[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Richard Hill at "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org"
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Wed Jan 21 07:10:28 CET 2015
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
- 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
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
- 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".
- 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
- 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
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)
- 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.
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.
"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
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.
More information about the CRISP