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

Pindar Wong pindar.wong at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 11:21:56 CET 2015


Thanks Richard for your clarification.

p.


On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  Dear Pindar,
>
> No, a contract is not the only way forward, but (1) the NTIA placed some
> restrictions on the post-transition situation and (2) proposals for the NRO
> to take over the IANA function didn't get much support.  Given that, it
> seems to me that  a contract is the only sensible way forward.  And I
> haven't seen any concrete suggestions for alternatives.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Pindar Wong [mailto:pindar.wong at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* samedi, 10. janvier 2015 23:47
> *To:* rhill at hill-a.ch
> *Cc:* Jim Reid; ianaxfer at nro.net
> *Subject:* Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
> StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
>
>>  Regarding the question "it's not yet clear to me *how or why a contract
>> would be better than the current IANA-RIR arrangements* or be an
>> improvement once NTIA oversight goes away", I would reply that the current
>> proposal covers matters that are covered in the current IANA functions
>> contract between ICANN and NTIA, but are not covered in the current
>> IANA-RIR arrangements.
>>
>
> and a contract is the only way to forward?  yes/no.
>
> p.
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> *From:* ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net]*On
>> Behalf Of *Pindar Wong
>> *Sent:* samedi, 10. janvier 2015 23:34
>> *To:* Jim Reid
>> *Cc:* ianaxfer at nro.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
>> StewardshipProposal: Final Call for Comments
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2015, at 17:02, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 09.01.15 21.01, Richard Hill wrote:
>>> >> I am saying (1) that the community should review and take a position
>>> on all
>>> >> of the language of the new contract and (2) that the details of the
>>> >> arbitration clause and the choice of law clause are sufficiently
>>> significant
>>> >> that they should be included in the current document.
>>> > This sounds ideal, but my guess is that the collective competnece of
>>> international contract law is slighty below our collective competence of
>>> IP-addressing, routing and network technology in general.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>
>>> > The numbering community has established formal bodies to handle this,
>>> the RIR boards & management, which I trust will get appropriate legal
>>> advice.
>>> >
>>> > I trust these bodies will handle this in the best interest of our
>>> community.
>>>
>>> Indeed. We have more than enough confidence in the RIRs' legal counsel
>>> to rely on their advice as and when it's needed. Or should do.
>>>
>>> > The way I see your suggestions - arbitration is important to get
>>> right, but I do not see strong consensus  to micro manage this by the
>>> community at this stage.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>> + 1 and Yes. I'd strongly recommend leaving it to the relevant people
>> concerned (the formal legal staff, boards and management concerned -- it's
>> in their interest to get devilish details right and they will hopefully do
>> so without trying to out lawyer ICANN).
>>
>> Perhaps a fundamental question... but as time/expertise permits ... I
>> would like a  response to Jim's earlier observation:
>>
>> Emphasis mine:
>>
>> 'FWIW it's not yet clear to me *how or why a contract would be better
>> than the current IANA-RIR arrangements* or be an improvement once NTIA
>> oversight goes away. '
>>
>> Thanks in advance (and back to helping the kids with exam prep!)
>>
>> p.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150112/6e5b9fbe/attachment.html>


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list