[NRO-IANAXFER] Contract details

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Jan 8 16:39:45 CET 2015


Dear Colleagues,


The CRISP Team discussed at the 9th call, the suggestion raised on the
mailing about keeping to high level principles in our proposal about the
contract between IANA function operator and RIRs.

There was consensus within the CRISP Team for this approach, and we plan
to reflect it on the 2nd draft proposal to be published today, on 8th
Jan 2015.

In the other words, the second draft proposal will not describe whether
the contract should have fixed term or not. This decision is to be made
at the time of implementation, to consider the most appropriate option,
based on the principles described in the proposal.

I hope this clarifies considerations by the CRISP Team and we'll make an
announcement on this list once we publish the second draft proposal.


Regards,
Izumi Okutani
CRISP Team


On 2015/01/07 20:23, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Dear Hans Petter,
> 
> 
> Thank you for this input and suggestion to go back to high level
> principles. It's helpful for our reference that you've listed some
> specific principles as an example.
> 
> We'll discuss more about contract details at the coming 9th CRISP Team
> Teleconference, as reflected in the agenda shared in my earlier post.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Izumi Okutani
> CRISP Team
> 
> 
> On 2015/01/07 19:27, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
>>
>> On 07/01/2015 11:07, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>> I still don't understand why you are opposed to a fixed term
>>> contract.  I don't see any advantage at all to an indefinite contract.
>>
>> I am not opposed to a fixed term contract, but thee are some aspects of
>> a fixed term contraxt that needs to be handled:
>> - automatic renewal or not at the end of the term
>> - notification period to renew the contract/terminate the contract
>> - is it possible to terminate the contract only at the end of the term
>> - is it possible to adjust the SLA or other conditions during the term
>> of the contract
>> - renegotiation means both parties may want to change terms
>>
>> I seriously think we should bring this back to high level principles like:
>>
>> - long term relation for stability
>> - terminate at any point if SLA is not met in x out of the last y months
>> (I usualy have 3 out of last 12 months in my sub
>> - review SLA terms yearly - like the IETF
>> - termination period should be log enough to find a new contractor
>> - clear clauses of transition,
>> - IPR, access to data etc.
>> - clear, precice language easy to read and understand
>>
>> Then I would leave it for the legal team to suggest the best
>> implementation of the principles under the approporiate legislation.
>>
>> I know how I would do it under Norwegian law, but the contract is most
>> likely not going to be under Norwegian Law, so I do not think that would
>> be relevant.
>>
>> The legal teams suggestion would as always need approval from RIR
>> management and RIR boards - thats what why we have them.
>>
>> Some community engagement may also be useful - but some of us may have
>> limited competency in the particular legal framework.
>>
>> -hph
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ianaxfer mailing list
>> ianaxfer at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> 




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list