<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-2022-jp"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div style=""><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">Izumi Okutani <<a href="mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';"><b>[NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "</b><br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">February 4, 2015 at 11:54:59 AM PST<br></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family:'Helvetica'; color:rgba(0, 0, 0, 1.0);"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">"<a href="mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net">ianaxfer@nro.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net">ianaxfer@nro.net</a>><br></span></div><br><div>Dear all,<br><br><br>This is the CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR<br>proposal development process ", which is another post to icg-forum.<br><br>Again, I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is<br>likely to be a reference to the ICG.<br><br>Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well.<br><br><br><br>Regards,<br>Izumi<br><br><br>-------- Forwarded Message --------<br>Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR<br>proposal development process "<br>Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:43:25 +0900<br>From: Izumi Okutani <<a href="mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:icg-forum@icann.org">icg-forum@icann.org</a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:crisp@nro.net">crisp@nro.net</a> <<a href="mailto:crisp@nro.net">crisp@nro.net</a>><br><br>Dear ICG members,<br><br><br>On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a<br>number of concerns about the CRISP team process.<br><br> <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html</a><br><br>The concerns expressed by Mr Hill were considered in depth during the<br>CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on the<br>ianaxfer mailing list with Mr Hill as well as other community members.<br><br>The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus<br>position of the community.<br><br><br>Richard Hill wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP<br></blockquote>mailing list<br><blockquote type="cite">(NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute<br></blockquote>resolution.<br><blockquote type="cite">The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate<br></blockquote>legal<br><blockquote type="cite">expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see:<br><a href="https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html">https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html</a><br></blockquote><br>Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were well<br>documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were<br>discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio<br>archives of these calls are available at <a href="https://nro.net/crisp-team">https://nro.net/crisp-team</a>).<br>Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of community<br>comments and concerns posted at:<br><a href="https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015">https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015</a><br><br>The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the text of<br>our response to the ICG RFP:<br><br>“The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the<br>specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the<br>RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that<br>the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.”<br>[Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community,<br>p11]<br><br>The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement Principles.<br>This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer<br>mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level<br>principles.<br><br>The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by Mr<br>Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in the<br>proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR<br>communities, as quoted earlier.<br><br>The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the<br>ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly<br>supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR<br>legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji (7<br>Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12<br>January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this view.<br>All of these mails can be read at:<br>https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html<br><br>A further concern noted by Mr Hill:<br><blockquote type="cite">That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when important<br>details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the global<br>multi-stakeholder community?<br></blockquote><br>The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that the<br>community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected<br>in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over these<br>functions via a contractual relationship. It is the responsibility of<br>the parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team<br>believes that by directing the RIRs to consult with their communities<br>and by laying down the principles mentioned above, we have established a<br>framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate in<br>the best interests of the community.<br><br>Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the<br>outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. As<br>noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list,<br>many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr Hill.<br>From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the<br>ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is available<br>at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer<br><br>I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s position in<br>regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to discuss<br>any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful.<br><br><br>Yours sincerely,<br><br>Izumi Okutani<br>Chair, the CRISP Team<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>ianaxfer mailing list<br>ianaxfer@nro.net<br>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>