[NRO-IANAXFER] Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services - Call for Public Comments

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Mar 18 20:26:09 CET 2016


On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch<mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch>> wrote:

Thanks for this.

Hello Richard!

We’re trying to bring this agreement to final form, but also want to make sure we check in with
the community as frequently as possible during the process…  hopefully we’re achieving a
reasonable balance.

I note that 5.2 provides that the RIRs will pay ICANN $650'000 per year.

Yes.

That's more than four full-time staff. Is it really that much work to allocate the top level blocks to the individual RIRs? Wouldn't it be cheaper for the NRO to take care of these functions itself?

I believe that the services could possibility be provided for less than that amount, but the CRISP
team proposal specifies that we will continue to use ICANN as the provider of these services
through the transition (which certainly improves operational stability and continuity.)

Note that the cost has zero net impact to the RIR community, as we will reduce our annual ASO
contribution to ICANN by the same amount, and further that while the actual processing of requests
may not require much effort, we also have additional reporting that is performed (e.g. updates at
many of the RIR meetings each year) which adds to the costs. (For those who like references,
one can find the IANA/PTI budget summarized on the top of page 27 of ICANN’s 2017 budget -
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-fy17-05mar16-en.pdf; the
$625,000 comes from inclusion of the direct costs in the IANA department and direct costs of
shared resources in other departments, but exclusion of any allocated/non-direct costs.)

I'm not sure that I understand 12.1.  Is it consistent with the general agreement that the IANA trademark and the <iana.org<http://iana.org>> domain name will be transferred to the IETF Trust?

I believe that the IPR discussions are ongoing, but will check to see the current status.

13.1.2 states " If the Parties cannot agree on a mediator within twenty (20) calendar days of the Mediation Notice Date, the Parties will promptly select a mutually acceptable mediation provider entity,"

But what if the Parties cannot agree on a mediation provider entity?  I think that you need to add something like " If the Parties cannot agree on a mediation provider entity within twenty (20) calendar days of the Mediation Notice Date, the mediation provider entity shall be XXX." Since 13.2 refers to the ICC, I think that "XXX" could be ICC.

In 13.2.5, it would be better to start with "The seat of arbitration shall be", because the choice of seat has significant legal implications, whereas the actual arbitration hearings can take place anywhere, no matter where the seat it.

I will refer these comments back to the legal team for consideration.

Thanks for the feedback!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/attachments/20160318/8133d59e/attachment.html>


More information about the ianaxfer mailing list