Re: [Nro-comments] Some comments on the text

[sabine jaume <jaume@renater.fr>]

Dear Frode,

I thank you for those clarification which gave me the impression that
some misunderstanding might be due to the following point.

In the letter to ICANN, the last sentence states  that :
- First, RIR sign together the attachment 1 doc, ie the NRO MoU
- Then, RIR ask ICANN to ammend the current ASO Mou by signing with RIRs 
the Attachment 2 proposal
So on the one side there are 4 RIRs that are willing to formalise their
cooperation (that was my 1st question you kindly answered), and on the
other hand, there are 4 RIRs + ICANN.

When I read the NRO doc, I raised some questions that were clarified by
refering to the ASO MoU : so why isn't there any reference to this
document in the NRO paper? There is no "legal" binding between the NRO
doc and the new ASO MoU.
Therefore, when you clarified one of my point by writing -
" It is only in the stand-alond scenario after and ICANN failure that
the Executive council would in reality ratify or reject. The sense of
the document is that the Executive council would then act in the role of
the ICANN board as far as address policy ratification is concerned and
would only base its decision on whether due processes were followed or
not. In order to avoid duplication, all the relevant procedures defined
in the ASO MoU and its attachment are not also spelled out in the NRO
document." - I think this should be clear in the NRO document.

Because what would happen if the ASO MoU you propose in Attachment 2
was not to be signed between RIRs and ICANN? Is there any "transition" 
plan? (You can't have a Number Coucil and an Address Council - ie under 
the current ASO MoU)

Last point, to my question on Chapter 11, you answered "Thanks for
spotting this! This should say 1.2.", but isn't it 6.1.2 ?(there is no
1.2 in section 11)

Wish you all a nice week-end!

Best regards

Sabine



Frode Greisen a écrit:
 > Dear Sabine,
 >
 >
 >>On 14/10/03 8:39, "sabine jaume" <jaume@renater.fr> wrote:
 >>Dear all,
 >>
 >>After reading the NRO proposal and the ASO MoU, here are some comments
 >>on the text, which to my opinion need clarification for better
 >>understanding and/or to avoid misunderstanding.
 >>
 >>
 >>NRO Proposal
 >>
 >>Chapter 1 :
 >>The creation of the NRO doesn't need ICANN's acceptance : as far as RIR
 >>sign the agreement it is considered in force. Did I understand it
correctly?
 >
 >
 > yes, this is correct.
 >
 >
 >>The signature includes RIRs who are signatories : what about any new
 >>possible RIR? I would add here a reference to chapter 3 in case a new
 >>RIR wants to sign the agreement later on.
 >
 >
 > As you say, the intention is that new RIRs can join with equal rights.
 >
 > As the text stands, Chapter 3 provides for the inclusion of new RIRs.
  Just
 > as the situation exists today, the new RIR must meet objective
criteria and
 > must sign the MoU.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 2 :
 >>This description is fully in line with the operationnal business of 
RIRs.
 >>
 >>Chapter 4 :
 >>Here I find an inconsistency with chapter 2 : indeed if the NRO has an
 >>operationnal role, how can it also intervene in policy making processes.
 >>This is how I interpret the fact that the NRO Number Council is under
 >>the responsability of the NRO Exec Council (see chapter 6).
 >
 >
 > see comment below.
 >
 >
 >>Incorporation : under which law?
 >
 >
 > We felt no need to define law and location before a decision to
incorporate.
 > This will be agreed by the RIR signatories at that time.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 6 :
 >>Here is where policy-making process- and day to day busines of
 >>RIRs are mixed.
 >>What happens if the Number Council makes proposals
 >>following bottom up process which are rejected by the NRO (see comment
 >>on ASO MoU text)?
 >
 >
 > The Executive Council is responsible for external communication but
in the
 > (probably most likely) scenario policy ratification is done by ICANN as
 > defined in the ASO MoU and the Executive Council will not make policy.
 >
 > It is only in the stand-alond scenario after and ICANN failure that the
 > Executive council would in reality ratify or reject. The sense of the
 > document is that the Executive council would then act in the role of the
 > ICANN board as far as address policy ratification is concerned and would
 > only base its decision on whether due processes were followed or not. In
 > order to avoid duplication, all the relevant procedures defined in
the ASO
 > MoU and its attachment are not also spelled out in the NRO document.
 >
 > In the case of rejection, any dissatisfied party could resort to the
appeals
 > process.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 7 :
 >>Here the bottom up process should be described.
 >>
 >
 >
 > You may be right. In the scenario where the global policy process is
defined
 > in an ASO MoU with ICANN that MoU defines the bottom up process.
 >
 >
 >>Aren't the ICANN board directors election the Number Council's duties
 >>any more?
 >
 >
 > The Address Council will select ICANN Board members as provided for in
 > the ICANN by-laws and the ASO MoU.  When the ASO MoU is agreed to
 > between the RIRs and ICANN, the Numbers Council will become the ASO
 > Address Council and will function under the provisions of the ASO MoU.
 >
 >
 >>What are the lenghts of each person's term? Can they be renewed?
 >>Can the 2 selected persons be RIR staffed persons?
 >>
 >
 > Good questions.
 >
 > Since there would probably be a transition from the present Address
Council
 > to the Numbers Council a staggering would need to be defined but we
felt it
 > would be better to have a basic agreement with ICANN and also seeking
advice
 > from the present Address Council before getting into defining a
system for
 > this. A reasonable assumption would be to get to three year terms
like now.
 >
 > RIR staff members may not be elected to either of the two elected
seats.  An
 > RIR staff member may be appointed by theappropriate RIR Board to the
one RIR
 > appointed positon from each region.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 9  :
 >>How long will people seat on the Appeals Panel?
 >>
 >
 > Experience from the RIPE NCC arbitration panel shows that the
arbiters have
 > not been very busy. My personal preference would be to let the NRO
ping the
 > selected representatives about annually, and keep them as long as
they are
 > willing and and able and have the desired knowledge.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 10 :
 >>In case of an abitration that takes long time : what will happen? Is
 >>there a kind of provision that says that during the time there is no
 >>decision, policies will be applied as they were before the dispute
started?
 >>
 >
 >
 > Good point.
 > As usual, the appeals process is institued to seek agreement before a
 > part resorts to a lawsuit.  The pressure to avoid suits should be an
 > incentive for the appeals panel to act quickly, however, the
circumstances
 > of each situation will dictate deadlines.  Therefore, a one size 
fits all
 > time is not suitable.
 >
 > It may be worth considering, but perhaps difficult to decide in
advance for
 > all cases, whether initiation of appeal should have holding effect 
on the
 > process in question.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 11 :
 >>How is an RIR member defined?
 >
 >
 > This is an RIR signatory. Should probably be clarified in the text.
 >
 >
 >>What is the clause 12b?
 >>
 >
 >
 > Thanks for spotting this! This should say 1.2.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 12 :
 >>What are those technical activities : could be a lots of things...
 >>
 >
 > Yes, and as such they must be agreed by the Executive Council. Examples
 > could be mutual data-base backup between RIRs or global whois services.
 >
 >
 >>Chapter 13 :
 >>Will the RIR members (again to be defined) pay a fee directly to the
 >>NRO, or will this be done via the RIRs existing fundings?
 >>
 >
 > Like above, RIR member in this chapter means NRO
 > signatory.  Since the NRO will not have a budget there will be no fees
 > paid to the NRO.  All expenditures will be agreed to by the Executive
 > Council.  The Secretariat will track the costs and invoice each RIR as
 > appropriate.
 >
 > Just as is the situation today with regards to funds for the ICANN 
budget
 > and funds to support ASO and ASO AC activities, the RIRs include these
 > expenditures in their individual budgets.  In regard to the NRO and
the new
 > ASO and and ASO AC we expect the same method of operation.  It is
expected
 > that these expenditures will be similar to today's situation.
 >
 >
 >>What is paragraph "a" refering to?
 >>
 >
 > Thanks! As above, letters were changed to numbers in bullet points,
so this
 > should be paragraph 13.1.
 >
 >
 >>ASO MoU
 >>
 >>From the NRO document statements, the Address Council is under the
 >>responsablity of the NRO Exec council, and has RIR appointed members. So
 >>what does "in conjunction with the RIRs" means?
 >>
 >>Again the split between policy making process and operations is
 >>confused, because of the ASO AC being under the responsibility of the
 >>NRO. Indeed point 4 stresses that the RIRs Board do have a policy making
 >>role.
 >>
 >
 >
 > "In conjunction with the RIRs" means that both the Address Council
and the
 > RIRs will work together.  While it is anticipated that most 
questions and
 > concerns of the RIRs can be dealt with by the RIR appointed members
of the
 > Adress Council, there always exits the possibiliy that additional
 > information may have to be gathered by RIR staffs or the RIR Boards
may need
 > to comment.
 >
 > Thanks for your thoughtful questions and comments.
 >
 > For further discussion you may also want to check
 > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/nro-faq.html
 >
 > Frode Greisen
 > RIPE NCC Executive Board Member
 >
 >
 >>Looking forward to any clarification you can provide,
 >>
 >>Thanks!
 >>
 >>Best regards,
 >


--
Sabine JAUME-RAJAONIA

Responsable de l'Antenne de Montpellier
GIP RENATER
950 rue de Saint Priest
34097 Montpellier cedex 5
FRANCE
Tel : +33 4 67 14 14 25     /     Fax : +33 4 67 52 00 36
www.renater.fr                  /     www.sfinx.fr