From john.sweeting at twcable.com  Thu Feb  5 08:41:17 2015
From: john.sweeting at twcable.com (Sweeting, John)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 08:41:17 -0500
Subject: [Iana-transition] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern
 regarding the RIR proposal development process "
Message-ID: <D0F8B2B0.47731%john.sweeting@twcable.com>

Please find the response sent from the CRISP team to the ICG reference
subject matter. Thank you.



On 2/4/15, 11:54 AM, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>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 at nic.ad.jp>
>To: icg-forum at icann.org
>CC: crisp at nro.net <crisp at 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
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ianaxfer mailing list
>ianaxfer at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.