[IANAxfer@apnic] Fwd: Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "

  • To: "<ianaxfer@apnic.net>" <ianaxfer@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [IANAxfer@apnic] Fwd: Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
  • Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:56:49 +0900
  • Delivered-to: ianaxfer@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent: mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-forwarded-message-id: content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mRsUWeYY9uzialo9V4fv62m6/79/jUk9dX4xDb+6fKM=; b=W7uFt611qcXjirtq6l0lvMeaO3fM6zJaeCxRJaBcFVlykj2ULNpyF9JG2tPLDmQiUc5wQ1CjZYops S87J/fXxrmezQgSj2mXlCOs8t83ZB3RbgXEgjXyNzRIbofSsKcHBp2zIwzD43l675LvDDY6YxrWeZB YKmb+6xFHjcnwqYs=
  • In-reply-to: <54D27913.2070308@nic.ad.jp>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/>
  • List-help: <mailto:ianaxfer-request@apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: <ianaxfer.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:ianaxfer@apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer>, <mailto:ianaxfer-request@apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/ianaxfer>, <mailto:ianaxfer-request@apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <54D27913.2070308@nic.ad.jp>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

    • Dear Colleagues in the APNIC forum,
      
      
      This is response to another post to icg-forum.
      
      Againn as stated in the ianaxfer list, your feedback to our reponse is
      welcome and wxplicit expressing support to <ianaxfer@nro.net> would be
      extremely helpful.
      
      
      Regards,
      Izumi
      
      
      -------- Forwarded Message --------
      Subject: Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the
      RIR proposal development process "
      Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:54:59 +0900
      From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
      To: ianaxfer@nro.net <ianaxfer@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@nic.ad.jp>
      To: icg-forum@icann.org
      CC: crisp@nro.net <crisp@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