[CRISP-TEAM] ver.2 Re: CRISP Team position per issues discussed at the 11th call Re: Summary of Discussions point for each issue
Paul Rendek
rendek at ripe.net
Tue Jan 13 09:51:17 CET 2015
Hello All,
Thanks Izumi, this is a great reflection of our 11th call.
I agree with all your noted points.
Cheers,
Paul
On 1/12/15 4:44 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
More information about the CRISP
mailing list