[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Richard Hill at "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org"

[Izumi Okutani]

CRISP Team,


To follow up on item1 from my thread "Some Follow up Items" on a comment
from Richard Hill.

 - All of Richard Hill's point is repetition of what he claimed on the
   IANAXFER list.

 - According to my understanding, "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org" is an e-mail
   address to submit comments about the ICG charter. It is not a
   proper channel to submit comments about the proposal, and this
   doesn't seem to be a part of the formal process.

 - Is it questionable therefore whether it's appropriate for us as
   the CRISP Team to directly respond this e-mail at
   "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org", which is not a part of the formal process.

With this observation as basis, my suggestion is for us to prepare our
positions to Richard's points (nothing new) but do not share this,
unless the ICG explicitly ask us for clarification about this from the
CRISP Team.

We only respond, if there is a request from the ICG for clarification
and we don't respond directly to Richard Hill at "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org".
(as we will be responding to the comment outside the formal process if
we respond to Richard)

What are your thoughts?



----
Richard Hill's points and draft responses:
(If requested by the ICG to clarify)

1) Insufficient details on dispute resolutions.
   The CRISP Team does not have legal experts and made
   considerations without sufficient legal considerations

Response:
    - Regarding dispute resolution, we asked a question on the IANAXFER
      list "If there is something irregular about dispute resolution
      for this contract, which the regular considerations for dispute
      resolutions and arbitrations is not sufficient".
     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000280.html

  -  For the question mentioned above, need for special consideration
     was not clarified on the mailing list.
     The CRISP Team considered the current guidance in "IANA
     Service Level Agreement Principles" in "10. Resolution of
     Disputes" provides sufficient guidance, given dispute resolution
     through arbitration is not an usual practices of resolving disputes

   - The CRISP Team does have legal experts in the team as its members
     Feedback was provided by team members with legal expertise when
     covering issues

   - The team as a whole is not a team of legal experts designated
     to draft the contract, which was the intention of the reponse
     quoted by Richard Hill
     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html


2) Insufficient details  on the SLA text
  (This is likely to be related to the following point expressed by
  Richard Hill on the IANAXFER mailing list)

   SLA
    - Take the following steps:
  (1) the community should give them some guidance and
  (2) the community should have the opportunity to comment on whatever
       the RIR legal team comes up with including those on this list.

Response:
The last paragraph of Section III.A.3 (first paragraph of P.11) of the
proposal covers this point.

   - Guidance in (1) is provided in "IANA Service Level Agreement
     Principles" of Section III.A.3 of our proposal.
   - It clarifies RIRs will consult the community in drafting the SLA.
     See quote:

"It is expected that the RIRs, as the contractual party of this
agreement, will draft the specific language of this agreement. During
the drafting process, the RIRs are expected to consult their respective
RIR communities, and that the drafting process will be guided by the
principles listed below. References to relevant sections of the current
NTIA agreement are also noted, as it is expected the new agreement will
share many of the same contractual goals and mechanisms."


3) Process Concern
The final transition plan is supposed to reflect the consensus of the
global multistakeholder community, not the consensus of the RIRs or the
RIR communities.


Response:
Objections were observed to Richard's Hill's points on the
<ianaxfer at nro.net> by other members of the community. We therefre
observed no support to incorporate the points being raised.

Furthermore, the CRISP Team explained the above position of the CRISP
Team on <ianaxfer at nro.net>. No further concerns were expressed from
Richard Hill nor anyone else on the position of the CRISP Team explained.


----

Izumi