[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal
nurani at netnod.se
Mon May 18 15:20:08 CEST 2015
> On 18 maj 2015, at 14:54, 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
> throughout the
> document and others may be discretionary style type edits so please feel
> free to use or disregard as you deem appropriate.
Much appreciated. Thanks!
> 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.
I completely agree with this analysis.
> (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).
Very helpful. Thanks for this clarification.
> (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.
They all make sense to me as well.
Thank you again,
> 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>
>>>>>>> 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.
> <CRISP feedback CWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR-MRA.doc>_______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP