FYI - Below is the CRISP team's response to comments made by Richard Hill in relation to the CRISP team process. Craig (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 >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 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: >https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > >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, >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 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: >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 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 >ianaxfer@nro.net >https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature