[CRISP-TEAM] Draft mail: CRISP Team review of the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services

[Mwendwa Kivuva]

I also do support the text.

Regards

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
twitter.com/lordmwesh



On 3 March 2016 at 13:24, Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Thanks for drafting this text. I also support the text as proposed.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
>
> On 03/03/16 00:32, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for putting this together. I support the proposed text.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Andrei
> >
> > Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 02/03/16 13:04:
> >> Dear CRISP team colleagues,
> >>
> >> Thank you all for your input on the 4th draft SLA.
> >>
> >> Please find below the draft mail to the global ianaxfer at nro.net list,
> summarising the CRISP team’s review of the latest draft SLA for the IANA
> Numbering Services.
> >>
> >> We ask for your feedback on this mail, and hope 36 hours is sufficient
> amount of time for your review.
> >>
> >> Could we ask you to provide your feedback or any comments you may have
> before 3 March 23:59?
> >>
> >> Thanks and kind regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> Izumi and Nurani
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The CRISP Team has reviewed the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA
> Numbering Services.
> >>
> >> Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
> >>
> https://www.nro.net/news/updated-4th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services
> >>
> >> Firstly, we would like to thank both ICANN and RIRs for sharing all
> comments and updates on the SLA from its Third Draft in a continued
> transparent manner with Internet number community. It is our expectation
> that the completion of this SLA will continue to take place in such a
> transparent and open manner.
> >>
> >> We observe that the 4th Draft SLA is consistent with the number
> community proposal and we support the comments made by RIR staff in working
> towards a final SLA document, addressing the feedback received from ICANN.
> >> We have primarily reviewed whether the SLA sufficiently covers the
> following four key elements of the number community proposal.
> >>
> >> * Service level requirements of the IANA Numbering Services are clearly
> defined to meet the expectations of the RIRs and the Internet numbers
> community
> >> * The RIRs, and the Internet number Community through the Review
> Committee are able to conduct review of the service level, to ensure the
> service level is met in accordance with the SLA
> >> * The RIRs have the ability to terminate the SLA, while at the same
> time ensuring the stability of the IANA Numbering Services, in accordance
> with the number community proposal
> >> * The IPR and rights over data are transferred, in accordance with the
> number community proposal
> >>
> >> In particular, we support the NRO revisions numbered below, which are
> required to ensure consistency with the CRISP proposal. The previously
> proposed text, without the NRO revisions addressing ICANN’s feedback, would
> be inconsistent with the number community proposal as well as the final ICG
> proposal, and therefore not acceptable to the Internet number community.
> >>
> >>
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Draft-SLA_v3-comments-ICANN-20160223.pdf
> >>
> >> Source 15: 8.1- Periodic Review
> >> Source 16: 8.2- Cooperation with review
> >> Source 17: 9- Failure to Perform
> >> Source 20: 10.3 Right not to renew
> >> Source 24: 11.1 - Submission of a plan  (* The RIR Lawyer Comment says
> 11.2.1 - could it be a typo?)
> >> Source 35: 11.2 - Transition to Successor Operator
> >> Source 26: 12.1 - Assignment of IPR and rights to Data
> >>
> >> In addition, we wish to remind the community that the SLA provides the
> Internet number community with its required accountability measures, which
> are clearly represented within the number community proposal; and it is
> therefore essential to the CRISP support for the IANA transition plan.
> >>
> >> The SLA will have no effect until the transition actually takes place
> on 30 September 2016, however it must be considered as an essential
> commitment along with other improvements to ICANN’s accountability. In
> particular the SLA should be executed or otherwise guaranteed, no later
> than the execution of changes to the ICANN Bylaws which have been specified
> by CCWG-accountability.
> >>
> >> The CRISP team wishes to express our concern about the lateness of the
> comments on the SLA made by ICANN, close to four months after the latest
> published version of the SLA by the RIRs.
> >>
> >> We would like to strongly request both ICANN and RIRs to work swiftly
> on providing additional inputs if any, so that the accountability measures
> needed for the Internet number community, can be put into place according
> to the schedule as described above. We trust that ICANN and RIRs continue
> to work constructively and transparently to finalise an SLA that respects
> the wishes of the number community.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20160303/580b3686/attachment.html>