[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Jan 12 11:09:49 CET 2015
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.
-------- 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
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
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
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.
gerard.ross at mac.com
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net
More information about the CRISP