[CRISP-TEAM] [Call for comments] Maximum Review Interval Term to be 3 years

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi Alan and all,

On 7 jan 2015, at 08:24, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> Alan and CRISP Team,
> 
> 
>> I suggested three years in a message on 16 December, and did not receive
>> any comments.  This interval is not based on any existing practice,
> 
> I see and noted. I must have overlooked this message. My apologies.
> 
> but
>> is simply what I thought would be reasonable.
>> 
>> I note that the the existing NTIA/ICANN IANA contract has a duration of
>> three years, and that the ICANN bylaws require review of ICANN
>> structures (including the ASO) at least every five years.
>> 
>> Perhaps it would make sense to tie reviews to contract renewals?
>> Something like this:
>> 
>> [[[
>> Such reviews shall be conducted at some time during the last 12 months
>> of the term of the proposed contract or its successors, or at any time
>> on request from the Boards of at least two of the RIRs, and shall in any
>> case be conducted not less than once every three years.
>> ]]]
>> 
> 
> Excellent. This makes sense to me!
> 
> I'm comfortable that we can explain the rationale for three years with
> this text, while I continue to welcome feeback from CRISP Team.

I agree. This sounds reasonable to me.
Nurani


> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Izumi
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp