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

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jan 9 17:09:10 CET 2015

Dear Richard,

Let me share what we discussed at the 10th CRISP Team call today.

> 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.

As described in our proposal document, we are listing high level
principles in our proposal and the details of the implemetantion is for
the RIR staff to make the decision.

Incorporating your suggestion would be adding more details about
arbitration than other items, where we weren't able to identify
additional needs more than other items.

It's important we highlight and explain items and conditions which needs
to give specific guidance, but how to handle arbitration is not an usual
item and RIR legal team would have more expertise to consider what would
be the best arrangement.

> 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.

This observation seems to be different from observation of some CRISP
Team members. There were clarification from some RIR regions about the
active discussions in their regional process.

It was also noted that this is an issue which the community members may
not explicitly express support and trust CRISP Team members to work on,
The fact that CRISP Team members are selected representatives from the
region is a way the community delegates this work to the members are
representing their opinion. If there are concerns, people will comment
and raise but we are not observing this.

There was no agreement with the observation that not many inputs from
the bottom means this was not supported bottom up.

> 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").

The element where support was confirmed in all RIR regions was stability
and continuity of the IANA operation, which makes it important that we
continue with the current IANA operator, which is functioning in term of
stability as well.

Although this wasn't clearly confirmed there may have been comments in
some RIR region which suggested the option of the NRO serving as the
IANA operator, but no consensus in any of the region to do so at this
time. It would be odd for CRISP Team members to add an option which
consensus was not observed in any region.

Additionally, one of the SLA principles sets the possibility of changing
IANA operator if needed. This seems to sufficiently address it if, there
are needs confirmed in the future to change the IANA operator (which may
be NRO, or may be another entity).

> 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
> 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.

I believe I replied to this in my earlier post.

> 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
> contract. That proposed contract could be provided as an Annex to the
> present document.

There was disagreement that we do not meet the requirement of ICG RFP
unless we define an SLA.

The draft decribes items and principles to be incorporated in SLA, which
should give sufficient idea about the key points which will be
considered in developing SLA.

The ICG RFP does say "in as much detail as possible" (under "Required
Proposal Elements") and "If your community is proposing to replace one
or more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement
should be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B
should be described for the new arrangements."  (section III. "Proposed
Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements").  Saying
there will be a contract including an SLA satisfies the requirement, and
listing principles for the Contract/SLA adds more than enough detail.

Another point I'd like to share, which is considered important among
CRISP Team members is, this will be stepping into someone's
responsibility (in this case, RIRs) where the CRISP Team is not mandated
to do.

It is the contract to be exchanged between RIRs and IANA operator.
CRISP Team may list items considered to be impportant  but developing
the actual SLA is the role of RIRs legal team.

I see all our conclusions are not agreeing to incorporate your commetns
but I hope this sufficient explaination about its reasons.

Thank you again for taking your time to send us the comments.

Izumi Okutani

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list