CRISP Team Update
 


0:00:00 David Dean: A list of potential sources of e-friction. I think it was probably 100 or so, and included all sorts of things related to, or including related to domain names and many other factors as well. And the final list was the 55 that we showed here and that's not because there are other sources of friction which are not important, but we were trying to get a good balance between having a relatively large number of metrics, but also metrics which were available on a reliable basis across many countries across the world. We could have made the choice of including more metrics, but then we'd have had fewer countries, or we could have had fewer metrics and had more countries, and this was sort of the compromise that we set.

0:00:54 David Dean: And we also very clearly said, together with ICANN when we began this work, that this report is not supposed to be the definitive report on Internet friction. There's probably no such thing because as things evolve, new sources of friction will emerge as other forms of friction are removed. And so this is, hopefully, a contribution to the debate about e-friction and how we can get more people online around the world, but it's certainly not the definitive answer. It would be interesting at some point to go back and look at additional sources of friction and how that affects the Internet economy.

0:01:39 Vymala Thuron: Thank you, David. Unfortunately, I will have to close this panel, and I will invite you to have a chat with all these families during the coffee break. To continue, I would like to call the CRISP team to give the update and to come on stage so that we can keep with the agenda. Thank you. Thank you very much, big applause.

[applause]

[background noise]

[pause]

0:02:28 Vymala Thuron: So, we'd like to call Janvier Ngnoulaye, Mwenda Kivuva, Alan Barrett, Mary, mother Mary Uduma to come on stage please.

[background noise]

[pause]

0:04:02 Mwenda Kivuva: Good morning. I would like to call Ashok, the legal expert from AfriNIC to come on stage because we need to do some clarification on the SLA that was given out by the regional Internet registry. No ex-pats. Please, Ashok, come to the stage. Thank you.

[background noise]

[pause]

0:04:48 MK: Thank you very much for joining us.

[background conversation]

[background noise]

0:05:06 MK: Thank you very much for joining us on this session on the IANA Stewardship Transition that was... The proposal was developed through the community by the CRISP team, and on stage we have Alan, who was initially on the CRISP team, and before he was appointed as CEO of AfriNIC. And he was replaced by Janvier here, and also we have Mary Uduma. Mary Uduma is on the CRISP community working group on the IANA when she transitioned. And she's also on the SEG, and she will help answer questions related with CRISP team communication with the CCWG, and Ashok here will also help us on the legal implications of the SLA that was delivered. So, the CRISP team is currently composed of three members on the AfriNIC region, that is me, Mwendwa Kivuva, Ernest and [0:06:27] ____. So, our agenda will cover the following three items; the update on the proposal that was delivered, the next steps that we will take from here going forward until the transition happens, and also the communication that we have had with other operational communities that is the numbering community talking to the names community and the protocol community which is the IHF. And after that, we'll have a Q&A session.

0:07:04 MK: So, we all know about the five Regional Internet Registries, RIRs. Each RIR had three representatives on the consolidated Regional Internet Registry, IANA Stewardship Transition team making up 15 members, and there's one member on each RIR representing the staff. So, when there was a call for proposals on all the three operational communities, the names, numbers, and the protocol parameters, the proposal was supposed to meet the following four conditions. It was supposed to be able to support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model of the internet, maintain the security, stability, resilience of the Internet general system, and also meet the needs and expectations of the global customer and partners of the IANA services so that the services that have always been offered by the IANA operator, the consistency to still remain as it were, or even probably become better. And also, the proposal was supposed to maintain the openness of the Internet.

0:08:25 MK: So, these are the timelines that we followed and the timelines that we are continuing following until we're able to transition the IANA functions for the multi-stakeholder Internet community. So, we followed the following nine steps and now we are currently communicating on step three. Communities are reviewing the proposals, so communities are reviewing the proposals, the names proposals, the numbering proposals and the IETF proposal. And they are communicating together so that these three proposals can have convergence. Because at the end of the day, we will actually take one proposal, ICG will take one combined proposal to the ICANN board, so that ICANN board can be able to forward this proposal to NTIA for approval.

0:09:37 MK: So, what process did we follow on the development of this document? Each Regional Internet Registry had its own mechanisms for communicating with its' members. Like in the AfriNIC region, we had a mailing list where which was open for anybody to participate. All the comments from all the five Regional Internet Registries were consolidated together by the CRISP team. And there was a common IANA transfer at nro.net mailing list that was also open for everybody, for all the regions now to communicate and have a convergence. Because each region, LACNIC had a different view of the proposal. APNIC had a different view, RIPE and AfriNIC. But we needed to have one single proposal to represent the Regional Internet Registries. So, all that convergence happened at the NRO mailing list and the archives are open for anybody to scrutinize.

0:10:53 MK: So, from June 2014 when ICG was formed, it asked the different communities to come up with the proposals. And now on quarter four of 2014, the CRISP team was formed, composed of the 15 members we talked about earlier, and the public list created on the same. And January this year, we were able to actually present our proposal to the ICG. So, how is our proposal different from the current mechanism? Currently, ICANN has a contract with NTIA on performing the IANA function. And ICANN... Now, IANA actually has the operational accountability with ICANN to perform the functions. That is what is currently happening.

0:12:03 MK: Our proposal proposed to replace NTIA with the regional Internet registries so that the regional Internet registries can have the contractual accountability with ICANN. And in this case, we are saying that ICANN will remain as the IANA function operator in the foreseeable future, and then now ICANN will have an operational accountability with the the IANA function operator. The regional Internet registries will also form a review team to be able to advise the regional Internet registries if the functions that the contract is being adhered to, the contract between the regional Internet registries and ICANN. So, a review team will be formed, composed of members from all the five regional Internet registries.

0:13:02 MK: So, what are the components of the proposal that was delivered to the ICG? The proposal seeks to have IANA function stability and reliability, ICANN to continue as the IANA numbering service operator, and for us to have an orderly transition to another operator should the need arise. Currently, we remain with ICANN as the IANA function operator. But if the need arise, the community feels the need to transition to another operator, to also have the leeway to chose our own operator.

0:13:41 MK: We chose also to replace the role of the NTIA with the regional Internet registries as the representatives of the community, the RIRs to establish a service level agreement with IANA numbering service operator and this SLA is the one which chose developed by the regional Internet registry legal team. We also chose to establish a review committee to review the performance of the IANA numbering service and advise the regional Internet registries accordingly. Is ICANN performing its operations as required? That will be the work of the review committee. And we also seek to clarify the intellectual property rights issues. There are two intellectual properties that were identified that are domicile at IANA and ICANN. That is the iana.org and the IANA trademark. So, we seek to clarify where those IPR should sit and we'll talk about them shortly.

0:14:55 MK: The proposal that was developed by the community through the CRISP team had 11 principles, and these 11 principles are the ones that formed the SLA agreement that will be signed between the regional Internet registries and ICANN or the IANA function operator. So, these 11 principles are separation of policy development and operational roles, so that we separate policy from the operational functions of the IANA numbering service functions. We also seek to describe the services that are provided, too, to the regional Internet registries by the IANA function operator, the services of requesting for blocks and all that. So, those services were described, too, in the principles that we developed.

0:16:00 MK: Number three, obligation to issue reports on transparency and accountability. The IANA function operator is supposed to be able to issue the reports periodically on the function and the services they give to the regional Internet registry. The principles also, number four, was for security, performance, and audit requirements. The IANA numbering service operator will commit to specific security standards, measured requirements, and audit requirements, and will be obliged to periodically issue reports illustrating its' compliance with the said contract. Number five, review of the IANA operations. This is where, like we said, we will form a review team that will be reviewing the operations of the IANA function operator, and see if it emits the contract the regional Internet registries will have with it.

0:17:10 MK: What happens when there is failure to perform? So, that was principle number six. If the IANA numbering service operator fails to perform as agreed, there will be specific consequences, and one of these consequences may be termination of the agreement. Of course, the SLA agreement that will be signed goes deep into the consequences and the steps to take in case the IANA function operator fails to perform the functions in the SLA.

0:17:44 MK: There is also the principle number seven, term and termination of the contract. The regional Internet registry will be able to periodically review the agreement and evaluate whether they want to renew the agreement the SLA that was delivered. The SLA that was delivered by the legal team put a period of five years for contract renewal. So after every five years, they are able to add a periodic renewal automatically, or depending on what the review team will say.

0:18:28 MK: There was also principle number eight which was Continuity of Operations. If at the end of the term, the Regional Internet Registry decides to sign an agreement for provision of IANA numbering service by a different party, the previous IANA Numbering Service Operator will be obliged to ensure an orderly transition of the function while maintaining the continuity and security of the operations.

0:18:55 MK: Principle number nine was on Intellectual Property Rights and rights over the data that is being held by the IANA Function Operator. The contract that will be signed between the IANA Function Operator and the Regional Internet Registries will implement the Regional Internet Registry community expectations as described in the proposal that was developed. You can imagine, if we transition to a different operator, but the intellectual property rights and the data is still being held by a previous IANA Functions Operator, that will be a problem to the community. That's why we saw the need for transferring the intellectual property rights to the community.

0:19:46 MK: There was also the issue of Dispute Resolution. Disputes between the parties related to the SLA will be resolved through arbitration. So, the SLA talks about having one representative from each region to form their arbitration panel, maybe a legal expert from all the five operational communities and also, they will agree on a court of competent jurisdiction where the dispute resolution will sit... Where the Board will sit probably, and resolve any dispute that occur between the two parties. There is also the cost-based fee. The fee is based on cost incurred by the IANA Numbering Service Operator in providing the IANA numbering service. So, the regional Internet registry agreed to agree with the IANA Function Operator to have a fixed fee that is paid on the services that is offered to them.

0:20:56 MK: There was the Review Committee that we said will be formed to be able to review the functions of the IANA Function Operator to see if the contract is being adhered to. And we said there will be three community representatives from each region, the five regions, the same way the NRO address council is formed. And each community will decide which method it will use to select the three representatives that will be reviewing the functions of the IANA Function Operator and advise the regional Internet registry accordingly on the performance of the services offered by the IANA Function Operator.

0:21:48 MK: So, the process of selecting these three representatives was not agreed at the CRISP level. We said we should not go to the nitty gritty. Each community will decide on which method to use. So, the AfriNIC community, for example, in this meeting can decide on the method they will use to select the three representatives for the Review Committee.

[background noise]

[background conversation]

0:22:34 MK: Okay. I am getting a clarification here from Alan that actually, we did not agree to have three, we just left it at a very high level. And at a later stage, we decided to have equal representation on the Review Committee and not necessarily three people.

[background noise]

0:22:54 MK: Okay. Now, we had the community engagement on the CRISP Team. How did we develop this process? Did we consult the community because part of the NTIA requirement was actually for us to be able to consult our communities as we come up with these proposals. So, there was a global ianaxfer@nro.net mailing list which is open for everyone to participate with open archives. So, if you go to that list, you can be able to see all the communication that happened. And there is also the NRO webpage that has content on all the proposals and the SLAs that were developed, and the CRISP Team members for that each version to each regional Internet registry. The Regional Internet Registry also had their own mailing list for the members. So, whatever was communicated was always provided to those mailing lists. There was feedback from the community and we developed an Excel sheet capturing all feedbacks, and we discussed them extensively before coming up with the final proposal. So this is the classification of a community participation on developing the proposals.

0:24:19 MK: We had 377 posts on the ianaxfer@nro.net list. There was also other posts on their community mailing list, on the AfriNIC mailing list, but on this global list, we have 377 posts. Of that, 53 unique people post us, participated in the discussions, and the public archives are available as we said earlier. So, the support that we got for the proposal, one poster requested adding more detail on some of the proposal companies, but the suggestion failed to receive support from other posters because it was felt that we should leave the details to another state, but to have high level principles developed for the transition.

0:25:14 MK: They also took comments to global ICG forum, expressing concerns and there Mary Uduma who sits at ICG. And there was no objection for the proposal components that we developed. The 11 components that we have talked about. There was also feedback from the ICANN level. And this feedback came after the numbering community, the CRISP Team and the protocol parameters community. The IETF had given out their proposal. This feedback came from ICANN52 from the ICANN board chairman Steve Crocker and he said the ICANN board felt there was nothing fundamentally in them that we have a problem with.

0:26:09 MK: So, it's up to the community to interpret what the ICANN board chair meant by that statement. So, these are the principles that gained consensus, proto consensus. The high level principles or the IANA service level agreement clarify that the Regional Internet Registry will consult with their respective communities during the drafting of the SLA. So, the SLA that was developed by the legal team of the Regional Internet Registry was shared to the community and they still call for comments until 14th of June. So, that is part of that principle. There was also high level principle in the review committee selection process, the one we have talked about that each community will decide the process of selecting the members of the review committee.

0:27:01 MK: There was also need to clarify on IANA intellectual property rights which were the iana.org and the IANA trademark. These are the three suggestions that did not meet consensus on the discussions. Specify a particular jurisdiction or dispute resolution mechanism. Some people wanted us maybe to go to Geneva for dispute resolution or Malta. But we were not able to come up with consensus, so this one was left at that so that when there is any dispute, the two parties will agree on a court of competent jurisdiction to do any dispute resolution. Specify a particular selection process for review committee. We were not able to agree on which process to use on selecting the review committee and each Regional Internet Registry was advised to use its own mechanisms, the internet mechanism they use in consulting their communities to constitute the review committee.

0:28:18 MK: There was also suggestion that we should... The CRISP team should develop the service level agreement and be part of the proposal, but it was felt that probably the CRISP team did not have the legal expertise to develop the proposal. So, it was left that the SLA will be developed by the legal team of the five Regional Internet Registries. And after all this, we were able to present our proposal to the IANA's stewardship coordination group [ICG] on January 15th, 2015.

0:28:55 MK: So, from here what are the next steps? We are now analysing the service level agreement that was developed by the legal experts of the five Regional Internet Registries to see if they are consistent with the 11 points that we talked about that are part of CRISP proposal. We are also supposed to liaise with the two other operational committees. The IETF, which are the protocol parameters and also liaise with the names community to ensure that three proposals that we developed are consistent. Because at the end of the day, ICG will submit one proposal to the ICANN board to be submitted to NTIA for the transition of the IANA function operation to happen. So, we have had communication with their Cross Community Working Group. The Cross Community Working Group released their draft proposal just recently and it had...

0:30:13 MK: The proposal had some items that will affect the numbering community, so we had to actually try to communicate with them to see how we'll handle them. So, the CCWG had proposed to develop a Post-Transition IANA which is a separate legal, wholly owned subsidiary of ICANN for the IANA naming services. The creation of the Post-Transition IANA ensures both functional and legal separation within the ICANN organization. So, that was according to the Cross Community Working Group. They will also share a contract between the Post-Transition IANA with ICANN that will give the Post-Transition IANA the rights and obligation as the IANA Function Operator. The IANA function will continue to reside within ICANN subject to accountability and mechanisms that are already in existence.

0:31:18 MK: So, actually that is part of the proposal from the naming community and the Regional Internet Registry and the CRISP team actually. We gave some response to that. We said that it is essential for each operational community to be free to make independent arrangements with an IANA Function Operator including the ability to change the IANA Function Operator itself. So, it's not a must for the Regional Internet Registry to actually work with the Post-Transition IANA which will have a leeway to decide on which IANA Function Operator to use. So, the CRISP team is analysing whether to exchange in the Post-Transition IANA is created when we are finished with our service level agreement. Will we... The Regional Internet Registries, have a contract with the Post-Transition IANA or will we have a contract with ICANN? 

0:32:26 MK: There is also the Post-Transition IANA board, the CRISP team felt that it is important to keep the roles and structures of the Post-Transition IANA at a minimum and should we have a representative of the Regional Internet Registry on the PTI board. So, some of the other responses were the budget for the IANA Function Operator or the PTI board that was suggested by CCWG. The CRISP team said that in the proposal, they are given a fixed fee to be paid annually to the IANA Function Operator. There was also a Customer Standing Committee suggested to oversee the functions of the IANA Function Operator. And the CRISP team had suggested a review committee composed of the different Regional Internet Registry. So, we are saying that we should have some form of communication between the customer standing committee and the review team that is formed by the RIRs.

0:33:45 MK: There was also the issue of the IPR, the Intellectual Property Rights, so if the Post-Transition IANA is formed, where will the IPR sit? So, we still need more dialogue between the three operational committees, the IETF, the Cross Community Working Group, and the CRISP team on where this IPR shall sit. As stated earlier, the Regional Internet Registries had said that this IPR should be transferred from ICANN and be held by the IETF Trust. So, that was actually our proposal. There is also the Multi-Stakeholder IANA Function Review team that was proposed by the CCWG and the CRISP team felt that the Regional Internet Registry have no role on that team because we already have a review team to be able to review the contract between the IANA Function Operator and the Regional Internet Registries. We communicated with the IETF, the protocol parameters group, asking them if they are comfortable with the holding, the intellectual property rights on the IANA trademark and the iana.org.

0:35:12 MK: We exchanged emails and we... And they said they have no objection to holding actually these trademarks. So, this does not... Can actually be transferred to them. They said they have no objection to that. And that was actually on section 383 of their proposal developed by the community. So when will the transition occur? When will transition of the IANA function occur from oversight of the NTIA to the Global Multi-stakeholder community? So, we are saying that once an agreement has been reached on the new [0:35:55] ____ mechanism, the actual process will begin for transition, and this is the process we are actually in right now.

0:36:04 MK: So, on the documents that we developed, there is a document from the CRISP team available on the NRO website, also the proposals and the frequently asked questions on the work we have done and also on the proposal we have given, they are also available on the website, but that's not to say that you cannot ask questions in this forum. Also there is the SLA that was developed by the legal team, it's available on the NRO website and also the proposal from the IETF and the Cross Community Working group is also available on their respective websites. Thank you, so now that's it, those are the... That's the stage we are in and we will invite questions, and probably you can queue on the mic and there is a question that might touch on the SLA, the legal stuff, probably we can have a short response to them, our communication with CCWG, Mary Uduma can communicate on that and also Alan. Okay. So, if there are any questions, probably we can have...

[background noise]

[pause]

0:37:34 MK: Alan wants to make some few remarks before we do the questions.

0:37:42 Alan Barrett: Right. Thank you very much Mwendwa for that summary of the good work that the CRISP team has been doing. I would like to emphasize something which was mentioned, but there is perhaps some confusion in the community, I'd like to clear it up. The RIRs do not have any plan to move away from ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator. We are happy with ICANN, we would like to keep on using ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator. However, as is good practice in almost any agreement, we are putting something in the proposed SLA and in the CRISP proposal to allow us to change our mind in the future, so we could in the future choose not to renew the contract, but right now, we're happy with ICANN, we have no plan at all to change the IANA Functions Operator. There is a small question of whether the contract will be with ICANN or the post transition IANA, but fundamentally if we put those both in the same box and call it ICANN, it could be them, okay. And so the next step that we are looking for from the RIR's perspective is for the community to look at the proposed SLA that was published and to comment on that SLA and you can do that here or on the mailing list where it was published, thank you.

[background noise]

0:39:23 MK: Okay, for those with questions, we can start with Douglas.

[background noise]

0:39:30 Douglas Onyango: Douglas here, my question... I have a couple of questions and the first one is regarding the review committee. Will the review committee be a standing committee or an ad hoc committee, 'cause I'm trying to figure out how much work it has to do and see if it is something that is going to be convened on an ad hoc basis or a full-time basis. My second question is probably better for Ashok. We chose to have a dispute resolution through arbitration. It is my experience that this is a very lengthy route, although arbitration can still be achieved under the legal system in a sense that when one party is aggrieved and has an intent to actually sue or anything like that, there can be a few days or weeks where it is accepted for a mediation to happen before the aggrieved party actually proceeds with the legal action, will then this has been... Was this considered and was it a viable option or did you, did you immediately discard it for one reason or the other? Thank you.

0:40:55 MK: Okay, we can have the questions answered fast and then the other people can ask their questions, so alarm the review committee.

0:41:04 AB: Okay, thank you. So, the first question was, "Is the review committee to be an ad hoc committee or a standing committee?" The RIR legal team has not yet come up with a concrete proposal for how the review committee will be formed. In my personal opinion, it doesn't have very much work to do, but nevertheless it should probably be a standing committee, but that's my personal opinion, that's not from the RIRs, formally.

[background noise]

0:41:46 Ashok Radhakissoon: Thank you. Good morning everybody. I would like first of all, let me just state that I wasn't really involved in the drafting part of the SLA. Just a document was thrown over to me sometime back for me to have a look, to propose certain amendments which I did and then two days ago, I was told that I will be part of the panel this morning. As you maybe recall, my name wasn't even called to be on the panel. So, you realise how very peripherical was I to the whole process. Never mind. But to your question of the  ____ was it? Yes.

0:42:28 Ashok Radhakissoon: Now, I'll respond in a sort of general legal perspective. Arbitration process, they in nature, they have been designed to be a quick process, but in practice, they do reveal themselves to be very time consuming and complicated at times. So, initially, in terms of a cursory examination I made of it, I find that there is a dispute resolution process first of all. If that doesn't work, I think it is disclosed in Article 13, 102. If this doesn't work, then we leave the proposal to go for arbitration. But my own feeling is since we are in a consensus grievance  ____ environment, these two legal, very classical legal dispute resolution process, the dispute resolution itself, on the one hand and the arbitration on the other would be last resort or first, second resort dispute resolution process.

0:43:39 Ashok Radhakissoon: I think one, if the consensus fails,  ____ fails, then you have got to go one way or the other. If it is arbitration, then mind you, it might be costly on the one hand, time consuming on the other, and maybe not free from procedural sort of problems that we know arbitration, they have inherent in them. So in short, it is indeed as you say at a glance, long, complicated and maybe shorter processes should be envisaged in an informal manner most probably. Because if you take it down to a text on how to bind it in some form or the other. Once you get from IETF ____, you're bringing the legal, tactical difficulties that normally is entrenched in it. I hope I have answered your question. Thank you.

0:44:31 MK: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ashok. Tijani? 

0:44:36 Tijani Ben Jemma: Thank you. Tijani Ben Jemma. Do you think that the proposal of the CWG may be the unique proposal that the US Government IP is asking for with one PTI and three CSCs? Yes, modify it, for sure because I know that everything is not already set on this proposal, but if we try to update to accommodate it to be the unique proposal, is it okay for you? 

0:45:19 MK: Okay. Is there somebody from the panel who wants to respond to that? To Tejani's question? 

[background conversation]

0:45:47 MK: Mike, pass the mic to Alan.

0:45:54 AB: Okay. So, I'm not sure I completely understood the question. So let me repeat it for clarification. I think that Tijani, your question is whether the ICG's proposal completely meets the requirements? 

0:46:08 S7: No. I said if this proposal is modified in a way that it can integrate the three functions as a structure with the PTI and three CSCs, one for each function, is it okay for you? 

0:46:32 AB: Okay. So, if the ICG chooses to modify our proposal in some way. I can't answer that without seeing what changes the ICG might make, I do sit on that body, but I don't expect the ICG to make changes.

0:46:49 MK: Alan, I don't think that's what... That's not what Tijani is asking.

0:46:53 Tijani Ben Jemma: Sorry, I was speaking about the CWG proposal, the CWG proposal, the naming function proposal.

0:47:00 AB: Oh, yeah.

0:47:02 Tijani Ben Jemma: As a structure, it's one PTI, three CSCs. Can it be...

0:47:08 AB: Okay.

0:47:09 Tijani Ben Jemma: Okay? 

0:47:09 AB: Okay. Thank you, I finally understood the question. Alright, so the main CWG has proposed a structure in which the IANA functions will be split from ICANN into something called the PTI, the Post-Transition IANA, and it will have various committees and boards and things sitting around that, and one of those will be the Customer Support Committee, the CSC. I had thought that there would be only one CSC but now, I think Tejani is suggesting there could be three. And the question is, would that be okay for the numbers community? I think that's something for the community to answer. In my personal opinion, it could probably work depending on the details.

0:48:03 Frank Jose: Okay. My name is Frank Jose. I would like to find out if AfriNIC is planning to have the same SLA models with its own members. Thank you.

0:48:13 MK: Okay. He is asking... What's your name please? 

0:48:15 Frank Jose: Frank.

0:48:17 MK: Okay. He is asking if AfriNIC is planning to have an SLA with other members? 

0:48:26 AB: Right. Thank you. At present, the agreement between AfriNIC and the resource members is through means of the Registry Service Agreement, the RSA, which states that AfriNIC will use its best efforts to provide service. That is, at present, the only form of SLA that we have with our members. We would certainly consider providing a better SLA with stronger guarantees, but there's nothing on the table right now.

0:49:00 MK: Okay, yes? 

0:49:02 Owen de Long: Owen de Long (Akamai)... It seems to me in terms of the Review Committee, that we already have a group known as the Member Resource Organization Members Council which was elected by the community for the purpose of managing the policy process for local policies, to control how ICANN/IANA interacts with the RIRs. So, why not make them the Review Committee as well? 

0:49:31 MK: Okay, thank you. Actually, that suggestion was floated when we were developing this proposal. It was actually floated and it was deliberated at the CRISP level and at the community level, but there was no agreement that the NRONC should do that function. The community felt that we should separate these functions because one function will actually see if the contractual accountability signed between the two parties is adhered to. So, the committee felt it's important to actually separate these functions. I don't know if Alan... You have anything to add on that? Do you have anything to add on that? Okay, thank you. Next,É.

0:50:20 Paulos Nyirenda: Thank you. Paulos Nyirenda from Malawi. I wanted to ask maybe similar to what John asked. I noticed we have proposals like IANA Numbering Services Operator, IANA Name Services Operator, IANA Portable Services Operator, so they seem to refer to a similar structure. And my observation is also that the structure is probably most clearly defined and that the main services with the PTI, a way that the CRISP Team would accept that. That's my first comment.

0:51:10 Sunday Folayan: My second comment is on dispute resolution. It's been indicated there is none. I'm not sure if this is a good idea and if the CRISP team went to a dispute or development of a dispute resolution mechanism, is there any feeling on what jurisdiction it would use? Because, I mean, there are several regions with several difference on jurisdiction. So, has there been any debates on the jurisdiction? 

0:51:52 MK: I shall fully take the jurisdiction part and the first question, who will answer it? 

[background conversation]

0:52:06 Ashok Radhakissoon: Yes. As far as the jurisdiction element is concerned, the SLA is deemed to be governed by the place where the operator will operate from. In this case if I read it well, it will be ICANN. It will be in the jurisdiction where ICANN will operate from. Now, as to subjecting any arbitrary process to a particular jurisdiction, I think this will be left to the choice of the parties we want to get via an arbitrary sort of process. They can decide any jurisdiction and will choose them both. Generally, the cost element is involved, the kind of ____ is involved. So, it's not a simple matter, and a very difficult matter to difficult because some people would prefer jurisdiction that is more flexible, where it is less costly and also where things can go faster. So to summarize, the jurisdiction for the SLA itself, will be within the ambience of where the operator is or where it's from, and the jurisdiction to apply the arbitrary process will be left to the choice of various parties who want to mitigate on a particular issue. Thank you.

