[CRISP-TEAM] [Resolved] Re: Question From Pindar Wong Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments

Mon Jan 12 11:33:53 CET 2015

CRISP Team,

This looks resolved now, based on interaction between Richard and Pindar.

It's upto us whether we want specifically state whether Richard's
description is consistent with the CRISP Team (if we think so).

My preference it to exlicitly confirm this as the CRISP Team for reasons
below, unless someone has a concern:

 - This is an essential element our proposal and want to be clear in
   our position
   (not to have continued discussions/someone else bring it up again)
 - Doesn't take time to simply say this is consistent
 - (Not a major reason - we are disagreeing with everything Richard say
   and may be worth stating our agreement on the point we agree, which
   may have indirect affect on other points. Clearly show we are not
   agreeing with a person but simply the points being expresssed)

----
(Snip): Interaction between Richard & Pindar

Thanks Richard for your clarification.

p.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  Dear Pindar,
>
> No, a contract is not the only way forward, but (1) the NTIA placed some
> restrictions on the post-transition situation and (2) proposals for
the NRO
> to take over the IANA function didn't get much support.  Given that, it
> seems to me that  a contract is the only sensible way forward.  And I
> haven't seen any concrete suggestions for alternatives.
>
> Best,
> Richard

(Snip)
----

Izumi

On 2015/01/12 17:23, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> 
> 
> How do we want to reply to Pindar's question?
> (It doesn't seem to be a high priority but I think it is worth
> clarifying as it is related to the essential element of our proposal)
> 
> My draft response is:
> ---
> The CRISP Team thinks the contract is the most straightforward way of
> adressing this, as NTIA covers this part by the contract with IANA
> function operator (i.e., ICANN).
> 
> What is currently covered in NTIA-IANA contract will no longer be valid
> as a result of the IANA stewardship transition by NTIA. We want to cover
> what is covered in the NTIA-IANA contract today, by replacing this with
> IANA-RIR contract after the transition.
> ---
> 
> I welcome your comments on this.
> 
> We want to be careful in our reponse not to start discussions again on
> the point, "this is why the complete SLA is a must".
> 
> Perhaps, as order, I will respond to this first, before I send a
> response to Richard about SLA details.
> 
> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
> StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments
> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 06:46:50 +0800
> From: Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com>
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> CC: ianaxfer at nro.net <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> 
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> 
>>   Regarding the question "it's not yet clear to me *how or why a contract
>> would be better than the current IANA-RIR arrangements* or be an
>> improvement once NTIA oversight goes away", I would reply that the current
>> proposal covers matters that are covered in the current IANA functions
>> contract between ICANN and NTIA, but are not covered in the current
>> IANA-RIR arrangements.
>>
> 
> and a contract is the only way to forward?  yes/no.
> 
> p.
> 
> 
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]*On
>> Behalf Of *Pindar Wong
>> *Sent:* samedi, 10. janvier 2015 23:34
>> *To:* Jim Reid
>> *Cc:* ianaxfer at nro.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
>> StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2015, at 17:02, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09.01.15 21.01, Richard Hill wrote:
>>>>> I am saying (1) that the community should review and take a position
>>> on all
>>>>> of the language of the new contract and (2) that the details of the
>>>>> arbitration clause and the choice of law clause are sufficiently
>>> significant
>>>>> that they should be included in the current document.
>>>> This sounds ideal, but my guess is that the collective competnece of
>>> international contract law is slighty below our collective competence of
>>> IP-addressing, routing and network technology in general.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>
>>>> The numbering community has established formal bodies to handle this,
>>> the RIR boards & management, which I trust will get appropriate legal
>>> advice.
>>>>
>>>> I trust these bodies will handle this in the best interest of our
>>> community.
>>>
>>> Indeed. We have more than enough confidence in the RIRs' legal counsel to
>>> rely on their advice as and when it's needed. Or should do.
>>>
>>>> The way I see your suggestions - arbitration is important to get right,
>>> but I do not see strong consensus  to micro manage this by the community at
>>> this stage.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> + 1 and Yes. I'd strongly recommend leaving it to the relevant people
>> concerned (the formal legal staff, boards and management concerned -- it's
>> in their interest to get devilish details right and they will hopefully do
>> so without trying to out lawyer ICANN).
>>
>> Perhaps a fundamental question... but as time/expertise permits ... I
>> would like a  response to Jim's earlier observation:
>>
>> Emphasis mine:
>>
>> 'FWIW it's not yet clear to me *how or why a contract would be better
>> than the current IANA-RIR arrangements* or be an improvement once NTIA
>> oversight goes away. '
>>
>> Thanks in advance (and back to helping the kids with exam prep!)
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>> ianaxfer mailing list
>>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 