Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
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 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@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
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-finaliz...
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 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@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
On 5 Feb 2015, at 14:26, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
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.
Me too! I wholeheartedly support the CRISP proposal and the open process it used to engage with everyone and reach consensus.
Hello, On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 5 Feb 2015, at 14:26, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
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.
Me too!
I wholeheartedly support the CRISP proposal and the open process it used to engage with everyone and reach consensus.
Same here. I have shared my thoughts on this before but I would like to repeat my support for the proposal submitted by the CRISP team. I also want to note again that I found the process followed to come up with this proposal extremely open and transparent. In my belief CRISP team did a very good job of creating awareness on the topic, collecting feedback, consolidating the collected feedback and turning it into an efficient and workable proposal document. While doing that, they kept transparent, welcoming and engaged openly with those who provided specific feedback too. I've saw a lot of good discussion in many fora and in my opinion all necessary issues are addressed adequately by the CRISP team. I thank them for their meticulous work. I also noticed various individuals who are not RIR Staff or who are not CRISP team members, volunteered their time in making announcements to encourage others to participate on this very important proposal in various fora too. So a lot of hard work is put in by many different stakeholders in many different ways in this case, in both creating awareness and actively participating in the process. In short, I see this as a very good example of a bottom-up, open and transparent decision making process that successfully resulted in the proposal submitted. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz
_______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
Thank you Nick for the analysis of the process with regards to consensus. I fully agree with your analysis and conclusion. I would once again like to express my support for the CRISP proposal and thank all the participants in the CRISP team for their work. Hans Petter Holen On 5 February 2015 15:26:39 CET, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
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-finaliz...
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
Dear colleagues,
Please find below the email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to
On 05/02/2015 12:56, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: 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
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
CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on
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
specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process,
RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and
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
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
community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over
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
concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " the the the the that the the these 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
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
participants (5)
-
Filiz Yilmaz -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jim Reid -
Nick Hilliard -
Nurani Nimpuno