Re: [Nro-comments] FW: NRO Comment: EC Responsibilities

[Frode Greisen <frode@greisen.net>]

Dear Mark,

Thank you for a number of comments which I'll take the liberty to respond to
jointly in this mail.

Firstly, we recognize that the intentions with the clause in 6.1 on the
Executive Council ratifying or rejecting policy may seem inappropriate when
taken out of context. Accordingly, we will add the following text:
"Such decisions shall be based on open and transparent procedures which are
ratified by the regional address policy fora." As explained in other
responses the intention is that any decision on global policy would only
take place in the (probably unlikely) situation that there is no MoU with
ICANN. In this case the Executive Committee would take the proposed role of
ICANN to perform a formal verification whether the appropriate procedures
had been followed in development of the policy.

Secondly, we note your suggestion that appeals decisions should be binding.
Now, since the NRO MoU is an agreement between the RIRs and only signed by
them any statement that a decision is binding could probably only bind the
NRO, but not the claimant. Such asymmetry is probably not always desirable.

best regards/
Frode Greisen, RIPE NCC executive board member


On 22/10/03 12:20, "Mark McFadden" <frode@greisen.net> wrote:

> 
> In a response to JPNIC comments Geoff Huston writes:
> 
>> - The model of NRO EC, a body constituting of the RIR representatives
>> approving the global policy seems to have less checks and balances
>> than the current structure. Wouldn't this imply the RIRs approving its
>> own policy?
> 
> 
> As noted by Frode Greisen of the Board of the RIPE NCC, in a response to
> comments from Sabine Jaume:
> (http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments/archive/2003/10/msg00009.html)
> 
> "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."
> 
> As I have noted in a previous positing the appeals process DOES NOT provide
> checks and balances because it is not binding on any party in the NRO
> document.  JPNIC's question has not been answered yet.  Still, I think this
> is easily fixed and tried to supply language that could be used to solve the
> problem in a separate comment.
> 
> The suggestion that the Executive council would not reject or approve policy
> unless there was an ICANN failure is not in the NRO formation document and
> is an issue that has been raised in at least three of the four RIR regions.
> Clearly there is something wrong here.  This needs to be spelled out more
> explicitly so that it does not appear that the EC could, on its own at any
> time, reject the legitimate results of bottom up global policy formation
> (regardless of the existence of an external organization like ICANN).
> 
> Mark McFadden
> University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nro-comments mailing list
> Nro-comments@apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments
> 
>