[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal

Michael Abejuela mabejuela at arin.net
Mon May 18 14:54:43 CEST 2015

Hello CRISP Team,

My apologies on this delayed comment, I look forward to speaking with you
on the call shortly.  Attached is a redline reflecting some of my
suggested comments after Andrei¹s redline draft. Some are for consistency
throughout the
document and others may be discretionary style type edits so please feel
free to use or disregard as you deem appropriate.  On the more substantive
side, I do have the following comments:

(1) PTI Board composition - I agree that a statement regarding a very
limited role and scope of a PTI Board makes sense.  On a side note, any
Board composition may be affected by the type of entity that the
CWG-Stewardship suggests which it has not yet done to my knowledge. I
believe it has been suggested that it could be a nonstock corporation, a
for-profit corporation, a limited liability company, etc. To fully
understand their proposal, it would be helpful to ascertain exactly what
type of corporate entity they suggest.

(2) Budget - to help in the discussions on this, the intent is to have a
fixed maximum fee.  The first subsection in the draft SLA dealing with
this was meant to remain consistent and faithful to the CRISP team
proposal SLA principle stating:

"The fee is based on costs incurred by the IANA Numbering Services
Operator in providing the IANA Numbering Service.²

However, the following subsection capping the cost at $100 was meant to be
a placeholder for any maximum reimbursement that may be negotiated.  It
could be clearer in the sense of it would be a cap ³per year²; however it
was meant to protect the Numbers community in terms of cost.  Essentially,
the RIRs would negotiate with the IFO on the maximum reimbursement amount
so that, the IFO is responsible for charging a fee based on cost recovery;
however, in no event would the RIRs be liable for a fee for the IANA
Numbering Service beyond a fixed amount.  In a rare and unlikely
circumstance, if cost recovery called for a lower amount on the fee, the
RIRs theoretically could pay less than the ³cap².  I hope this
clarification assists the team on considering this issue, and we welcome
any feedback on this point (with my SLA drafting team hat on).

(3)  With regard to IPR, my minor edits was more meant to clarify the
statements in the document hopefully in line with CRISP team sentiment.


Michael R. Abejuela
Associate General Counsel
3635 Concorde Parkway
Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151
(703) 227-9875 (p)
(703) 263-0111 (f)
mabejuela at arin.net

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, copy, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited.   If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message.

On 5/18/15, 5:07 AM, "Andrei Robachevsky" <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:

>Izumi Okutani wrote on 18/05/15 09:32:
>> On 2015/05/18 14:55, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>> On May 18, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>> How so?  The SLA says:
>>>> ? 5.1  Obligation to reimburse cost
>>>> The RIRs shall reimburse the Operator for the direct cost of the
>>>> work, namely the costs necessarily and reasonably incurred in the
>>>> performance of the work, and actually paid, by the Operator.
>>>> ? 5.2  Maximum Reimbursement
>>>> Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall
>>>> reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One
>>>> Hundred Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing
>>>> by all Parties.
>>> Not only does it not say ³fixed fee,² I see no possible
>>> interpretation of it that could yield a fixed fee.  It¹s a capped
>>> direct cost contract, not a fixed fee contract.  You see the words
>>> ³reimburse direct cost² and the word ³maximum² correct?
>>> If it were a fixed fee contract, you¹d see the words ³fixed fee²
>>> not ³direct cost."
>> I see your point Bill as I expressed my previous e-mail. I assume
>> what Nurani was saing that it is not contradictory to the intention
>> and the spirit but I agree with you it is not clearly described in
>> the curent SLA that way.
>> Would it be agreeable to describe it as the intention of how we would
>> expect to be implemented? (while this may not be clearly stated so in
>> the curent SLA draft)?
>> Any objections/concerns to go in this direction?
>I think this is the way to go. In fact, the message in this section of
>our response is unclear. I guess we are trying to say that we want to
>pay for the number services as a customer and only on a cost-recovery
>basis, and therefore we do not need to be involved in the budget
>discussions, but this has to be better articulated.
>I also attach the doc with a few minor comments.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP feedback CWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR-MRA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: CRISP feedback CWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR-MRA.doc
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150518/57c2be54/CRISPfeedbackCWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR-MRA.doc>

More information about the CRISP mailing list