[CRISP-TEAM] Dispute Resolution and details of SLA: Comment from Richard Hill Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input
Kivuva at transworldafrica.com
Mon Jan 12 12:02:20 CET 2015
On the contract, we can say, "It is the expectation of the community that
the contract between RIRs and any future IANA operator shall be drawn with
consultation with the RIR community"
On Jan 12, 2015 11:39 AM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> In general, we should be clear in not incorporating points which we
>> disagree/have concerns in incorporating. If this is the case, we simply
>> describe in Section VI, the point where disagreement was observed, withough
>> incorporating the point, where majority of the community members expressed
>> opposition to address.
> I agree.
> 1) Additional description about dispute resolution
>> a. For arbitration mechanism
>> - specify the same arbitration clause that is in the present MoU, namely
>> "ICC arbitration in Bermuda" OR
>> - Alternatively, "ICC arbitration in a neutral venue"
> b. Specification of the substantive law that will apply to the new
>> - He is suggesting (1) the community should give them some guidance and
>> (2) the community should have the opportunity to comment on whatever the
>> RIR legal team comes up with.
>> - For (1), suggest that the proposal include something to the effect that
>> the contract will include a clause specifying that the substantive law that
>> applies to the contract will be that of a neutral jurisdiction.
>> For 1) a. I'm personally OK to add "ICC arbitration in a neutral venue".
>> (Unless this narrows considerations too much, for RIR legal staff at the
>> time of implementation.)
> We could also say "arbitration in a neutral venue" without specifying
> "ICC". I would be happy with specifying "International Chamber of Commerce
> (ICC) arbitration in a neutral velue" (I think that adding "ICC" probably
> does not impose too much constraint on the negotiations). I think that
> specifying "Bermuda" would be too much detail, so we should not do that.
> For 1)b. I'm OK to include in the proposal "to the effect that the
>> contract will include a clause specifying that the substantive law that
>> applies to the contract will be that of a neutral jurisdiction". (May be
>> obvious but I see no harm)
> I don't think we shoudl say which law will apply. However, I think it's
> fine for us to say that the contract must specify which law will apply. I
> am concerned that specifying that the law must be that of a "neutral
> jurisdiction" will impose too much constraint on the negotiations.
> It seems that there are comments not just Richard, which seem to have
>> expectation that RIR will consult about SLA document with the community.
>> Is this something we want to described in
>> 2) SLA text
>> - A preference is that the draft text be contained in the proposal
>> submitted. OR
>> - As an alternative, he could accept some mechanism whereby the
>> community, including this list, is asked to comment, at a later stage, on
>> the text of the contract/SLA.
>> He could accept some mechanism whereby the community, including this
>> list, is asked to comment, at a later stage, on the text of the
>> What are your thoughts?
>> I have mixed feelings. I have no issue if it is the usual process of
>> document review, under the standard RIR process, before implementing
>> documents. It may also be good to allow a way for RIR staff/board to
>> consult the community, if they need in drafting it. However, if the idea is
>> for the communty to take the main initiative, we may have the same concern
>> as this time, that non legal experts giving inputs.
> I support the idea of saying that the RIRs must consult the community
> consult the community every step of the way.
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRISP