[NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Invitation to comment on RIRs' draft SLA

Adiel Akplogan adiel.akplogan at icann.org
Mon Jun 15 15:13:07 CEST 2015


On June 14, ICANN Board through its Chair has submitted the following comments on the Draft SLA to the NRO Chair.

Thank you.

- a.

> Begin forwarded message:
> Comments on 
> The draft RIR Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services
> Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the SLAs as put out for public comment by the RIR community. We recognize the significant commitment of effort by the Numbers community in producing both the response to the ICG RFP and this document, and look forward to further progress.
> Please note that these comments are not a legal review of the proposed SLA by ICANN and that such review will only be possible when ICANN and the number community enter in formal negotiation on the final version of the contract. The comments below seek to highlight some questions with regards to the approach of the SLA. We are happy to expand and discuss further with the community and continue to comment as the SLA terms are further developed. 
> With regards to the draft provided, we have some observations that lead to the questions below:
> ·      Has it been considered that there may be an incompatibility between clause 10.2 of the SLA (termination at will) and the escalation mechanisms elsewhere in the document? In this context, has the 12 May 2015 question posed by Vint Cerf to both the IETF/IAB and the RIRs/NRO, which asked “Is there a capability within the NRO or the collective RIRs to perform the functions now provided by the IANA function within ICANN? Could this capability serve as a back up in the event that ICANN's IANA service to the RIRs is not meeting performance requirements?” been considered as part of an appropriate escalation mechanism?
> ·      Have the requirements as set out by NTIA, specifically the requirement that any model not be government run, been considered? 
> ·      We have noted that the document has taken an approach of identifying acceptable levels of service, rather than identifying the services ICANN, as the IANA functions provider, must implement on behalf of the numbering community. Will it be possible for the final SLA to clearly list they key services expected from ICANN, as the IANA functions operator? 
> ·      Can the SLA include mutual accountability mechanisms for both ICANN and the number community, to ensure ongoing accountability, openness and transparency, to be reflected in the SLAs for both parties? 
> ·      The services provided by the IANA functions are part of managing a shared global resource and as such, means there are shared responsibilities.  Could the SLA provide for a framework for such shared responsibilities? Can the SLA list key obligations or responsibilities of the RIRs in managing these resources at the regional level so as to ensure the overall stability and accuracy of the global number identifiers registry?
> To provide clarity in defining our working relation post transition, we would like to suggest to separate the SLA that governs the Services provided through the IANA function contract from a new document to be drafted (MoU, AoC) that defines the framework for cooperation and mutual commitment to accountability and some binding principles.  We believe that loading the SLA with everything may be counterproductive in the long term.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150615/594d6a8f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3896 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20150615/594d6a8f/smime.p7s>

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list