[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments
rhill at hill-a.ch
Fri Jan 9 19:46:42 CET 2015
Please see below.
Thanks and best,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
> Sent: vendredi, 9. janvier 2015 19:32
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> Cc: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
> StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments
> On Jan 9, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> > Dear John,
> > Thank you for this detailed response. The detail of the
> arbitration clause
> > is only one of the missing details.
> > As I said before, I know a bit about arbitration, so, in my
> view, saying "we
> > will use arbitration" is not sufficient. There are many forms of
> > arbitration, some of which are not suitable. I did indicate suitable
> > choices: ICC arbitration in Geneva, Paris, London, Vienna, Stockholm, or
> > Bermuda.
> If you, as a community member, feel that IANA stewardship transition
> plan will not be successful unless the community takes a stand on a
> particular arbitration mechanism, then it is incumbent upon you to
> present your preferred position and rationale for its inclusion to
> the community... To date, that has been (and remains) quite lacking.
As you can see above, I have stated that "we will use arbitration" is not
sufficiently precise. That is a rationale. Are you saying that it is an
insufficient rationale, or are you saying that it is an incorrect rationale?
My preferred position is ICC arbitration in Geneva, but I'm OK with ICC
arbitration in Paris, London, Vienna, Stockholm or Bermuda.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
More information about the ianaxfer