[CRISP-TEAM] [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Invitation to comment on RIRs' draft SLA

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

I bet we have see Adiel's forward from the ICANN board on the SLA.

Some of my few comments inline ..

On 15 June 2015 at 16:13, Adiel Akplogan <adiel.akplogan at icann.org> wrote:

> FYI,
>
> On June 14, ICANN Board through its Chair has submitted the following
> comments on the Draft SLA to the NRO Chair.
>
> Thank you.
>
> - a.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *Comments on *
> *The draft RIR Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services*
>
>
> Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the SLAs as put out for public
> comment by the RIR community. We recognize the significant commitment of
> effort by the Numbers community in producing both the response to the ICG
> RFP and this document, and look forward to further progress.
>
>
> Please note that these comments are not a legal review of the proposed
> SLA by ICANN and that such review will only be possible when ICANN and the
> number community enter in formal negotiation on the final version of the
> contract. The comments below seek to highlight some questions with regards
> to the approach of the SLA. We are happy to expand and discuss further with
> the community and continue to comment as the SLA terms are further
> developed.
>
>
> With regards to the draft provided, we have some observations that lead to
> the questions below:
>
>
> ·      Has it been considered that there may be an incompatibility
> between clause 10.2 of the SLA (termination at will) and the escalation
> mechanisms elsewhere in the document? In this context, has the 12 May 2015
> question posed by Vint Cerf to both the IETF/IAB and the RIRs/NRO, which
> asked “Is there a capability within the NRO or the collective RIRs to
> perform the functions now provided by the IANA function within ICANN? Could
> this capability serve as a back up in the event that ICANN's IANA service
> to the RIRs is not meeting performance requirements?” been considered as
> part of an appropriate escalation mechanism?
>
>
> ·      Have the requirements as set out by NTIA, specifically the
> requirement that any model not be government run, been considered?
>
>
Are we required to have the quoted clause on the number community SLA? "The
proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an
inter-governmental organization solution.The proposal must not replace the
NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization
solution"

Should we say in the SLA that it is a reflection of the community input,
and is compatible with the proposal which has a clause capturing this item
"V.E. Not a government-led or inter-governmental solution"


> ·      We have noted that the document has taken an approach of
> identifying acceptable levels of service, rather than identifying the
> services ICANN, as the IANA functions provider, must implement on behalf of
> the numbering community. Will it be possible for the final SLA to clearly
> list they key services expected from ICANN, as the IANA functions operator?
>
>
>
> ·      Can the SLA include mutual accountability mechanisms for both
> ICANN and the number community, to ensure ongoing accountability, openness
> and transparency, to be reflected in the SLAs for both parties?
>
>
Are SLAs developed for accountability of both parties or are they developed
for one way accountability (service provision) to the client (RIRs) by the
service provider (IFO).


> ·      The services provided by the IANA functions are part of managing a
> shared global resource and as such, means there are shared
> responsibilities.  Could the SLA provide for a framework for such shared
> responsibilities? Can the SLA list key obligations or responsibilities of
> the RIRs in managing these resources at the regional level so as to ensure
> the overall stability and accuracy of the global number identifiers
> registry?
>
> Are these shared responsibilities between the RIRs or also includes the
two other operational communities? Should the shared responsibilities
understanding be in the SLA with IFO or they can be in a separate MOU at
the NRO level.

Was the SLA supposed to capture accountability and obligations of RIRs or
the accountability and responsibility is a separate track? Refer to
https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix

>
> To provide clarity in defining our working relation post transition, we
> would like to suggest to separate the SLA that governs the Services
> provided through the IANA function contract from a new document to be
> drafted (MoU, AoC) that defines the framework for cooperation and mutual
> commitment to accountability and some binding principles.  We believe that
> loading the SLA with everything may be counterproductive in the long term.
>
> Crafting an MoU/AoC is something to consider, although it brings us back
to the initial debate before the community settled to have an SLA with the
IFO.

Sincerely

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150615/9722e619/attachment.html>