Nurani,
thanks for bringing this to the RIPE Co-op WG. I've cc:d the ianaxfer
mailing list in my reply.
Richard Hill's issues seem to fall into two broad categories, namely the
issue of consensus / constituency, and the completeness of the proposal.
Regarding consensus, the RIPE community has always aspired to the
principals of consensus which were formally expressed in RFC-7282. These
principals state that unanimity is not a prerequisite for consensus and
that reaching consensus involves addressing - although not necessarily
accommodating - all the issues which arise during the process. I'd like to
particularly note the Introduction section in RFC-7282, which says:
[...] we strive to make our decisions by
the consent of all participants, though !
allowing
for some dissent
(rough consensus), and to have the actual products of engineering
trump theoretical designs (running code).
Having full consensus, or unanimity, would be ideal, but we don't
require it: Requiring full consensus allows a single intransigent
person who simply keeps saying "No!" to stop the process cold.
It's clear that Richard Hill's objections have been noted, given
consideration and that even though they have not necessarily been
accommodated, broad community consensus has been reached on the CRISP proposal.
Regarding constituency, this is clearly laid out in section 1.A of the ICG
document:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
The CRISP proposal concerns the IANA numbering resources function, and was
prepared by a group consisting of members of the appropriate operational
community, namely the RIRs and their stakeholders. As a RIR community
member, I'm fully satisfied that the CRISP team is representative of its
respective communities and that it has operated within its mandate of
providing an outline proposal with community consensus. Certainly within
the RIPE community, the CRISP proposal has been widely publicised and its
members have gone to considerable lengths to involve members of the wider
community.
Regarding the completeness of the proposal and with particular reference to
dispute resolution, jurisdiction !
and
arbitration, these are important
issues but it is not, in my opinion, necessary to finalise details on them
at this time. Finalisation will occur after extensive analysis and
discussion between the stakeholders who make up the CRISP proposal (with
appropriate legal input), and there is not a problem with expecting that
this will happen at a future stage in the process.
In short, I don't see a problem with the CRISP proposal (+ repeat my
previous support for it) and am satisfied that Richard Hill's concerns are
either misplaced or else have been adequately addressed.
Nick
On 05/02/2015 12:56, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Please find below the email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer@nro.net mailing list. The mail addresses concerns raised!
by some
members of the list after the submission of the CRISP proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
We very much welcome your input in this discussion, as some of the points raised concerns the amount of community support this proposal holds.
Kind regards,
Nurani Nimpuno
on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team
Begin forwarded message:
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
Date: 4 februari 2015 20:54:59 CET
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
CRI!
SP 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@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer