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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Jan 9 20:29:20 CET 2015


sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 9 Jan 2015 13:51, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> 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
>
> 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.
>
Can I hope you are joking with the statement above @Richard :-) otherwise I
did not know a legally binding contract can differ in the manner you
described above... Perhaps you care to further explain with
scenario/instance

> 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.
>
If it is not possible currently then it wouldn't be possible in future.

Cheers!

> >
> > 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
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150109/3b95017f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list