[CRISP-TEAM] ver.2 Re: CRISP Team position per issues discussed at the 11th call Re: Summary of Discussions point for each issue

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you very much  Andrei for pointing this out.

>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> e. Budget Review
>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(snip)
> In my understanding while we agreed not to address the budget review
> directly, we agreed to include a new principle stating that the contract
> fee will be based on cost recovery.
>
> Inclusion of this principle will also imply that the current
> contribution is outside the scope of the proposed agreement and its fee
> will be negotiated separately. It will also addresse the question of
> budget review, if considered together with the principle vii. Term and
> Termination (RIRs will be able to periodically review the agreement and
> evaluate whether they want to renew the agreement.).


Your understanding is indeed correct.


Here is the updated version of the summary conclusion below

I had the same understanding in my head but wrote the wrong conclusion.
I probably need some sleep shortly :).

Many thanks for your clarification on this point.


Izumi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of actions:

* Text suggestions neeed
  a. Dispute Resolution: Andrei
  b. Details of the SLA (Richard Hill's point covered by Andrei's text
     for a. No other coments need text changes)
  d. Selection of Review Committee: shared by Izumi already
     (See relevant section below)
  e. Budget Review: Izumi

* CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list
  (other than Izumi)

 c. Mou/contract + necessicy of the contract: Craig (done)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispute Resolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Richard Hill)
Speficying a place of jurisdiction:
   (1) the community should give some guidance and
   (2) the community should have the opportunity to comment
       on whatever the RIR legal team comes up with.

  [CRISP Team postion]
   Will add description in the final proposal to the ICG that the SLA
   document will be consulted to the relevant community.

  [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
   Andrei will work on drafting the suggested text.
   This should cover the entire SLA not just the juridiction part.

(Richard Hill)
Dispute resolution:
  [CRISP Team postion]
   Will not make text changes from the second draft below:

   "x. Resolution of Disputes

    Principle:

    Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved
    through arbitration.
    Relevant section(s) in the NTIA contract:
    N/A"

   Reason:
    The CRISP Team is not leagal expert. It is not appropriate to
    sugest a concrete arbitration mechanism at this stage and narrow an
    implementation option with sufficient expertise knowldege.
    It is premature to judge we apply the same arbitration mechanism as
    in the existing MoU, and there was disagreement/concern about the
    use of the word "neutral". There is likely to be more appropriate
    legal word to use, to capture this point.

  [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
  - Izumi Okutani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Details of the SLA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  [CRISP Team postion]
   - Richard Hill's point is partially addressed by the community
     consultation of SLA as decribed in a. "Speficying a place of
     jurisdiction", to be drafted by Andrei
   - Same for Jim Reid's point.


  [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
  - Izumi Okutani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Mou/contract + necessicy of the contract
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pinwar Wong and  Seun Ojedeji)
  - Not sure if the contract is the best available option than MoU, for
    example

  [CRISP Team postion]
  - The contract is the best option for its legal bindings and to
    replace the IANA-NTIA contract
  - No changes in the proposal text

  [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
  - Craig Ng

-------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Selection of Review Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Seun Ojedeji)
Making the suggestion below:

    - uniforum membership requirement
    - uniform selection process

  [CRISP Team postion]
 - Selection requirements should be left to indivisual RIR region, as
   what is considered to be most appropriate for that region
   (rather than one size fits all approach)
 - There should be equal representation from each RIR region

  [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
 - Izumi has sent the text suggestion to the CRISP ML

[Currently suggested text]
 ---
 The selection of the Review Committe members should be conducted in an
 open, bottom up and inclusive mechanims, appropriate for each RIR
 region. There should be equal representation from from each RIR region
 inconstituting the Review Committee.
 ---


(Seun Ojedeji/Alan Barrett)
 Use of the word NRO:
    - Should it be replaced with RIRs?

  [CRISP Team postion]
   - Use the word RIRs for Review Committee Section
   - Desirable to do the same in other sections for consistency but
     need to check with the context of each sentence.

  [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
   - Alan
     (list all the parts which uses the word NRO and suggest an
      alternative if needed)

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


  [CRISP Team postion]
  - Disagree with the suggestion, as this is the Review Committtee,
    only for the number resources function which doesn't need
    coordination with other functions.

  [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
  - Izumi Okutani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Budget Review
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Seun Ojedeji)
 - 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

  [CRISP Team postion]
 - John Curran has provided explanation of the situation today
 - Contribution to ICANN as and organization and fees for IANA operator
   conract is a different element which shoud be understood seperately
 - Explain this is an issue to be discussed between RIRs and IANA
   function operator with consideration to factor such as covering the
   cost

  [CRISP Team volunteer for text suggestion]
  - Izumi Okutani

  [CRISP Team volunteer to explain on the IANAXFER list]
  - Izumi Okutani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------





On 2015/01/13 1:28, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Thank you Izumi, for the very helpful summary!
> 
> Izumi Okutani wrote on 12/01/15 17:08:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> e. Budget Review
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> (Seun Ojedeji)
>>   - 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
>>
>>    [CRISP Team postion]
>>    - No changes wil be made to the proposal text
> 
> In my understanding while we agreed not to address the budget review
> directly, we agreed to include a new principle stating that the contract
> fee will be based on cost recovery.
> 
> Inclusion of this principle will also imply that the current
> contribution is outside the scope of the proposed agreement and its fee
> will be negotiated separately. It will also addresse the question of
> budget review, if considered together with the principle vii. Term and
> Termination (RIRs will be able to periodically review the agreement and
> evaluate whether they want to renew the agreement.).
> 
> Apologies if I misunderstood the outcome of this discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Andrei
>