[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Pindar Wong Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 9 08:18:56 CET 2015
Pindar raised two points.
1) Could assume no record since 2004 which needed arbitration?
- His point is if yes, it may be a strong data point the exisiting
mediation mechanism is working well
Sounds like a point which adds credibility to our proposal if it can be
verified. I don't have a strong position.
2) A question to be considered as the details of SLA's are being drafted
- "How do you know when mediation fails that your arbitration
processes (as envisaged) work, under current assumptions, if
they've never been tested?"
Is this a question appropriate for the CRISP Team to answer?
Any other thoughts/observation you have about this question?
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
Proposal: Final Call for Comments
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:22:11 +0800
From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
CC: ianaxfer at nro.net <ianaxfer at nro.net>
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > It might be worthwhile considering whether in II.A.3, last para, to
> provide a data point that over M years there have been N disputes.
> I have no view with respect to the worthiness of including such a data
> but the answer would vary based on whether the term ���dispute��� includes the
> normal interchange of views and clarifications as provided for in the
> Policy Development Process, or whether it refers to the situation where the
> outcome of gPDP process is not satisfactory to the RIRs or ICANN and the
> formal dispute resolution process contained in the MOU gets invoked.
Sorry... again, I should have been more clear. It's difficult to keep
up... rushed mornings for volunteer work doesn't help ;)
I'm referring to the latter i.e. how many times since 2004 have the RIRs
and ICANN needed to go to Arbitration. Methinks zero.
To me that reflects that the existing mediation mechanisms are working
well. What prompted this thought was the line 'It is also worth noting
that' w.r.t. the participation in the ATRT bit.
> Over the years, there have been a small number requests from ICANN for
> clarification prior to global number resource policy ratification; I would
> this to be 3 to 5 cases (it would require some research to establish the
> number), and in all cases supplying the requested information resulted in
> policy ratification. There have been no policy ���disputes���, i.e.
> situations which
> necessitated invocation of the dispute resolution process.
There maybe a downside though to the above, perhaps something to be
considered as the details of SLA's are being drafted --- how do you know
when mediation fails that your arbitration processes (as envisaged) work,
under current assumptions, if they've never been tested? Sorry, I've no
idea on that one... other than perhaps asking others with related
experience how different arbitration centres worked for them.
> Thanks for the comments on the proposal!
One tries... it should be noted that my views are mainly historic...
probably out-of-date and time ;)
Thanks for your patience. I'll try writing longer emails but typing is
tough for me these days.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
More information about the CRISP