[CRISP-TEAM] Summary of Discussions point for each issue

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon Jan 12 13:56:36 CET 2015

CRISP Team and German,

My apologies for my very last minutes sharing of this before the call.
I compiled all the points raised on the CRISP Team ML and the current 
status of our discussions, in case we want to see them in details at the 

    a. Dispute Resolution
    b. Details of SLA
    c. Mou/contract + necessicity of the contract
    d. Selection of Review Committee
    e. Budget Review

a. Dispute Resolution
(Richard Hill)

Additional description about dispute resolution: arbitration scheme.

- specify the same arbitration clause that is in the present MoU,
   namely "ICC arbitration in Bermuda"  OR
- Alternatively,  "ICC arbitration in a neutral venue"

No agreement on the suggested alternatives.

May be OK to simply state "arbitration in a neutral venue" without 
specifying a scheme.

applicable jurisdicition
(Richard Hill)
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.

General agreement on the direction to cosult the RIR communities about 
the SLA but not at every step.

Two text suggestions.

"RIRs must consult the community before the contract is finalised." OR

  "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".

b. Details of SLA
(Richard Hill)

SLA text/format
  - 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

(Jim Reid)
He is skeptical about the practicality of a single contract between
the IANA operator and 5 RIRs in a post NTIA world.

(Gerard Ross)

Do we want to express support for this point, 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 a community member.

  - it is necessary to distinguish between what is necessary for 
operational certainty and what is negotiable for pragmatic implementation.

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.

  - 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.

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)

c. Mou/contract + necessicy of the contract
(Pindar Wong + Seun Ojedeji (Jim Reid?))

Not sure if the contract is the only option.
There should be  written agreement(s), i.e. it should be documented and
public but it is unclear to me what's the 'best' way to express that
agreement (as it depends on how you define 'best').  Normally that would
evolve from an MoU to form of a legally binding contract and the current
draft, to my eye, uses 'agreement' and 'contract' somewhat interchangeably.
But we're dealing with the Internet that constantly evolves, so 'best' to
me are those mechanism and structures that retain some flexibility. If the
relationship breaks down then there may be greater fires to fight and
arbitration/lawyers may not help you (and might even make things worse). 
I don't seeing anyone going after damages for breach of contract.

As you know the RIR's have been around longer than ICANN. FWIW it's my
view that the series of signed 'ASO MoU's have worked well (1999
<http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-26aug99.htm>, 2004
<http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm>) thus far.

In the 1999 there was something to do with:-

'Nothing in this MOU is to be read as giving the ASO or the Address
Council any role in the contracts between individual RIRs and ICANN.'

So there was always room for formal contracts to emerge if needed. Maybe
now's the time. I don't see the dated ASO MoU as being terminally broken...
so what's going to happen to it? I presume it will be superceded by the

I'm a fan documents that are relatively simple, straightforward and the
MoU approach (as  was also used between the RIR's  with the NRO MoU
<https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding>. )

also recall

'Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to create between or among any of
the parties a partnership, joint venture, or impose any trust or
partnership or similar duty on any party, including as an agent, principal
or franchisee of any other party.'

This will/will not change under contract?   I haven't the foggiest idea.

d. Selection of Review Committee

Selection of Review Committee

Seun Ojedeji has asked us a question on why our draft proposal doesn't
specify the Review Committee will be selected in the manner similar to
NRO NC. He doesn't seem to have further comments for my explaination and
making the suggestion below:

   - uniforum membership requirement
   - uniform selection process

My observation is that this should be left to each RIR region.

However, we can perhaps state a common principle in the selection of the
Review Committe such as :

The selection of the Review Committe members should be conducted in an
open, transparent, bottom up process, appropriate for each RIR region.
There should be equal representation from from each RIR region in
constituting the Review Committee.

Use of the word NRO:

  - Should it be replaced with RIRs?
  - Alternative: (no strong position)
    NRO    (a coordinating body for the five)
    NRO EC (The chief executives of the five RIRs)

Jim Reid:
- Probably needs to be wider than just those drawn from the RIR
- IANA and possibly the IETF's interests should be represented in this
   committee too.

e. Budget Review

Budget Review
I observed there is no section talking about budget review in the second
draft. I understand 800k+USD is contributed annually to ICANN by all
RIRs, may I know if ICANN presents annual budget specifically for this
contribution? If yes who does the review? If no then I suggest it be
incorporated in our proposal and I think it's something NRO NC can do
(yeah yeah I know I may hear the policy vis operation separation thing
again.... Sign.  )

More information about the CRISP mailing list