[CRISP-TEAM] Dispute Resolution and details of SLA: Comment from Richard Hill Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input
woody at pch.net
Mon Jan 12 16:08:58 CET 2015
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> 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.
Agreed. I believe we should be relatively generic here. My preference would be for the “arbitration in a neutral venue” wording.
> 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.
I agree with all three points.
> I support the idea of saying that the RIRs must consult the community consult the community every step of the way.
I do not agree with this. I believe we should, somewhere near the top of the document, express the general sentiment that the RIRs’ authority is derived from their open, bottom-up community participation, but should leave it at that, and not be overly prescriptive, nor beat the “open” drum to incessantly.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the CRISP