[IANAxfer@apnic] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " (2 of 2)

  • To: "ianaxfer@apnic.net" <ianaxfer@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [IANAxfer@apnic] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " (2 of 2)
  • From: Craig Ng <craig@apnic.net>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:05:25 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-AU, en-US
  • Delivered-to: ianaxfer@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id: accept-language:content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version; bh=P7hZtwUrirC51fJmd7F1kMgq6uiq4aVgLtXVBQrVkkw=; b=fY9b6DSNQ0+6ObLSNXWOkcLHnvxDdO9axpubPPQsgicKpv52sA5sOfN9e7KORX6bOQ8pIYVVhzgHW 98x9ggz0b6jkxW3DR2wgjv3fAqenGB9Eu9g85K5rWG/wHir4mLfY4+tVj2Y4aqs3Zf/uxWx3jcGsAh 9JXu41/lDmxIMH7c=
  • 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>
  • Thread-index: AQHQQOg0pGKqT+7N4UWtucotXUbkfQ==
  • Thread-topic: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " (2 of 2)

    • FYI - Below is the CRISP team's response to comments made by Richard Hill
      in relation to the CRISP team process.
      (APNIC Staff representative to CRISP team)
      >-------- 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
      >> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate
      >> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see:
      >> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html
      >Mr Hill¹s 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 team¹s matrix of community
      >comments and concerns posted at:
      >The CRISP team¹s final position is effectively summarised in the text of
      >our response to the ICG RFP:
      >³The 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.²
      >[Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community,
      >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
      >The CRISP team¹s 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:
      >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
      >> 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 communities¹ 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 staff². 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 team¹s 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
      >ianaxfer mailing list

      Attachment: smime.p7s
      Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature