[cooperation-wg] [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "

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 at 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-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 at 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 at 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 at nro.net" <ianaxfer at 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 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>ianaxfer mailing list
>ianaxfer at nro.net
>https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20150207/b7898bed/attachment.html>