[CRISP-TEAM] Draft comment to the CWG proposal

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi all,

Thank you all for another constructive meeting. 

First of all, thank you Michael for agreeing to holding the pen once again. I believe we agreed on the following timeline for our comments on the CWG draft at our meeting:

UTC1600 Michael will share the draft reflecting comments  
UTC1800 Deadline for comments by the CRISP team on Michael's draft 
UTC1900 Izumi to submit the CRISP team comments to the CWG-Stewardship 
UTC1930 Izumi to share CRISP team comments to the CWG-Stewardship, with the global ianaxfer list

Kind regards,

Nurani



> On 18 maj 2015, at 15:20, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
>> 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,
> 
> Nurani
> 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> -Michael
>> 				
>> 			
>> 		
>> 	
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Michael R. Abejuela
>> Associate General Counsel
>> ARIN
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Andrei
>> 
>> <CRISP feedback CWG-02BW-NN-IO-AMR-MRA.doc>_______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp