[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Thu Jan 8 18:03:04 CET 2015

Thank you for this.

The new version appears to me to reflect correctly the discussions on this
list, except that (a) in III.A.3.x, a specific arbitration scheme (e.g. ICC
in Bermuda) should be mentioned; and (b) the substantive law applicable to
the contract/SLA should be specified (as stated at the end of IV.B); this is
particularly important because, as I understand it, the contract will be
between ICANN and the five RIRs, so it might be tricky to determine the
applicable substantive law if a dispute actually arises.

In addition, I think that the language in VI needs to be tweaked a bit.
While the RIR processes are indeed bottom up, there wasn't much bottom up in
this particular process, not because of the process, but because there
weren't that many inputs from the bottom.  The RIRs did try to stimulate
inputs, going so far as to send out surveys, but there weren't that many
responses.  So I think that the opening section of VI should reflect that.

Regarding III.A.1, on some of the RIR lists there was some support for
moving the numbers part of the IANA function to the NRO (which could
subcontract it to one of the RIRs, or whatever).  Apparently there was not
sufficient support in CRISP to pursue that option. But I think that some
mention should be made of it, together with an explanation of why that
option was not pursued (other than "we are satisfied with ICANN's
performance to date").

Also, I still wonder whether any changes to the ICANN Bylaws are needed in
order to clarify that number policies are made by the RIRs, not by the ICANN
Board.  That is, is a new contract sufficient, or is there a need to also
change the ICANN Bylaws? If the CRISP team considered this point, then it
should be documented, otherwise it needs to be discussed.

More importantly, I don't think that this version is sufficient to
constitute a proper response to the IGC RFP, because it does not provide the
actual text of the new contract/SLA.  I don't see how the community could
approve this part of the transition plan without seeing the actual proposed
contract. That proposed contract could be provided as an Annex to the
present document.

So I don't think that a response can be sent to the ICG until that Annex
(with the proposed contract) is ready.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]On
> Behalf Of Izumi Okutani
> Sent: jeudi, 8. janvier 2015 17:21
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
> Proposal: Final Call for Comments
> Dear colleagues,
> Please find the second draft of the Internet numbers community's
> response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship
> Coordination Group (ICG).
> This draft has been prepared by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship
> Proposal (CRISP) Team, with considerations of feedback received from the
> global community on <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
> We have incorporated the following key points in the second draft:
>   - Additional description on contract details, review committee and
>     intellectual property rights
>   - Description revised on Section V. NITA Requirements and VI.
>     Community Process for more clarity
>   - No changes are made to key elements of the proposal
> The CRISP Team have considered all comments expressed on
> <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list before the deadline of 5th Jan 2015, and
> would now like to make the final call for comments from the global
> community on the draft proposal, before submitting to the ICG.
> Second Draft proposal:
> ------------------------
>  Clean Version  :
>  <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft>
>  Redline Version:
>  <http:/www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft-change-control>
>  The deadline for providing feedback: Mon, 12 January 2015 23:59 UTC
>  Feedback should be sent to         : <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list
> Community Inputs Considered by the CRISP Team:
> ------------------------------------------
>  You can check the status of the issues raised by the community and
>  proposed the CRISP Team positions at:
>    <http://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015>
> Key dates:
> -----------
>    Second draft to be published	    :  8 Jan 2015
>    Second draft comments close	    : 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC
>    Final proposal to be sent to ICG : 15 Jan 2015
> How to Engage in Discussions:
> -----------------------------
>   All global discussions, for the CRISP team to consider as community
>   feedback, will be conducted at <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list.
>   All the CRISP Team discussions are open to observers.
> Next Step:
> -----------
>   In developing the final draft based on further feedback, the CRISP
>   Team will ensure it has completed considerations of all substantial
>   issues raised by the global community, which are compiled in the
>   published issues list. The proposal will only incorporate issues that
>   the CRISP team believes have received consensus support from the
>   community.
> References:
> ------------
> * Discussions by the CRISP Team
>     Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings,
>     minutes and agendas of all the CRISP Team teleconferences and a
>     public archive of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are
>     available at:
>     https://nro.net/crisp-team
> * Other links:
>   - The ICG request for proposals:
>    <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en>
>   - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region:
>     <http://www.nro.net/timeline-engagement>
>   - First Draft proposal (Edited version)
>     <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1>
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list