[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Richard Hill Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 8 22:48:03 CET 2015


My observations about each of Richard's point as below.
Please let me know your thoughts.

(I didn't feel creating a seperate thread per issue helped in giving
inputs and simply increased the number of e-mails, so try the approach
per auther - but feel free to create per issue thread if useful)

If you don't have to comment on all point. Just the ones you have an
opinion is fine.

1) Add more details of dispute resolution (III A.3.x.)
 - We agreed to stick to principles and leave it for RIR staff to
   reflect the details, based on a suggestion on the IANAXFER list
 - If to address the concern the contract will be between five RIRs,
   perhaps describe high level principles on the factors to consider in
   deciding a place and arbitration scheme
   (but is this a concern? How does it work for ASO MoU)

2) VI. Reflect low input in RIR processes
 - What are your thoughts?
 - Firstly, do you agree with this observation about low inputs?
   This is true in case of APNIC region but what about others.
 - I am OK to reflect an observation on how much input was received
   with explaining reasons; but
 - I don't agree with saying this wasn't bottom-up.
   I don't think having low input (if true) equals no bottom-up.
   There area reasons for this.
   e.g.., most RIR communities are comfortable with the current IANA
         operation and don't feel the strong urge to comment as there
         is no direct NTIA involvement today

3) Why the option of having NRO as an operator is not considered
 - He says some support was expressed for this option in some RIR lists
   Any region which observed this?
   (I don't this was the case in the APNIC region. It may be possible
   someone outside the region may have mention which I overlooked but
   certainly not a level of notable support or a recognition.)
 - He also asks for providing a reason why CRISP Team hasn't considered
   this option. What are your thoughts?

4) Change in ICANN Bylaws for global PDP
 - We discussed it in CRISP Team call but agreed this is out of scope

 My summary of what was discussed: (corrections welcome)
 - NTIA doesn't play a role in gPDP
 - If RIR communities believe this should be reconsidered, it should be
   discussed under the standard gPDP process.
   It would not be appropriate for CRISP Team to break this existing
   bottom-up process and propose something not related to NTIA
   stewardship transition.

5) Community cannot approve this part of the transition plan without an
   SLA text
 According to my memory, this is what we discussed and agreed:
 - We agreed to put leave the high level principles as it is beyond the
   scope of CRISP Team to define an actual SLA
 - We are not RIRs and developing a contract on behalf of RIRs would be
   stepping outside of our role.

 I personally feel it would be helpful if we could say a little more
 than this, such as the idea is to have the SLA completed before the
 transition and we are listing high level principles as its reference.
 Then again, this may go back to the point discussed at the 9th call,
 we shouldn't mention anything we cannot be control/outside our role.

 What are your thoughts?


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
Proposal: Final Call for Comments
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:03:04 +0100
From: Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>
Reply-To: rhill at hill-a.ch
To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>, ianaxfer at nro.net

Thank you for this.

The new version appears to me to reflect correctly the discussions on this
list, except that (a) in III.A.3.x, a specific arbitration scheme (e.g. ICC
in Bermuda) should be mentioned; and (b) the substantive law applicable to
the contract/SLA should be specified (as stated at the end of IV.B); this is
particularly important because, as I understand it, the contract will be
between ICANN and the five RIRs, so it might be tricky to determine the
applicable substantive law if a dispute actually arises.

In addition, I think that the language in VI needs to be tweaked a bit.
While the RIR processes are indeed bottom up, there wasn't much bottom up in
this particular process, not because of the process, but because there
weren't that many inputs from the bottom.  The RIRs did try to stimulate
inputs, going so far as to send out surveys, but there weren't that many
responses.  So I think that the opening section of VI should reflect that.

Regarding III.A.1, on some of the RIR lists there was some support for
moving the numbers part of the IANA function to the NRO (which could
subcontract it to one of the RIRs, or whatever).  Apparently there was not
sufficient support in CRISP to pursue that option. But I think that some
mention should be made of it, together with an explanation of why that
option was not pursued (other than "we are satisfied with ICANN's
performance to date").

Also, I still wonder whether any changes to the ICANN Bylaws are needed in
order to clarify that number policies are made by the RIRs, not by the ICANN
Board.  That is, is a new contract sufficient, or is there a need to also
change the ICANN Bylaws? If the CRISP team considered this point, then it
should be documented, otherwise it needs to be discussed.

More importantly, I don't think that this version is sufficient to
constitute a proper response to the IGC RFP, because it does not provide the
actual text of the new contract/SLA.  I don't see how the community could
approve this part of the transition plan without seeing the actual proposed
contract. That proposed contract could be provided as an Annex to the
present document.

So I don't think that a response can be sent to the ICG until that Annex
(with the proposed contract) is ready.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]On
> Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: jeudi, 8. janvier 2015 17:21
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
> Proposal: Final Call for Comments
> Dear colleagues,
> Please find the second draft of the Internet numbers community's
> response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship
> Coordination Group (ICG).
> This draft has been prepared by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship
> Proposal (CRISP) Team, with considerations of feedback received from the
> global community on <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
> We have incorporated the following key points in the second draft:
>   - Additional description on contract details, review committee and
>     intellectual property rights
>   - Description revised on Section V. NITA Requirements and VI.
>     Community Process for more clarity
>   - No changes are made to key elements of the proposal
> The CRISP Team have considered all comments expressed on
> <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list before the deadline of 5th Jan 2015, and
> would now like to make the final call for comments from the global
> community on the draft proposal, before submitting to the ICG.
> Second Draft proposal:
> ------------------------
>  Clean Version  :
>  <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft>
>  Redline Version:
>  <http:/www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft-change-control>
>  The deadline for providing feedback: Mon, 12 January 2015 23:59 UTC
>  Feedback should be sent to         : <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list
> Community Inputs Considered by the CRISP Team:
> ------------------------------------------
>  You can check the status of the issues raised by the community and
>  proposed the CRISP Team positions at:
>    <http://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015>
> Key dates:
> -----------
>    Second draft to be published	    :  8 Jan 2015
>    Second draft comments close	    : 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC
>    Final proposal to be sent to ICG : 15 Jan 2015
> How to Engage in Discussions:
> -----------------------------
>   All global discussions, for the CRISP team to consider as community
>   feedback, will be conducted at <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
>   All the CRISP Team discussions are open to observers.
> Next Step:
> -----------
>   In developing the final draft based on further feedback, the CRISP
>   Team will ensure it has completed considerations of all substantial
>   issues raised by the global community, which are compiled in the
>   published issues list. The proposal will only incorporate issues that
>   the CRISP team believes have received consensus support from the
>   community.
> References:
> ------------
> * Discussions by the CRISP Team
>     Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings,
>     minutes and agendas of all the CRISP Team teleconferences and a
>     public archive of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are
>     available at:
>     https://nro.net/crisp-team
> * Other links:
>   - The ICG request for proposals:
>    <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en>
>   - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region:
>     <http://www.nro.net/timeline-engagement>
>   - First Draft proposal (Edited version)
>     <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1>
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

More information about the CRISP mailing list