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

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Mon Jan 12 11:04:51 CET 2015

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]On
> Behalf Of gerard.ross at mac.com
> Sent: dimanche, 11. janvier 2015 22:36
> To: ianaxfer at nro.net
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship
> Proposal: Final Call for Comments


> I understand and appreciate Richard Hill’s concerns that the 
> CRISP proposal does not include a comprehensive contract, but I 
> believe that those concerns represent a misunderstanding of the 
> Internet model of decision making and perhaps bear the hallmarks 
> of other, more institutional governance paradigms. 

Maybe I've got it wrong, but I was under the impression that the Internet functions on the basis of agreements between private parties.  Many of those agreements are contracts (in the legal sense of the term) whether or not they are written (in most jurisdictions, contracts for most things can be formed verbally or by conclusive acts).

So I think that the question is not whether or not there is an agreement or a contract, the question is the level of detail that should be specified in the agreement or contract.

The same question arises with respect to technical standards: some are very detailed, some are less detailed.  In my experience, there is no general rule to determine what the "best" level of detail is: it depends on the specific circumstances.

> As I’ve always understood the bottom up process, the community of 
> interest discusses and develops consensus on a set of principles 
> for the topic at hand. The specific implementation of those 
> principles into operational details is delegated to a working 
> group, committee, or organisation. That “delegate” reports openly 
> and regularly, so that the community can review and refine.

Yes, and I don't have a problem with that, on the contrary, I think that that is an excellent way to work.

But what I'm missing so far is the step in which the community will be aksed to revew and refine the contract worked out by the RIR legal team.


> In the current context – especially in the available timeline – 
> the focus must remain on the essential principles of numbering 
> resource stewardship. To over-specify the implementation would 
> risk derailing the essentials.

I don't see how saying something like "ICC arbitration in a neutral venue" and "the substantive law of a neutral jurisdiction" would over-specify the implementation.

> For the CRISP group to put forward “the” contract by which the 
> transition must proceed would put this process at risk (not to 
> mention that it would be an act of unilateralism, vis-a-vis the 
> IANA operator, that is antithetical to the Internet model).
> Richard Hill noted his understanding that the ICANN lawyers would 
> accept a contract proposed by the community. I’m not sure we can 
> take that for granted. 

As I understand this process, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a process that would result in a transition plan. ICANN chartered the ICG to do that, and the ICG issued an RFP.  CRISP is responding to that RFP.

So the CRISP response (assuming it does not conflict with the other responses) will be included in the plan that ICG presents to ICANN and that ICANN transmits to NTIA.

That is, the process is producing the plan that NTIA requested.  So I don't see why ICANN would not accept the result of that process.


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list