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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 9 09:50:41 CET 2015


Dear Pindar,


Thank you for taking your time to read our proposal and sharing your 
comment.

I raised your points within CRISP Team for consideration, including your 
question about judging validity of the existing arbitration process.

Thank you John as well, for providing some reference.


Regards,
Izumi Okutani

On 2015/01/09 11:22, Pindar Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:59 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Pindar Wong <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> It might be worthwhile considering whether in  II.A.3, last para, to
>> provide a data point that over M years there have been N disputes.
>>
>> I have no view with respect to the worthiness of including such a data
>> point,
>> but the answer would vary based on whether the term ���dispute��� includes the
>> normal interchange of views and clarifications as provided for in the
>> Global
>> Policy Development Process, or whether it refers to the situation where the
>> outcome of gPDP process is not satisfactory to the RIRs or ICANN and the
>> formal dispute resolution process contained in the MOU gets invoked.
>>
>
> Sorry... again, I should have been more clear.  It's difficult to keep
> up... rushed mornings for volunteer work doesn't help ;)
>
> I'm referring to the latter i.e. how many times since 2004 have the RIRs
> and ICANN needed to go to Arbitration. Methinks zero.
>
> To me that reflects that the existing mediation mechanisms are working
> well. What prompted this thought was the line 'It is also worth noting
> that' w.r.t. the participation in the ATRT bit.
>
>
>
>>
>> Over the years, there have been a small number requests from ICANN for
>> clarification prior to global number resource policy ratification; I would
>> estimate
>> this to be 3 to 5 cases (it would require some research to establish the
>> precise
>> number), and in all cases supplying the requested information resulted in
>> prompt
>> policy ratification.  There have been no policy ���disputes���, i.e.
>> situations which
>> necessitated invocation of the dispute resolution process.
>>
>>
> That's great!
>
> There maybe a downside though to the above, perhaps something to be
> considered as the details of SLA's are being drafted --- how do you know
> when mediation fails that your arbitration processes (as envisaged) work,
> under current assumptions, if they've never been tested?  Sorry, I've no
> idea on that one... other than perhaps asking others with related
> experience how different arbitration centres worked for them.
>
>
>> Thanks for the comments on the proposal!
>>
>
> One tries... it should be noted that my views are mainly historic...
> probably out-of-date and time ;)
>
> Thanks for your patience. I'll try writing longer emails but typing is
> tough for me these days.
>
> Gotta go.
>
> p.
>
>
>
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list