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

Pindar Wong pindar.wong at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 21:18:33 CET 2015


Thank you Craig.

It's my annoying habit of checking assumptions and by doing so make them
explicit.

Cheers and thanks again for your work on this.

p.


On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Craig Ng <craig at apnic.net> wrote:

> 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/20150113/9c051438/attachment.html>


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list