[CRISP-TEAM] Summary of outstanding issues for 14th CRISP Call
Izumi Okutani
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 15 13:33:46 CET 2015
Thank you Alan for the update.
Helpful you have pointed out some of the resolved issues.
I'm not sure if netural is removed -- some what I see with CRISP Team
Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-4.doc
This the updated version and I also commented inline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments have been incorporated in Bill's version 7 except
- Paul's comments "CRISP Team Proposal-BW5- paul edit.doc"
[Confirm with Bill]
- Andrei's text suggestion
"Possible inconsinstency pointed out on IRP for Section III A2 and
IIIA3"
- Alan's comments (CRISP Team Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-4.doc)
- Definitions to be added
"Glossary of Definitions for RFP response" glossary.docx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be confirmed at 14th call:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Use of word should/can
IV.A. Description of operational requirements
a new agreement can --> "can and should be established"
Clarification about the use of wording: (Alan)
- should" be done before the transition (it is a good idea),
- that it "can" be done (it is possible)
--> If no objection at the 14th call, adopt
2. Descripion of arbitration for global PDP
I.A.3 How disputes about policy are resolved
- avoid the word neutral and adop Paul's text
--> If no objection at the 14th call, adopt
3. Text Revision for III.A.2?
Too complex --> Alternative suggeston?
CURRENT:
With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the
expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated
with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA
Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization not associated
with an IANA Numbering Services Operator to hold these assets in
perpetuity will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator
(or operators) be selected in the future . It is the preference of the
Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG
domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA
Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are
used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire
community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF
Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
4. Need update in VI?
Current suggested
- "IANA Draft Proposal 14012015 - MRA"
https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-January/000990.html
--> Do we need more description?
5. Definitions
- Paul's definitons
- Where to put : btn "Abstract" and "0. Proposal type" ? glossary.docx
6. Cover letter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2015/01/15 20:49, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> One issue I would like to ask for volunteer is improvement in text for
>> III.A.2, based on Paul's comment (too complex & not understandaable).
>
> I don't remember that comment. Please could you remind me.
II.A.2. IPR related to the provision of the IANA services remains with
the community
(snip)
Identifying an organization not associated with an IANA Numbering
Services Operator to hold these assets in perpetuity will facilitate a
smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in
the future.
(snip)
"I find this sentence very complex, in fact I find my self reading this
over and over and not really getting the meaning."
I would like to confirm with Paul but this is my understanding from the
word document he sent.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Summary
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Comments have been incorporated in Bill's version 7 except
>> - Paul's comments "CRISP Team Proposal-BW5- paul edit.doc"
>> - Andrei's text suggestion
>> "Possible inconsinstency pointed out on IRP for Section III A2 and
>> IIIA3"
>> - Alan's comments (CRISP Team Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-3.doc)
>> - Definitions to be added
>
> I just sent a new set of comments (CRISP Team
> Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-4.doc).
Yes. I saw it was sent later - I updated to Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-4.doc)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> To be confirmed at 14th call:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 1. Use of word should/can
>>
>> IV.A. Description of operational requirements
>> a new agreement can --> should be established
>>
>> Clarification about the use of wording: (Alan)
>> - should" be done before the transition (it is a good idea),
>> - that it "can" be done (it is possible)
>>
>> --> If no objection at the 14th call, adopt
>
> The current draft says "can and should be established". I support that.
OK. I missed that thanks.
So you say no need to discuss?
Keeping it for now and we'll be quick if no disagreement.
>> 2. Descripion of arbitration for global PDP
>> I.A.3 How disputes about policy are resolved
>> - avoid the word neutral and adop Paul's text
>>
>> --> If no objection at the 14th call, adopt
>
> I think you mean II.A.3.
Yes.
> The word "neutral" is not in section II.A.3 in the BW7 draft. What is
> Paul's text?
I see it in my version, based on "CRISP Team Proposal-BW7-apb-notes-4.doc"
My understanind is the same as Paul:
"I like the second part of this edit but the first was discussed and it
was taken from the ASO MoU. I am not a fan of the word neutral in this
case (even thought your text was pleasing to read I changed this back to
what was agreed). But I remember discussing just using an agreed venue…
or am I making this up??"
II.A.3
In case of disputes where mediation has failed to resolve the dispute,
the ICANN ASO MoU agreement provides for arbitration in a neutral venue
Suggestion from Paul:
In case of disputes where mediation has failed to resolve the dispute,
the ICANN ASO MoU agreement provides for arbitration via International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration in the jurisdiction of
Bermuda or such other location as is agreed between the RIRs and ICANN
III.A.3
10. Resolution of Disputes
Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved through
arbitration in a neutral venue
>> 3. III.A Revise wording "the IANA Numbering Services Operator"
>>
>> Such communication and coordination would be especially vital should the
>> three communities reach different decisions regarding the identity of
>> the IANA Numbering Services Operator going forward .
>>
>> PR comment:
>> Isn���t this more than just the Numbering Services part of IANA.
>> Perhps we
>> need to be more generic here as its related to all 3 communities.
>> Perhaps the identity of IANA. Or lisitng it as an entity that will
>> maintain their specific registires of interest.
>>
>> Possible options:
>> - the IANA Function
>> - the IANA Function Operator
>> - Any other?
>
> PR's comment was in response to a change that Bill made in the BW5
> draft. The BW7 draft now says:
>
> This proposal assumes that specific IANA customers (i.e., the
> numbers community, the protocol parameters community, and the
> names community) will have independent arrangements with the
> IANA Functions Operator related to maintenance of the specific
> registries for which they are responsible
>
> and I think we agreed on that in the mailing list.
OK. Again I missed that so thanks.
>> 4. Text Revision for III.A.2?
>> Too complex --> Alternative suggeston?
>>
>> CURRENT:
>> With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the
>> expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated
>> with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA
>> Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization not associated
>> with an IANA Numbering Services Operator to hold these assets in
>> perpetuity will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator
>> (or operators) be selected in the future . It is the preference of the
>> Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG
>> domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA
>> Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are
>> used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire
>> community. From the Internet Number Community���s perspective, the IETF
>> Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role.
>
> The idea is simple enough. We want to transfer the trademark and domain
> name to the IETF Trust or another neutral body. We are using a lot of
> words to say that, and I am sure it could be simplified. Can andrei
> help?
>
>> 5. Need update in VI?
>>
>> Current suggested
>> - "IANA Draft Proposal 14012015 - MRA"
>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/2015-January/000990.html
>>
>> --> Do we need more description?
>>
>> 6. Definitions
>> Paul has volunteered to work.
>
> We need to agree on where definitions will go. I suggested a new
> section between "Abstract" and "0. Proposal type".
OK.
> I think we should also dicuss the cover letter.
>
Added.
More information about the CRISP
mailing list