[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon May 18 01:08:09 CEST 2015
Many thanks Bill and Nurani for taking your time to review the comments.
I agree with the suggested edits and I just have one comment on the part where the suggested change was describing about the ability to seperate the functions, which I have commented in the word document as below:
"I am not sure if we want to focus on the ability to have separate operators. My intention was simply to request for separate arrangements on the SLA and the Review Committee."
Please see inline for my comments.
On 2015/05/18 5:56, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>> On 17 maj 2015, at 06:37, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>>> On May 16, 2015, at 3:32 AM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>> Please find attached a draft for our response on the CWG proposal.
>>> I will add in the Annex, Michael and John's analysis on the comparison between the numbers and the names proposal.
>>> I would like to call for your feedback on any other points we should make.
>>> The language is not brushed up and needs more work. I welcome your edits on the language as well.
>> Please find my suggested edits, primarily of the grammar. Of substantive issues, the main ones for me are these:
> Thanks. I have also included my comments in the attached document.
>> - PTI staff serving as PTI Board would be a very unusual structure. I just wanted to make sure that if we���re actually suggesting that, we have a rationale.
> I suggest not designing the solution in this response, but simply state that we want a board that is minimal is its role, scope and mandate. (Or something or rather.)
Good point, I support this.
I basically wanted to give direction on the approach we support (minimum to give legal framework needed for the PTI) and also to avoid the need to select representatives from the numbers community to the Board.
I am good as long as these points are clear.
>> - It says our SLA is for fixed-fee, which is definitely _not_ what the current Draft SLA says. So that whole paragraph either needs to be substantially changed, or we need to substantially change the Draft SLA. But they���re mutually-contradictory right now.
> I don't believe they are contradictory, however, I do think the SLA needs to be clearer. (But this is feedback we should provide to the RIRs as part of our analysis of the draft.)
> The fixed fee was always my understanding and also my reading of the draft SLA. When consulting the RIPE NCC legal counsel Athina, she confirmed this. The contract has a fixed fee that does not exceed $100. This fee may change in negotiations with ICANN but it will be a fixed fee. (It needs a time period defined which is missing.)
> We receive a service, for that we have an SLA, in the SLA the fee is set. There is a review mechanism to make sure the service is provided according to the SLA.
> The financial contribution the RIRs are currently providing ICANN has never in any way been tied to the IANA service. We do not want to fix these two things.
> I see no reason for this fee to be regulated anywhere outside the SLA.
Yes this is consistent with what I think would be good as a way forward. Thanks for describing this very well Nurani.
What do others in the CRISP Team think about it?
I also see Bill's point on his observation that it is not described in the current draft of the SLA and happy to review the text which reflects our intention a the same time ensure we are accurate about the current SLA description. Thanks for pointing this out.
>> - The paragraph on the Review Team is not clearly-worded enough for me to unambiguously understand its intent. I���m guessing that the intent is to say that we have our own Review Committee for Numbers SLA, so we don���t need to also sit on the Review Team for Names SLA. If that���s correct, let me know, and I���ll provide wording that I consider unambiguous.
> Well, we recognise that there might be the need for coordination and communication, but yes, other than that, we don't need to have representatives on the Review Team as we have our own review mechanisms.
Indeed. Welcome any edits to be more clear about our position if needed.
>> Otherwise, looks great! Thanks for the hard work!
> Indeed. Thanks Izumi!
> One question, do we need to be clearer about that this is purely an analysis by the CRISP team, based on the differences we see between our proposals (knowing the discussion that has formed our proposal), and that this is not the result of a consultation with the numbers community? Or do you think that is clear enough? (Open question, happy to hear what others feel!)
This is a good point worth clarifying. I have attempted to clarify in my additional description in the word document as below:
Please note that this input represents the discussions and view of the CRISP Team and we do not intend to present all views of individuals in the numbers community. To encourage inputs from the numbers community outside the CRISP Team, we have made a call to the numbers community to submit comments individually if they wish, just as the CRSIP Team would be doing, through the public comments process of CWG-Stewardship.
We'll discuss more at the coming call and I also continue to welcome your feedback online before the call.
>> <CRISP feedback CWG-02BW.doc><CRISP feedback CWG.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP feedback CWG-02BW-NN-IO.doc
Size: 43008 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the CRISP