[lac-discuss-en] RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June

[asoto at ibero-americano.org]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: RV: Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June 
 From: asoto at ibero-americano.org

 Alejandro agree. Particularly agrees with David in an SLA should contain everything you need and be drafted as clearly as possible. I have written some SLA as a lawyer and I have also supported some of them as a computer, on a very large multinational group. 


 Thanks to these collaborations 






 Best regards 


 Alberto Soto 






 From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto: apisanty at gmail.com] 
 Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 24:36 
 To: Alberto Soto 
 CC: LACRALO Spanish 
 Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] FW: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June 






 Alberto, 






 thank you for sharing this message exchange. 






 As you well point out, the issue is very specific and detailed discussion end. However, especially with the response of John Curran, the issue of dealing is the largest scale and importance. Our community must be prepared to intervene at regional and global level. 






 1. It is essential to counter all efforts leading to fragment RIRs ICANN, particularly through the fragmentation of IANA. While professing lack of that intention, the signing of a separate agreement or commercial contract to numbering resources and the imbalance in payments between numbers and drive names that direction. 






 2. The reason David Conrad attends most of his observations. And is itself complex to establish an SLA (service-level agreement) with a conventional commercial service provider defines the market.Reduce to a contract of this type function "stewardship" of ICANN and IANA make possible more contraproducemtes incentives. 






 I hope other organizations intend to manifest and express the two points here presented as a consensus position of LACRALO, for which requested the Chair and Secretariat corresponding institute formal processes. 






 Alejandro Pisanty 






 On Mon, June 8, 2015 at 9:16 a.m., Alberto Soto <asoto at ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org> &gt; Wrote: 


 Dear, here the answer of John Curran, CEO of ARIN, David Conrard. 
 Best regards 


 Alberto Soto 


 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net> [Mailto: ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer-bounces at nro.net> ] On behalf of John Curran 
 Posted on: Monday, June 8, 2015 8:04 a.m.
 To: David Conrad 
 CC: ianaxfer at nro.net <mailto:ianaxfer at nro.net>
 Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Numbering Services SLA, still open for comment Until 14 June 


 On June 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org <mailto:drc at virtualized.org> &gt; Wrote: 
 > 
> Hi,
>
> I have been hesitant to provide comments on the draft SLA due to my current role within ICANN: for those that do not know, I am ICANN's CTO and am responsible for the technical implementation of the transition of the stewardship of the IANA Functions to the global multistakeholder community.  However, a number of people (not directly associated with ICANN) have asked me to provide my input WITHOUT my ICANN hat on, and instead as someone who helped set up APNIC, was an ARIN Board member for 5 years, had a very small role in helping to set up AfriNIC, who ran IANA from 2005 to 2010, and who has been doing registry stuff in one way or another for way longer than I care to admit.
>
> Perhaps this can be a lesson in being careful what you ask for...
>
> While I can assert the following input is, in fact, (a) purely my own, (b) is in no way representing ICANN's view, and (c) has not been coordinated with ICANN staff or board (I did mention I was planning on posting something in my own name), I am aware some will believe my input is subject to conflict of interest. My apologies in advance if you are among these people.




   Thanks for These comments - I have no doubt That They will lead to an 
   SLA improved as a result. 


> I will also apologize in advance if some of the comments below appear a bit harsh. This is not intended, however I believe due to time constraints, it is better to be clear and direct.


   of the comments (as the community is likely To have ample comments), but 
   but will comment on three areas Which relate to the overall assumptions for 
   the IANA Stewardship transition process at a high-level. 


> ...
> In addition, the "SLA" appears to be entirely one-sided, ignoring the reality that management of numbers is a cooperative effort done by the IANA numbering function operator, the RIRs, LIRs, and end users, for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole.




> As such, I believe a useful SLA must clearly define the _mutual_ roles and responsibilities of both parties, along with a very clear escalation path should a party not live up to their responsibilities. The current document does not do this.


   Does not Necessarily Have to be (or even Should be) in a single document. The rather 
   colorful structure and evolution of ICANN has Resulted in it having multiple roles, and 
   These roles are not yet strictly dependent on each other.For example, if the ICANN 
   Were IANA team to experience extremely and chronic performance issues in the 
   administration of the IANA number registries (the opposite of the excellent performance 
   provided to date), Then There Could be a community Circumstances Where the numbers 
   would need (via the RIRs as Their representative) to an alternative contract for IANA 
   registry operator numbers. The SLA Should be suitable for That arrangement (even 
   though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA registry numbers function.) 


   However, in my personal opinion, shouldnt Such a change in any way change the 
   RIRs collectively operating under ICANN's overall coordination role Internet identifier; 
   Should the community ie still submit comprehensive policies to ICANN for ratification, the ASO 
   MOU Should Remain in effect, the RIR community Should Participate in accountability 
   and transparency reviews (ATRT) as part of the ICANN system, etc.ICANN Serves 
   Important role as an external to the Internet community That Improves overall numbers 
   accountability and transparency, and Helps in broad outreach to the global Internet 
   community. 


   So, I think we're in agreement That role and Responsibilities Should be Clearly defined, 
   but it is not clear That it Should be done in a single document since there are multiple 
   relationships: 1) RIR / NRO serving as the Global Address Supporting Organization 
   Within ICANN Obligations With its incumbent, and 2) serving as ICANN the IANA 
   numbers for numbering service operator community as Represented by the RIRs. 


>  5.2: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount the RIRs shall reimburse the Operator pursuant to Article 5.1 above shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) unless otherwise agreed to in writing by all Parties."
>
> Um, what?  So the RIRs are only obligated to pay a maximum of $500 total? This makes no sense to me, particularly given 5.1. I guess this is some sort of legal incantation that makes sense to lawyers.


   That Makes more sense - ie what do you believe the full costs of providing &quot;the 
   extremely limited activity &quot;of the IANA numbering function? I personally believe That 
   it is in the community's interest for this value be an accurate estimate of Such costs, 
   ICANN ASO and the present contribution Should be reduced by the same amount 
   established eleven o'clock.In This manner, if the worst-cast Were to happen and another 
   HAD party to perform services IANA, the RIRs then a budgeted at Least Would Have to 
   meaningful amount for th purpose, and while ICANN would Lose This amount, it 
   would like Correspond with a reduction in the level of effort in Their IANA team. 


> 12.1.1: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title and interest in and to such intellectual property rights to the RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees."
>
> I don't think it makes sense to assign (say) intellectual property held by the Operator on behalf of (say) the naming community exclusively to the RIRs.
>
> 12.1.2: "Operator does hereby assign and transfer any and all right, title, and interest in and to such data rights to the RIRs, their successors, assigns and designees."
>
> Similar comment as above.
>
> 12.3: "the Operator may be provided the use of intellectual property or rights over data through a license from the RIRs or the IETF Trust (the “IP Assets”)."
>
> This is backwards. ICANN currently owns the rights to that intellectual property.


   These related to intellectual property activities (including any data rights, trademark, 
   domain names, etc.) Should be held by an entity Which was whos Such set-up for 
   a purpose, Had no operational role, would make available to all Appropriate licenses 
   That parties had a role in IANA operations, etc. Last I checked, the IETF Trust met 
   all of These criteria (Whereas neither ICANN nor the RIRs do) One can imagine 
   some rather extreme worse-case scenarios transitions Involving Where it would be 
   Could it very helpful we all rely on the intellectual property Being made available to 
   whomever needed it to perform the functions, and Not Otherwise caught in transition. 


 Thanks again for the comments! 
 / John


 Disclaimer: The above remarks are my own as CEO of ARIN. While I believe them to 
                    be fully Compatible with the organization's positions on These matters to 
                    date, neither the Board nor ARIN ARIN community has Discussed David's 
                    comments and developed specific positions on These topics at This Time. 






 _______________________________________________ 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/911b20b705.html
--]]