0:53:28 MK: Okay, Mary will answer the first question of Dr. Paulos and  É.. will be last person on line because of time.

[background conversation]

0:53:52 Mary Uduma : One minute, I think the question that Paulos asked, Dr. Paulos asked has been answered by Alan before, I think that they will look at it because for Africa, we should consider whether it makes it a better business sense to coordinate the three and have just any use between them and work on that. The different communities are still trying to develop their own relationship with ICANN and the names community also, that is CCWG proposal you can see is mainly on names. So, the number community as Alan said is still considering that. So, it would have been a good thing, but for me personally speaking, I think it would have been good for them to harmonize. But since each community has its own processes, so it will be at the end when it gets to the ICG that we will want to see whether we can go back to the communities and say, " We'll look at this one and set it up."

0:55:08 MK: Okay. Last question from Seun.

0:55:11 Seun Ojedeji: Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Seun from Nigeria. Before I make my two comments, I'd just like to add a plus one to what Owen mentioned, because I happen to be one of the community members that actually was not in support of the essence of setting up a review, a separate review committee. I feel it is unnecessary. I don't think the work of the current NRSC is too much to actually accommodate the minor work of reviewing the operation of IANA Number Resource which we all know that it's very straightforward. I don't think we need a whole team for that. However, at the community based on what Mwendwa has said, decided that that is the way to go which is fine.

0:56:08 Seun Ojedeji: My comment, my own comment, I am surprised by what Ashok said in relation to the fact that he is not part of the legal team. My understanding is that the legal team composed of a legal rep from each of the RIR. So, if Ashok is saying he's not part of it, then it means that there is a fundamental problem in the development of the SLA and that needs to be very, very clarified and corrected. Also, I'd like to ask Alan to perhaps clarify what he means by, RIR will be contacting with ICANN as the IANA Function Operator because we understand that the proposal being made by PTI... I mean by CWG intends to transition the IANA Function Operator to PTI, that is the Post-Transition IANA. So, are you saying that you... Does it mean that actually, you are fine with contracting the ICANN and you are also fine with ICANN sub-contracting to PTI? Would that be okay with you, that approach? Or are you just saying that you don't want to contract with PTI either directly or indirectly? Thank you.

0:57:45 MK: Alan, have you got Seun's question? 

0:57:50 AB: Alright. Yes, I think so. I think there were two questions, one about Ashok's role and one about whether the contract is to be with ICANN or the PTI. On the first one regarding Ashok's role, he is AfriNIC'S legal advisor. His role on the drafting committee was very small as he's indicated. Most of the work was done by other RIRs, but the draft was presented to Ashok for comment and his role, I believe, is limited to providing a few comments. Nevertheless, he should be considered a member of the team which provided input to that SLA. On the second question regarding whether the contract should be between the RIRs and ICANN or between the RIRs and the PTI, I think that question is still up for discussion. In my personal opinion, it could work either way, but no decision has been made.

0:58:52 MK: Thank you very much, Alan.

0:58:58 Mary Uduma: Can I say something, please? I think I want to enjoin all of us to get engaged and try and participate in this process to get the question right, I mean the comment. You have a sense of the direction each of the communities is going, okay? And if you think as Africa, that it's better for the three communities to come together and have a common service, that is the IANA service, we can make that proposal, and it can carry the day, who knows? 

0:59:37 Janvier Ngoulaye: Yes, in addition to what Mary said, just to invite the community to the global list because since yesterday, the call of comment on the first draft of the NSA has been sent to the global list. So, just connect and then download, read it, and make your comment. Thank you.

1:00:00 MK: Okay thank you very much. Would like to thank our panelists for this meeting and as we have been urged, any comments you have, any questions, any clarification, you can still go to the global IANA transfer list and ask the questions there and also put your recommendations out there because your recommendations is part of the community participation. Thank you very much and...