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

Craig Ng craig at apnic.net
Mon Jan 12 15:04:56 CET 2015


Hi Pindar

I suppose the other point to make is that our discussions here have focused
on a framework to replace an existing legally binding contract ­ that is,
replacing the NTIA/ICANN IANA Functions Contract that will expire in
September 2015.

So, it makes sense that we replace a legally binding contract with another
legally binding contract, albeit that the contracting party proposed is the
RIR community (in place of USG/NTIA).

Regards
Craig


On 12/01/2015 9:21 pm, "Pindar Wong" <pindar.wong at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20150112/7fc3d0dc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3565 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150112/7fc3d0dc/smime.p7s>


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list