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

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Fri Jan 9 09:13:13 CET 2015


On Fri, 09 Jan 2015, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Hi Izumi,
>
> You are very quick! (The rest of us are trying to keep up with 
> your amazing speed. :)

Yes, indeed.

>> 3) Why the option of having NRO as an operator is not considered
>
> 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.

I have heard the idea that the NRO could take over if ICANN 
failed, or if the RIRs became dissatisfied with ICANN.  I have not 
heard the idea that the NRO should take over now.

> 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.

Yes.

> 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.

I think that the NRO could take over almost immediately, but that's not
the point.  I think that main point is that we want stability, and we
are satisfied with ICANN's performance.

>> 5) Community cannot approve this part of the transition plan
>>   without an SLA text
>
> 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.

Perhaps we should say something like that in the document?

>> 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.

Oh, Izumi also suggested saying that in the document.

--apb (Alan Barrett)




More information about the CRISP mailing list