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

[Nurani Nimpuno]

+1 

Nurani


> On 4 feb 2015, at 07:27, Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello Izumi,
> 
> Again, a very factual and informative mail. I have no further comment
> and fully support this draft response.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp