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

[Izumi Okutani]

On 2015/01/21 17:39, Alan Barrett wrote:
> 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.

OK. I'm good with that.

>> 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.

Noted.

I responded to your comments on the points I felt I wanted to clarify
but I'm fine to start considering response as you suggest, once there is
clear request from the ICG.

(and basically in agreement with what you say)

>> ----
>> 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.

This is the part I was refering to.
(I agree in the IANAXFER list, he didn't mention sufficient legal
consideration)

Having said that, I am also not sure if we should repond to every
details of his e-mail, so happy to skip reponse to this part.

(in case we need to respond)

"Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP mailing
list (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute
resolution. The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had
appropriate legal expertise and it chose not to request outside legal
expertise, see:

 https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html

As a result, the proposal[1] submitted by CRISP to the ICG lacks
sufficient detail with respect to those issues. "

> 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?

Yes. We can point this out. I still would like to say that we also
addressed the point raised by Richard in addition to this.

>> 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.

This may be the case but I am not sure if we want to emphasize that too
much as we want to be inclusive (and don't want to sound as though we
don't care about people who are not from the numbers commiunity).

So my preference is still to say that we observed sufficient consensus
on the IANAXFER list. (in case we need to respond to the ICG)



Izumi