer and the COTR.

All root zone management operations

shall be included in the audit, and

records on change requests to the root

zone file and the Contractor shall retain

these records. The Contractor shall

provide specific audit record data to the

Contracting Officer and COTR upon

request.

C.5.2 Root Zone Management Audit

Data—The Contractor shall generate a

monthly (no later than 15 calendar days

following the end of each month) audit

report based on information in the

performance of Provision C.2.2.1.3

Perform Administrative Functions

Associated With Root Zone

Management. The audit report shall

track each root zone change request and

identify the relevant policy under which

the change was made as well as track

change rejections and identify the

relevant policy under which the change

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

34667

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices

request was rejected starting no later

than nine (9) months after date of

contract award.

C.5.3 External Auditor—The

Contractor shall have an external,

independent, specialized compliance

auditor conduct an audit of the IANA

functions security provisions annually.

C.6 Performance Exclusions

C.6.1 This purchase order, in itself,

does not authorize modifications,

additions, or deletions to the root zone

file or associated information. (This

purchase order does not alter the root

zone file responsibilities as set forth in

Amendment 11 of the Cooperative

Agreement NCR–9218742 between the

DoC and VeriSign, Inc.)

C.6.2 This purchase order, in itself,

does not authorize the Contractor to

make material changes in the policies

and procedures developed by the

relevant entities associated with the

performance of the IANA functions. The

Contractor shall not change or

implement the established methods

associated with the performance of the

IANA functions without prior approval

of the COTR.

C.6.3 The performance of the

functions under this contract, including

the development of recommendations in

connection with processing changes that

constitute delegations and redelegations

of ccTLDs, shall not be, in any manner,

predicated or conditioned on the

existence or entry into any contract,

agreement or negotiation between the

Contractor and any party requesting

such changes or any other third-party.

Questions Related to the Draft SOW

The public is invited to comment on

any aspect of the Draft SOW including,

but not limited to, the specific questions

set forth below. When responding to

specific questions, please cite the

number(s) of the questions addressed,

the ‘‘section’’ of the Draft SOW to which

the question(s) correspond, and provide

any references to support the responses

submitted.

1. Does the language in ‘‘Provision

C.1.3’’ capture views on how the

relevant stakeholders as sources of the

policies and procedures should be

referenced in the next IANA functions

contract. If not, please propose specific

language to capture commenters’ views.

2. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.1’’

adequately address concerns that the

IANA functions contractor should

refrain from developing policies related

to the IANA functions? If not, please

provide detailed comments and specific

suggestions for improving the language.

3. Does the language in ‘‘Provisions

C.2.2.1.2, C.2.2.1.3, C.2.2.1.4, and

C.2.2.1.5’’ adequately address concerns

that the IANA functions contractor

should perform these services in a

manner that best serves the relevant

stakeholders? If not, please propose

detailed alternative language.

4. Does the language in ‘‘Provision

C.2.2.1.3’’ adequately address concerns

related to root zone management? If not,

please suggest detailed alternative

language. Are the timeframes for

implementation reasonable?

5. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.3.2

Responsibility and Respect for

Stakeholders’’ adequately address

concerns related to the root zone

management process in particular how

the IANA functions contractor should

document its decision making with

respect to relevant national laws of the

jurisdiction which the TLD registry

serves, how the TLD reflects community

consensus among relevant stakeholders

and/or is supported by the global public

interest. If not, please provide detailed

suggestions for capturing concerns. Are

the timeframes for implementation

reasonable?

6. Does the new ‘‘Section C.3 Security

Requirements’’ adequately address

concerns that the IANA functions

contractor has a secure communications

system for communicating with service

recipients? If not, how can the language

be improved? Is the timeframe for

implementation reasonable?

7. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.3.5

Customer Service Complaint Resolution

Process’’ provide an adequate means of

addressing customer complaints? Does

the new language provide adequate

guidance to the IANA functions

contractor on how to develop a

customer complaint resolution? If not,

please provide detailed comments and

suggestions for improving the language.

8. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.3.6

Contingency and Continuity of

Operations Plan (CCOP)’’ adequately

address concerns regarding contingency

planning and emergency recovery? If

not, please provide detailed comments

and suggestions for improving the

language. Are the timeframes for

implementation reasonable?

9. Does the new ‘‘Section C.4

Performance Standards Metric

Requirements’’ adequately address

concerns regarding transparency in root

zone management process, and

performance standards and metrics?

Should the contractor be required to

gather and report on statistics regarding

global IPv6 and DNSSEC deployment? If

so, how should this requirement be

reflected in the SOW? What statistics

should be gathered and made public?

10. Does the new ‘‘Section C.5 Audit

Requirements’’ adequately address

concerns regarding audits? If not, please

propose alternative language. Are the

timeframes for implementation

reasonable?

Dated: June 9, 2011.

Lawrence E. Strickling,

Assistant Secretary for Communications and

Information.

[FR Doc. 2011–14762 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–64638; File Nos. 4–633 and

S7–39–10]

Joint Public Roundtable on Proposed

Dealer and Major Participant

Definitions of Title VII of the Dodd-

Frank Wall Street Reform and

Consumer Protection Act

AGENCIES

: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’)

(each, an ‘‘Agency,’’ and collectively,

the ‘‘Agencies’’).

ACTION

: Notice of roundtable discussion;

request for comment.

SUMMARY

: On Thursday, June 16, 2011,

commencing at 9 a.m. and ending at

3:45 p.m., staff of the Agencies will hold

a public roundtable meeting at which

invited participants will discuss various

issues related to the proposed

definitions of the terms ‘‘swap dealer,’’

‘‘security-based swap dealer,’’ ‘‘major

swap participant,’’ and ‘‘major security-

based swap participant’’ under Title VII

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

and Consumer Protection Act (the

‘‘Act’’). See 75 FR 80174 (Dec. 21, 2010).

The discussion will be open to the

public with seating on a first-come, first-

served basis. Members of the public may

also listen to the meeting by telephone.

Call-in participants should be prepared

to provide their first name, last name

and affiliation. The information for the

conference call is set forth below.

• U.S. Toll-Free: (866) 844–9416.

• International Toll: information on

international dialing can be found at the

following link: http://www.cftc.gov/

PressRoom/PressReleases/

internationalnumbers021811.html.

• Conference ID: 7731946.

A transcript of the public roundtable

discussion will be published at http://

www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/2011/

index.htm. The roundtable discussion

will take place in the Conference Center

at the CFTC’s headquarters, Three

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Jun 13, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM 14JNN1

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES