[Internal-cg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "

Alissa Cooper alissa at cooperw.in
Thu Feb 5 20:03:55 UTC 2015

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
> Date: February 4, 2015 at 11:54:59 AM PST
> To: "ianaxfer at nro.net" <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> Dear all,
> This is the CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR
> proposal development process ", which is another post to icg-forum.
> Again, I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is
> likely to be a reference to the ICG.
> Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well.
> Regards,
> Izumi
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR
> proposal development process "
> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:43:25 +0900
> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> To: icg-forum at icann.org
> CC: crisp at nro.net <crisp at nro.net>
> Dear ICG members,
> On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a
> number of concerns about the CRISP team process.
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html
> The concerns expressed by Mr Hill were considered in depth during the
> CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on the
> ianaxfer mailing list with Mr Hill as well as other community members.
> The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus
> position of the community.
> Richard Hill wrote:
>> Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP
> mailing list
>> (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute
> resolution.
>> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate
> legal
>> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see:
>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html
> Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were well
> documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were
> discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio
> archives of these calls are available at https://nro.net/crisp-team).
> Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of community
> comments and concerns posted at:
> https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015
> The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the text of
> our response to the ICG RFP:
> “The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the
> specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the
> RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that
> the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.”
> [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community,
> p11]
> The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement Principles.
> This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer
> mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level
> principles.
> The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by Mr
> Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in the
> proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR
> communities, as quoted earlier.
> The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the
> ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly
> supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR
> legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji (7
> Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12
> January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this view.
> All of these mails can be read at:
> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html
> A further concern noted by Mr Hill:
>> That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when important
>> details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the global
>> multi-stakeholder community?
> The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that the
> community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected
> in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over these
> functions via a contractual relationship. It is the responsibility of
> the parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team
> believes that by directing the RIRs to consult with their communities
> and by laying down the principles mentioned above, we have established a
> framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate in
> the best interests of the community.
> Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the
> outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. As
> noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list,
> many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr Hill.
> From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the
> ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is available
> at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
> I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s position in
> regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to discuss
> any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful.
> Yours sincerely,
> Izumi Okutani
> Chair, the CRISP Team
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20150205/fc189c8c/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list