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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 9 16:05:24 CET 2015


Dear Richard.


Thank you for clarifying your point.

> True.  On the other hand, the current IANA functions contract between NTIA
> and ICANN makes it clear that ICANN should not override the RIR
decisions or
> policies.
>
> I realize that the proposed new contract between NTIA and the RIRs
will say
> the same thing.  But I wonder whether a contract with NTIA somehow carries
> greater weight than a contract with the RIRs.

I think the contract between NTIA and ICANN Board are focused on the
IANA function. This is going to be replaced by the SLA between ICANN and
RIRs.

NTIA makes no decisions nor any involvement today in the global Policy
Development. This is not a part of the IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN.

We don't anticipate a situation where ICANN Board puts more weight on
the contract with RIR than NTIA on global Policy Development process
since NTIA is not involved today.

I hope this clarifies your concern.


Regards,
Izumi


On 2015/01/09 21:50, Richard Hill wrote:
> Dear Izumi,
> 
> Thank you very much for this reply, which I much appreciate.
> 
> Please see embedded comment below.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp]
>> Sent: vendredi, 9. janvier 2015 09:42
>> To: rhill at hill-a.ch; ianaxfer at nro.net
>> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
>> Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
>>
> SNIP
> 
>>> 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).
> 
> True.  On the other hand, the current IANA functions contract between NTIA
> and ICANN makes it clear that ICANN should not override the RIR decisions or
> policies.
> 
> I realize that the proposed new contract between NTIA and the RIRs will say
> the same thing.  But I wonder whether a contract with NTIA somehow carries
> greater weight than a contract with the RIRs.
> 
> What I'm concerned about is that some future ICANN Board might interpret the
> existing Bylaws to the effect that it is its fiduciary duty to override some
> RIR policy.  I think we all agree that this is not what is intended.  So my
> question is whether any changes in the ICANN Bylaws are needed in order to
> make it perfectly clear that this is not what is intended.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> It is indirectely, as mentioned above, if you accept that the contract with
> NTIA might have more weight than the contract with the RIRs.
> 
> SNIP
> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 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