ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

R. Hill's asserted process concerns re the number community's ICG submission

  • To: "icg-forum@xxxxxxxxx" <icg-forum@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: R. Hill's asserted process concerns re the number community's ICG submission
  • From: John Curran <jcurran@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:39:34 +0000

Esteemed ICG members -

In public comments to the ICG on 20 January 2015, Richard Hill asserts
process concerns regarding the community development process for the
number portion of the IANA stewardship transition plan.

Richard observes that some legal questions were raised in discussions
on the CRISP mailing list, in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute
resolution, which he felt should have been answered by the CRISP team
or referred to outside legal expertise.  The lack of inclusion of these topics
in the CRISP final response leads him to conclude that the response lacks
sufficient detail and somehow rises to a process concern because (in his
view) the failure to include contractual details does not allow review of this
portion of the transition plan by the global multi-stakeholder community.

It is unfortunate for Richard to mischaracterize the final CRISP proposal in
this manner (much as he has done with related ICG response efforts), as
it reflects a significant misunderstanding of the distinction between the
development of a transition plan (as done by the community) versus the
tasks which must be done by the relevant parties during preparation and
execution of such a plan.  The Chair of the CRISP team, Izumi Okutani,
noted as much in her response to Richard (which he cited but failed to
include the relevant portion of her response) -

  "We think it serves the best interests to leave this consideration to
  RIR legal team to see what the best option for arbitration is for all
  parties involved."

This decision by the CRISP team regarding scope of its guidance was
discussed at length on the mailing list, and again the consensus result
was that additional detail was not necessary.  This was confirmed in the
review of the final draft of the CRISP plan which enjoyed overwhelming
support.  I am not aware of any process issues in the formulation of the
CRISP team proposal for the number portion of the transition plan, and
on behalf of ARIN would like to take this opportunity to express gratitude
to all those in the community that participated in its preparation.

Also, best wishes to the ICG group on your upcoming proposal integration
task (and related efforts) in the transition of the stewardship of the IANA
functions to the global multistakeholder community.

Thank you!

John Curran
President and CEO

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy