[CRISP-TEAM] Draft Notes 3rd CRISP Teleconference

[German Valdez]

Thank you Izumi, Nurani, Alan, Andrei and Michael for your comments.

I incorporated them and published the notes in the CRISP page in the nro website.

CRISP 4th meeting notes next.

Cheers

German


> On 19 Dec 2014, at 7:34 pm, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
> 
> Thank you German for these very detailed notes. Some minor amendments:
> 
> On 18 dec 2014, at 13:23, German Valdez <german at nro.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> For your perusal I'm attaching notes of yesterday teleconference
>> 
>> Please provide your comments in the following 24 hours
>> 
>> German
>> 
>> 
> 
> Draft:
> 
>> NN: I won’t argue in any direction. I’d like to gain a better understanding of the arguments for including an AoC because the AoC between the DoC and ICANN will not go away. First, for us to make a commitment to operating transparently, etc. is important, but as BW said this is a contract between a service deliverer and a customer. Second, as regards the RIRs committing to several things, I agree that we commit to our communities, but I don’t understand the belief that the AoC between the US DoC and ICANN will disappear. Is that the motivation?
> 
> Amendment:
> NN: I won't argue in any direction at this point, but would like to gain a better understanding of the arguments for including an AoC in this text first. Firstly, as BW said this is a contract between a service deliverer and a customer. Is part of the motivation for including an AoC here, the belief that the AoC between the US DoC and ICANN will disappear. Is that the motivation? Because the AoC between DoC and ICANN will not go away. Secondly, as regards the RIRs committing themselves to several things, I agree with previous comments that we commit to our communities, not to ICANN. 
> 
> Draft:
> 
>> NN: I think we all share the motivation. I don’t think anyone is saying that we simply need to trust the provider and the ICANN board. The thing is we are accountable to our communities, not to anyone else. In RIPE’s view, the SLA is the tool to ensure that we get what we need from the IANA operator. As Bill said, a contract is there to remove the assumption of trust. In RIPE’s view, having the AoC could undermine the SLA. Second, there’s a question about ICANN accountability, but this document is not where we should address it. We need to use the SLA to ensure that the functions are performed as they are defined.
> 
> 
> Amendment:
> NN: I think we all share the motivation. I don’t think anyone is saying that we simply need to trust the provider and the ICANN board. The thing is we are accountable to our communities, not to anyone else. In RIPE’s view, the SLA is the tool to ensure that we get what we need from the IANA operator. As Bill said, a contract is there to remove the assumption of trust. In RIPE’s view, having the AoC could undermine the SLA. Second, there’s a question about ICANN accountability, and we all agree that ICANN accountability is important, but this document is not where we should address it. We need to use the SLA to ensure that the functions are performed as defined in the contract.
> 
> Thank you.
> Nurani
> 
>> <CRISP third December 17 meeting DRAFT NOTES.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>