[CRISP-TEAM] Suggested text -III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee
Nurani Nimpuno
nurani at netnod.se
Tue Jan 13 10:13:22 CET 2015
On 13 jan 2015, at 05:07, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> Below is the suggested text to be added in III.A.4. Establishment of a
> Review Committee, the last paragraph.
>
> ---
> 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.
> ---
Fully support the inclusion of this paragraph as agreed at yesterday's teleconference, with the slight editorial change:
~~
The selection of the Review Committe members should be conducted in an open, bottom-up and inclusive manner,
~~
Nurani
> (Same as what I sent yesterday included in the note below)
>
> On 2015/01/13 1:44, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> Re: ver.2 Re: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team position per issues discussed
>> at the 11th call Re: Summary of Discussions point for each issue
>>
>> 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