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

Andres Piazza andres at lacnic.net
Wed Feb 4 09:34:38 CET 2015



El 4/2/15 a las 7:37, Nurani Nimpuno escribió:
> +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
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list