[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Richard Hill Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
nurani at netnod.se
Fri Jan 9 08:30:21 CET 2015
You are very quick! (The rest of us are trying to keep up with your amazing speed. :)
Here are my loose thoughts on these comments.
On 8 jan 2015, at 22:48, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> 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)
Yup, I agree with your points. We are not lawyers, but here to represent the views of the community. That is what we have done.
> 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
I don't agree with his observation. Yes, there was unfortunately very little discussion on the ianaxfer-list. Possibly due to the terrible timing over the Christmas and New Year's break.
And the low participation on the ianaxfer list does concern me. Not because I don't feel our proposal reflects the community's view - I think it does. But because of perception.
I know that there was quite a lot of feedback in the RIPE region. (At the sessions I was present where this was discussed, people lined up at the microphones!)
Without having a full picture of all five regions, I think you could argue that most discussions took place at a regional level, where input was channeled through the CRISP team. This is quite normal in the RIR community, where people are used to engaging through their own RIR community, speaking formally and informally with your peers. (Indeed bottom-up.) We have structures, mechanisms and communication channels for that. Engaging on a global mailing list like the ianaxfer is quite a different matter. I would have been surprised if we hadn't seen much discussion in the RIR communities, but a lot of discussion on the global list.
But these are my personal thoughts without having hard data on actual participation in each RIR region.
> 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?
This has certainly been tossed around as a comment several times. And when comparing to other communities, the point has been made that the numbering community really is the only one that could actually manage quite easily without IANA.
But two things:
1. There has been strong emphasise on stability and continuity. Changing operator now would involve a lot of moving parts and doing this now would jeopardise the stability and continuity. However, laying the ground for that future possibility (not putting in place clauses that bind us forever to ICANN) as important.
3. The NRO is not a legal entity. (And it doesn't have a well-resources office.) It is not ready *today* to take this task on. Rushing to get the NRO ready for this would not be ideal.
> 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.
Agreed. We are not the RIRs and we are not lawyers.
However, it is of course assumed that the RIR's legal teams get together and produce such a contract, before the transition takes place.
> 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.
I hope this was helpful.
> 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 :
>> Redline Version:
>> 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:
>> 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
>> * 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:
>> * Other links:
>> - The ICG request for proposals:
>> - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region:
>> - First Draft proposal (Edited version)
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP