[CRISP-TEAM] the initial draft announcement

Craig Ng craig at apnic.net
Wed Dec 17 13:37:58 CET 2014

On 17/12/2014 9:35 pm, "Paul Rendek" <rendek at ripe.net> wrote:

> The table of proposals the column for ARIN includes a point to 'Reaffirm
> commitments'. It is not clear what commitments this point makes reference to.
> Is is reaffirming commitment to the IANA operator? I am not sure this is
> necessary as there will be a new contract here. Is it reaffirming commitments
> to the IETF or another body? If so, I think that needs to be clearly stated in
> the notes below the table.

This is not a matter of "necessity". The chart is simply a reflection, and
summary, of the proposal made by each RIR to its community. In the case of
ARIN, it reflects the draft proposal of ARIN as contained in its draft
response to the ICG's RFP.

Please note that the table is simply a high level summary of where RIRs have
a common proposal, and where they differ. It is not intended to fully
reflect, in detail, each RIR's proposal.

> Under the section 'Accommodating the differences' you make reference to the
> NRO entering into a contract with the IANA operator. I would like to suggest
> to remove reference to the NRO as it will be the 5 RIRs entering into a
> contract with the IANA operator. This is a small but very important
> distinction. The NRO is not an incorporated entity and is not in a position to
> enter into such a legal contract.

With due respect to Paul, the assertion that the NRO is "not in a position
to enter into such a legal contract" is, in my view, fundamentally wrong in

The NRO is an unincorporated body. However, it does not follow that an
unincorporated body cannot be a party to a contract. Any of the members of
an incorporated body can, in law, enter into a contract on behalf of that
body. In the case of the NRO, the entry into any contractual obligations by
the NRO requires the agreement and signature of all RIRs (see paragraph 1,
Memorandum of Understanding dated 24 October 2003 establishing the NRO).

The NRO was established (under the MOU mentioned above, signed by all the
RIRs) with the purpose of, amongst others, "entering into appropriate
cooperative agreements with representative Internet coordination or
administrative bodies … ". The proposed SLA with ICANN or any other IANA
functions operator is precisely the type of contract envisaged by the NRO at
its creation. 

I envisage that the SLA will state as one of its party: "AFRINIC, APNIC,
ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE NCC (acting collectively through the NRO)".

Entering into the contract, in the name of the NRO (but also naming each RIR
individually, and signed by each RIR individually), shows unity of purpose
of all the RIRs acting collectively. Again, acting collectively in this
regard is one of the purpose for the creation of the NRO.

I do not wish to have a distracting argument here about the NRO. But if this
is going to be an issue, as is evident here, then perhaps we need to deal
with this issue, and nip this in the bud.

> In the summary, point 3 makes reference to the NRO convening a 'broad based
> community body'. I think the words broad based is a new term and possibly
> superfluous in this context. I think a 'community body' encompasses a broad
> based approach and is a term that is well understood and agreed in RIR
> community workings. Please also note that it will be the RIRs that would
> convene such a body.

I have no issue with removing the words "broad based".


> On 12/17/14 12:17 AM, Craig Ng wrote:
>> The updated document is attached. It now incorporate ARIN's proposals (and
>> AFRINIC's, as requested by Ernest) in the chart. You will note, of course,
>> that the ARIN's proposal was originally described in the body of the
>> document (under the heading "Accommodating the differences").
>> If you have no objection to this, then I will ask German to replace the
>> current document on the NRO website with this one.
>> Craig
>> On 17/12/2014 10:06 am, "Craig Ng" <craig at apnic.net> <mailto:craig at apnic.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2014 8:50 am, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
>>> <mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp>  wrote:
>>>> Thanks John very much for letting me know.
>>>>> Is it possible to edit and correct the summary? ARIN�s proposal dated
>>>>> 21
>>>>> November 2014 was published to ARIN�s transition list and made
>>>>> available
>>>>> on the NRO-IANAXFER list on November 28 yet this summary does not
>>>>> mention
>>>>> it nor does it compare it in the chart.
>>>> Let's make sure to reflect the summary which includes ARIN community.
>>>> Craig,
>>>> may I confirm whether you are happy to work on this revision, or prefer
>>>> someone from ARIN region to edit the updated version on this summary?
>>> Hi John, Izumi
>>> Yes, I am happy to edit the document. Apologies for not capturing ARIN's
>>> proposal. I intend to make a post-script edit to the document, and
>>> circulate it to make sure you're happy with it.
>>> Thanks
>>> Craig
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.nethttps://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20141217/4b681af7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3565 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20141217/4b681af7/smime.p7s>

More information about the CRISP mailing list