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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 9 09:42:02 CET 2015


Dear Richard,


Thank you for your comment on the second draft proposal.

As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail as well, it's helpful that you have
shared your input early, which gives time to confirm and consider your
input.

I have raised each point within CRISP Team for discussions.

In the meantime, I'd like to respond to one the points, which CRISP Team
had already discussed our position. This needs to be double checked by
the team (which is in process) but I'd like to share a summary of our
position at this point.

> 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.

CRISP Team did discuss this point and thank you for confirming about this.

We did not included it as a part of our proposal because NTIA doesn't
play a role in global Policy Development Process (gPDP).

I wouldn't say there are no possibilities that RIR community feel the
need for this at some point in time, but this is not related to the
NTIA's stewardship transition.

If RIR communities believe this should be reconsidered, it should be
discussed under the standard gPDP process, and would not be appropriate
for CRISP Team to break this existing bottom-up process, and propose
something not related to NTIA stewardship transition.

As to your point we should document what we discussed (even if we are
not proposing it), I'll bring this up to the CRISP Team for discussions.


I hope this clarifies what we discussed about the need of changes to the
ICANN Bylaws.


Regards,
Izumi Okutani



On 2015/01/09 2:03, Richard Hill wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> -----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