[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal
john.sweeting at twcable.com
Mon May 18 15:14:10 CEST 2015
Agree with these comments
On 5/18/15, 8:54 AM, "Michael Abejuela" <mabejuela at arin.net> wrote:
>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
>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
>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>
>>>>>>> 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.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
More information about the CRISP