[lac-discuss-es] RV: [NRO-IANAXFER] Numbering Services Draft SLA, still open for comment until 14 June
Alejandro Pisanty
apisanty en gmail.com
Lun Jun 8 15:36:28 UTC 2015
Alberto,
mil gracias por compartir este intercambio de mensajes.
Como bien lo señalas, el tema es muy específico y la discusión en extremo
detallada. Sin embargo, y sobre todo con la respuesta de John Curran, el
asunto del que trata es de la mayor escala y la mayor importancia. Nuestra
comunidad debe estar preparada para intervenir a nivel regional y global.
1. Es indispensable contrarrestar todos los esfuerzos de los RIRs que
conducen a fragmentar a ICANN, en particular a través de la fragmentación
de IANA. Aunque se profesa carecer de esa intención, la firma de un
convenio o contrato comercial separado para los recursos de numeración y la
desproporción en los pagos entre números y nombres impulsan esa dirección.
2. La razón asiste a David Conrad en la mayor parte de sus observaciones.
Ya es de suyo complejo establecer un SLA (acuerdo de nivel de servicio) con
un proveedor comercial convencional de servicios que el mercado define.
Reducir a un contrato de este tipo la función de "stewardship" de ICANN e
IANA crea los incentivos más contraproducemtes posibles.
Espero que otras organizaciones se manifiesten y propongo expresar los dos
puntos aquí expuestos como una posición de consenso de LACRALO, para lo
cual solicito a la Presidencia y la Secretaría instituyan los procesos
formales correspondientes.
Alejandro Pisanty
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Alberto Soto <asoto en ibero-americano.org>
wrote:
> Estimados, aquí la respuesta de John Curran, CEO de ARIN, a David Conrard.
> Saludos cordiales
>
> Alberto Soto
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ianaxfer-bounces en nro.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces en nro.net] En nombre
> de John Curran
> Enviado el: lunes, 08 de junio de 2015 08:04 a.m.
> Para: David Conrad
> CC: ianaxfer en nro.net
> Asunto: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Numbering Services Draft SLA, still open for
> comment until 14 June
>
> On Jun 7, 2015, at 11:51 PM, David Conrad <drc en virtualized.org> 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.
>
> David -
>
> Thanks for these comments - I have no doubt that they will lead to an
> improved SLA 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.
>
> Along that spirit, I am going to refrain from responding to the vast
> majority
> 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.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > 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.
>
> I believe that the roles and responsibilities of the parties must be
> defined, but that
> doesn’t 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
> yet these roles are not strictly dependent on each other. For
> example, if the ICANN
> IANA team were 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 circumstances where the
> numbers community
> would need (via the RIRs as their representative) to contract for an
> alternative IANA
> numbers registry operator. The SLA should be suitable for that
> arrangement (even
> though ICANN would not longer be performing the IANA numbers registry
> function.)
>
> However, in my personal opinion, such a change should not in any way
> change the
> RIRs collectively operating under ICANN’s overall Internet identifier
> coordination role;
> i.e. the community should still submit global 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
> as an important role external to the Internet numbers community that
> improves overall
> 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) RIRs/NRO serving as the global Address Supporting
> Organization
> within ICANN, with its incumbent obligations, and 2) ICANN serving as
> the IANA
> numbers service operator for numbering 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.
>
> Actually, I believe it is $100 _in total_ under the present language…
> Is there a value
> that makes more sense - i.e. what do you believe the full costs of
> providing “the
> extremely limited activity” 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,
> and the present ICANN ASO contribution should be reduced by the same
> amount
> once established. In this manner, if the worst-cast were to happen
> and another
> party had to perform IANA services, then the RIRs would have budgeted
> at least a
> meaningful amount for this purpose, and while ICANN would lose this
> amount, it
> would correspond with a similar 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.
>
> It would be nice if we could all come to agreement that the rights to
> the community's
> intellectual property related to these activities (including any data
> rights, trademark,
> domain names, etc.) should be held by an entity which was actually set
> up for such
> a purpose, had no operational role, would make appropriate licenses
> available to all
> parties that 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 involving transitions where it
> would be
> very helpful it we could 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 remarks above 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 ARIN Board nor ARIN community has
> discussed David’s
> comments and developed specific positions on these
> topics at this time.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ianaxfer mailing list
> ianaxfer en nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>
>
> ---
> El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> busca de virus.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/attachments/20150608/53d46179/attachment-0001.html>
Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es