[CRISP-TEAM] Response Richard Hill's comment to icg-forum

Paul Rendek rendek at ripe.net
Wed Feb 4 07:27:19 CET 2015

Hello Izumi,

Again, a very factual and informative mail. I have no further comment
and fully support this draft response.


On 2/3/15 7:22 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> This is another draft response sent to icg-forum - this is the comments
> submitted by Richard Hill.
> I welcome your feedback until UTC 19:30 4th Feb.
> Izumi
> ――
> Dear ICG members,
> On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a
> number of concerns about the CRISP team process. The concerns expressed
> by Mr Hill were considered in depth during the CRISP team proposal
> development process and had been discussed on the ianaxfer mailing list
> with Mr Hill as well as other community members.
> The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus
> position of the community.
> Richard Hill wrote:
>> Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP
> mailing list
>> (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute
> resolution.
>> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate
> legal
>> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see:
>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html
> Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were well
> documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were
> discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio
> archives of these calls are available at https://nro.net/crisp-team).
> Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of community
> comments and concerns posted at:
> https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015
> The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the text of
> our response to the ICG RFP:
> “The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the
> specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the
> RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that
> the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.”
> [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community,
> p11]
> The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement Principles.
> This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer
> mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level
> principles.
> The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by Mr
> Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in the
> proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR
> communities, as quoted earlier.
> The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the
> ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly
> supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR
> legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji (7
> Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12
> January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this view.
> All of these mails can be read at:
> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html
> A further concern noted by Mr Hill:
>> That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when important
>> details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the global
>> multi-stakeholder community?
> The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that the
> community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected
> in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over these
> functions via a contractual relationship.It is the responsibility of the
> parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team believes
> that by directing the RIRs to consult with their communities and by
> laying down the principles mentioned above, we have established a
> framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate in
> the best interests of the community.
> Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the
> outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. As
> noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list,
> many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr Hill.
> From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the
> ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is available
> at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s position in
> regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to discuss
> any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful.
> Yours sincerely,
> Izumi Okutani
> Chair, the CRISP Team
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list