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

[Alan Barrett]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> To follow up on item1 from my thread "Some Follow up Items" on a 
> comment from Richard Hill.

> - 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.

As I said in another message, I think that we do not need to 
respond or take any other action.

I don't think we even need to prepare a draft response against the 
possibility that the ICG may in future ask us something.

> 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)

I'll provide brief comments on your main points, but I don't think 
we need to address this in detail.

>----
>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

I don't think he said that we specified something without 
sufficient legal consideration.  I think he said that he wanted us 
to specify more details than we actually specified.

The process issues here are: did the CRISP charter or the ICG RFP 
require us to specify more details than we actually specified; and 
did the CRISP Team adequately consider Richard Hill's position?

> 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)

The process issues here are exactly the same:  did the CRISP 
charter or the ICG RFP require us to specify more details than we 
actually specified; and did the CRISP Team adequately consider 
Richard Hill's position?

> 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.

In my opinion, the plan submittes by the ICG to NTIA must take the 
global multistakeholder community into account.  The numbers part 
of it, as drafted by the CRISP Team, does not need to do that.

--apb (Alan Barrett)