[CRISP-TEAM] Dispute Resolution and details of SLA: Comment from Richard Hill Fwd: RE: [NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input

[Bill Woodcock]

> 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.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150112/dea4ae99/signature.asc>