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

Burkov Dmitry dvburk at gmail.com
Tue Jan 13 00:26:48 CET 2015


Dear colleagues,

excuse - but as I have got already a series of personal emails regarding just my single comment - fully agreed - 
I decided to reply.

> On Jan 12, 2015, at 12:32 AM, gerard.ross at mac.com wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone
> 
> First of all, I’d like to congratulate the CRISP team for their efficient work in developing this proposal and especially to Izumi for her outstanding efforts (over a holiday period) in providing such a clear, respectful, and structured stewardship of the process.

fully agree

> 
> 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. 

I don’t think that it can be described as misunderstanding - just there are a few different paradigms under discussion now.

skipped

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. But even if – operating in the greatest good faith – their lawyers identified reasonable and compelling reasons to challenge terms of the proposal (such as the jurisdiction or arbitration clauses) then where would that leave us?


I hope we can be realistic - as previously - I don’t expect that we should discuss legal aspects of concrete contract publicly - it is nonsense.


What I expect and before tried  to explain  - that we expect that CRISP will consolidate some key principles and on this stage will protect community interests before lawyers will run.


I just want to remind Jim and some other friends and colleagues about how we developed current working agreements with ICANN.

I also want to explain why I was fully agreed with  Richard - terms and conditions of new relationship should not be worser then previous.
It does not means that we should discuss SLA or something else now - it is a mistake - we previously spent already a lot of time to build 
in current framework previously.

It is just about key principle - I don’t know how it can be expressed better in English (I am not native at all) - but it should not be worser then we have now.

To be honest ( I am tired from all this strange pollitess) - I simply want to remind you some facts - that we as RIRs agreed to play in these game with ICANN construction in result of some kind of solidarity. But now it is a time to express our interests in more clear way - without masqeurade.


Sorry - for my interruption in your scholastic discussion. Excuse - if I was not so polite.

regards,
Dmitry Burkov

PS
I never refused from my constant position that IANA operator’s functions must be splitted - and I never can accept IAB proposal (sorry to all my good friends)
- just a reminder - never put all eggs in one basket

> 
> For if a specific contract were put forward as the will of the community, would revising its terms be an act against the consensus? Would every line-by-line revision require a fresh consultation period? If so, we could be stuck in limbo for years. And, in my experience, I have seen jurisdiction and ADR clauses debated for extended periods.
> 
> I do appreciate Richard’s note that it would be sufficient for the proposal to suggest “ICC arbitration in a neutral venue”. As a principle that is reasonable and pragmatic. To be any more specific than that, however, would be counterproductive.
> 
> Thanks again for all your work.
> 
> Regards
> - Gerard
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Gerard Ross
> gerard.ross at mac.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/gerardross
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list