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

[Nurani Nimpuno]

On 9 jan 2015, at 09:13, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:

> 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.  

Yes.

> I have not heard the idea that the NRO should take over now.

No, I agree. Good clarification. This has never been proposed as far as I know.

> 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.

Agreed. This is the most important point.

Nurani

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