[lac-discuss-es] RV: [NRO-IANAXFER] Numbering Services Draft SLA, still open for comment until 14 June
Estimados, aquà la respuesta de John Curran, CEO de ARIN, a David Conrard.
Saludos cordiales
Alberto Soto
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ianaxfer-bounces@xxxxxxx [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@xxxxxxx] En nombre de
John Curran
Enviado el: lunes, 08 de junio de 2015 08:04 a.m.
Para: David Conrad
CC: ianaxfer@xxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Numbering Services Draft SLA, still open for comment
until 14 June
On Jun 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been hesitant to provide comments on the draft SLA due to my current
> role within ICANN: for those that do not know, I am ICANN's CTO and am
> responsible for the technical implementation of the transition of the
> stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community.
> However, a number of people (not directly associated with ICANN) have asked
> me to provide my input WITHOUT my ICANN hat on, and instead as someone who
> helped set up APNIC, was an ARIN Board member for 5 years, had a very small
> role in helping to set up AfriNIC, who ran IANA from 2005 to 2010, and who
> has been doing registry stuff in one way or another for way longer than I
> care to admit.
>
> Perhaps this can be a lesson in being careful what you ask for...
>
> While I can assert the following input is, in fact, (a) purely my own, (b) is
> in no way representing ICANN's view, and (c) has not been coordinated with
> ICANN staff or board (I did mention I was planning on posting something in my
> own name), I am aware some will believe my input is subject to conflict of
> interest. My apologies in advance if you are among these people.
David -
Thanks for these comments - I have no doubt that they will lead to an
improved SLA as a result.
> I will also apologize in advance if some of the comments below appear a bit
> harsh. This is not intended, however I believe due to time constraints, it is
> better to be clear and direct.
Along that spirit, I am going to refrain from responding to the vast majority
of the comments (as the community is likely to have ample comments), but
but will comment on three areas which relate to the overall assumptions for
the IANA Stewardship transition process at a high-level.
> ...
> In addition, the "SLA" appears to be entirely one-sided, ignoring the reality
> that management of numbers is a cooperative effort done by the IANA numbering
> function operator, the RIRs, LIRs, and end users, for the benefit of the
> Internet community as a whole.
Agreed.
> As such, I believe a useful SLA must clearly define the _mutual_ roles and
> responsibilities of both parties, along with a very clear escalation path
> should a party not live up to their responsibilities. The current document
> does not do this.
I believe that the roles and responsibilities of the parties must be
defined, but that
doesnât necessarily have to be (or even should be) in a single document.
The rather
colorful structure and evolution of ICANN has resulted in it having multiple
roles, and
yet these roles are not strictly dependent on each other. For example, if
the ICANN
IANA team were to experience extremely and chronic performance issues in the
administration of the IANA number registries (the opposite of the excellent
performance
provided to date), then there could be a circumstances where the numbers
community
would need (via the RIRs as their representative) to contract for an
alternative IANA
numbers registry operator. The SLA should be suitable for that arrangement
(even
though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA numbers registry
function.)
However, in my personal opinion, such a change should not in any way change
the
RIRs collectively operating under ICANNâs overall Internet identifier
coordination role;
i.e. the community should still submit global policies to ICANN for
ratification, the ASO
MOU should remain in effect, the RIR community should participate in
accountability
and transparency reviews (ATRT) as part of the ICANN system, etc. ICANN
serves
as an important role external to the Internet numbers community that
improves overall
accountability and transparency, and helps in broad outreach to the global
Internet
community.
So, I think weâre in agreement that role and responsibilities should be
clearly defined,
but it is not clear that it should be done in a single document since there
are multiple
relationships: 1) RIRs/NRO serving as the global Address Supporting
Organization
within ICANN, with its incumbent obligations, and 2) ICANN serving as the
IANA
numbers service operator for numbering community as represented by the RIRs.
> 5.2: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall
> reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred
> Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties."
>
> Um, what? So the RIRs are only obligated to pay a maximum of $500 total?
> This makes no sense to me, particularly given 5.1. I guess this is some sort
> of legal incantation that makes sense to lawyers.
Actually, I believe it is $100 _in total_ under the present languageâ Is
there a value
that makes more sense - i.e. what do you believe the full costs of providing
âthe
extremely limited activityâ of the IANA numbering function? I personally
believe that
it is in the community's interest for this value be an accurate estimate of
such costs,
and the present ICANN ASO contribution should be reduced by the same amount
once established. In this manner, if the worst-cast were to happen and
another
party had to perform IANA services, then the RIRs would have budgeted at
least a
meaningful amount for this purpose, and while ICANN would lose this amount,
it
would correspond with a similar reduction in the level of effort in their
IANA team.
> 12.1.1: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title
> and interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, their
> successors, assigns and designees."
>
> I don't think it makes sense to assign (say) intellectual property held by
> the Operator on behalf of (say) the naming community exclusively to the RIRs.
>
> 12.1.2: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title,
> and interest in and to such data rights to the RIRs, their successors,
> assigns and designees."
>
> Similar comment as above.
>
> 12.3: "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or
> rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust (the âIP
> Assetsâ)."
>
> This is backwards. ICANN currently owns the rights to that intellectual
> property.
It would be nice if we could all come to agreement that the rights to the
community's
intellectual property related to these activities (including any data
rights, trademark,
domain names, etc.) should be held by an entity which was actually set up
for such
a purpose, had no operational role, would make appropriate licenses
available to all
parties that had a role in IANA operations, etc. Last I checked, the IETF
Trust met
all of these criteria (whereas neither ICANN nor the RIRs do) One can
imagine
some rather extreme worse-case scenarios involving transitions where it
would be
very helpful it we could all rely on the intellectual property being made
available to
whomever needed it to perform the functions, and not otherwise caught in
transition.
Thanks again for the comments!
/John
Disclaimer: The remarks above are my own as CEO of ARIN. While I believe them
to
be fully compatible with the organization's positions on
these matters to
date, neither the ARIN Board nor ARIN community has
discussed Davidâs
comments and developed specific positions on these topics
at this time.
_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer@xxxxxxx
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrÃnico en busca de
virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-es mailing list
lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
http://www.lacralo.org