[NRO-IANAXFER] What would be helpful when sharing your input

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Sat Jan 10 21:52:40 CET 2015


Dear Richard and all colleagues,


Thank you for all the inputs. I'd like to share my observations at this
point on the current state of discussions related to the possible issues
Richard has raised.

It has not been discussed in the CRISP Team and please take this as my
personal observation, which I plan raise how we consider each issue
within the CRISP Team based on what I described below, if no further
feedback,

-----
1) Add more details of dispute resolution (III A.3.x.)

Some comments expressed support that arbitration is an important area to
get it right. Description is there in the second draft as ""Disputes
between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved through
arbitration."

However, there is disagreement about the level of details required.

Perhaps, Richard's concern is that if we are not specific enough, we may
have the dispute resolution and arbitration process which is not
appropriate for the RIRs (and the IANA operator). I agree it is
important to ensure this not to happen.

At the same time, it seems to me that it is common consideration for the
mechanims and place of dispute resolution and abitrabtion to be  neutral
to all parties, applicable in all appropriate jurisdictions and
pragmatic to be able to use the process. I'm sure RIR legal team will
take this point into consideration without having to explicitly say so
(as several other people have expressed).

If there is something irregular about dispute resolution for this
contract, which the regular considerations for dispute resolutions and
arbitrations is not sufficient, I can see it may be helpful be explicit
about the principles to consider it. If there is any point which require
special considerations in addition to standard considerations for
dispute resolution, please raise it. I'll then bring it up within the
CRISP Team for discussions.

Thank you Richard for bringing this point for the attention.
I hope my description above addresses your concern.


-----
2) Low input and discussions may not be bottom up (while the process
   itself is bottom up) should be described in Section VI

Several comments expressed that the discussions were bottom up, contrary
to this observation.

It probably is fair to say this situation reflects that our community
tends to speak up when there are concerns.

Having not many comments doesn't mean it is not supported bottom up, and
it is because they are comfortable with the proposal and doesn't feel
the need to speak out. In addition, several comments were expressed
which disagreed with the observation about low inputs.

If no further inputs, my plan is to suggest within the CRISP Team to
keep the description of Section VI as it is.


-----
3) Why the option of having NRO as an operator is not considered
The explanation was given from the CRISP Team that stability was the
imporant

There is a question raised from Richard about the stability of the IANA
operation, given there is inconsistency in ARIN WHOIS and IANA record.

John Curran as the CEO of ARIN does not find inaccuracy and confirming
with Richard about what inconsistency Richard observes.

-----
4) Change in ICANN Bylaws for global PDP
Explanation was given that the current NTIA contract covers the IANA
operation.

I don't currently observe any issues related to this point which needs
further considerations by the CRISP Team nor change in our second draft.
Please let me know if there is something which needs consideration by
the CRISP Team.

-----
5) Community cannot approve this part of the transition plan without an
   SLA text

Richard is not comfortable unless draft of SLA text will be annexed as
reference in the proposal to be submitted to the ICG, for RIRs'
consideration as the devil is in the details.

Several comments expressed that the community is comfortable with
leaving the details to RIRs staff, as long as the principles to be
included in the SLA are described. An observation was made that the
number resources communities are not lawyers and better to leave this
part to legal experts.

It seems to me that both Richard and people who claim to delegate the
details to the executives of the RIRs and its legal team share the same
motivation: to get the right contract which appropriately serves the
number resources community.

When thinking about what would be the best way which helps us develop
the contract which effectively serves this purpose, it seems that it is
the best to leave it to experts, i.e., RIR legal team, who will be
explicitly gather for this purpose of developing the SLA (the CRISP Team
has members with legal expertise but the Team as a whole is not a group
of legal experts who are called for this purpose). This allows the
contract to be considerd from several options of implementations per
principle raised and describe what best suits the purpose.

I agree with Richard on the point that it is common practice for
business people takes a look at the contract developed by a legal
expert. In this case, RIR executives and Board will serve this role, as
John Curran has described. RIRs should know what serves them best in
what they need as the direct stakholers in this function.

Would this summary address your concern Richard?

If it doesn't, it would be helpful if you could describe what would the
concern you have with this approach, in developing the contract which
best suits the needs for the number resources function.
-----

Best Regards,
Izumi Okutani



More information about the ianaxfer mailing list