[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


Gerard has made a very good observation about how our community works.

I almost expressed my personal support for this but felt it may not be 
appropriate and also better to express support as the CRISP Team on this 
point, if appropriate and needed.

It's not a must we do this ofcourse -  We can consider it only if we 
find it helpful, perhaps, when sharing our conclusion about SLA that we 
considered under this spirit.


----
In considering about the details of the SLA to be included, the CRISP 
Team thinks below is as a fair description, reflecting mentality and 
realities of how our the number resources community work.

Our position, xxxx (describe our conclusion) is based on how the number 
resources community works as described by Gerard Ross.
----

Let me know if you have other thoughts.


Izumi

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship 
Proposal: Final Call for Comments
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:36:18 +0100
From: gerard.ross at mac.com
To: ianaxfer at nro.net

Hi everyone

First of all, I’d like to congratulate the CRISP team for their 
efficient work in developing this proposal and especially to Izumi for 
her outstanding efforts (over a holiday period) in providing such a 
clear, respectful, and structured stewardship of the process.

I understand and appreciate Richard Hill’s concerns that the CRISP 
proposal does not include a comprehensive contract, but I believe that 
those concerns represent a misunderstanding of the Internet model of 
decision making and perhaps bear the hallmarks of other, more 
institutional governance paradigms.

As I’ve always understood the bottom up process, the community of 
interest discusses and develops consensus on a set of principles for the 
topic at hand. The specific implementation of those principles into 
operational details is delegated to a working group, committee, or 
organisation. That “delegate” reports openly and regularly, so that the 
community can review and refine.

As Hans Petter, Filiz, and others have noted, this current process 
indeed shows the bottom up processes of the technical community at work. 
All of the participants are drawn from and answerable to their 
respective communities, all operating in the knowledge that eyes are 
upon them. While it may be hard to hear the hum of approval on a mailing 
list, we can be sure that any missteps in this process would be met by 
howls of disapproval, loud and clear.

While many people from other backgrounds see the Internet model as 
idealistic, it is in fact deeply pragmatic and action oriented (which is 
why it has been able to build the Internet).

Within this pragmatism, it is necessary to distinguish between what is 
necessary for operational certainty and what is negotiable for pragmatic 
implementation.

In the current context – especially in the available timeline – the 
focus must remain on the essential principles of numbering resource 
stewardship. To over-specify the implementation would risk derailing the 
essentials.

For the CRISP group to put forward “the” contract by which the 
transition must proceed would put this process at risk (not to mention 
that it would be an act of unilateralism, vis-a-vis the IANA operator, 
that is antithetical to the Internet model).

Richard Hill noted his understanding that the ICANN lawyers would accept 
a contract proposed by the community. I’m not sure we can take that for 
granted. But even if – operating in the greatest good faith – their 
lawyers identified reasonable and compelling reasons to challenge terms 
of the proposal (such as the jurisdiction or arbitration clauses) then 
where would that leave us?

For if a specific contract were put forward as the will of the 
community, would revising its terms be an act against the consensus? 
Would every line-by-line revision require a fresh consultation period? 
If so, we could be stuck in limbo for years. And, in my experience, I 
have seen jurisdiction and ADR clauses debated for extended periods.

I do appreciate Richard’s note that it would be sufficient for the 
proposal to suggest “ICC arbitration in a neutral venue”. As a principle 
that is reasonable and pragmatic. To be any more specific than that, 
however, would be counterproductive.

Thanks again for all your work.

Regards
- Gerard



--
Gerard Ross
gerard.ross at mac.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gerardross


_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer