[CRISP-TEAM] Draft Notes CRISP 2nd Teleconference

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you German and LACNIC staff for the notes of the 2nd teleconference.

I appreciate the initiative in trying to post the notes as quickly as 
possible and apologies for getting back to you late.

*If* there is still time to accomodate the changes, I would like to 
especially clarify the part below.
i.e., clarify there was a general acceptance of the compromised idea 
shared by Craig in accomodating regional differences.

 > CN explained the differences among the AOC, SLA and MONC remarked on 
the document.

(add)
CN explained a compromised proposal, accomodating regional differences.

 > IO asked the CRISP Members to give an input from the perspective of 
each region.
 >

There was general acceptance of this approach explained by CN. None of 
the team member voiced an objection to this approach.

In addition, each CRIPS Team members shared observation in from their 
regions as below.

 > AB from AFRINIC region explained that there is no formal proposal in 
the region and underlined that
 > the community identified some important aspects to be included 
(bottom-up process, documentation,
 > addition languages other than English and satisfied with SLA or MOU)
 >
 > MA highlighted some important subjects such as stability and SLA.
 >
 > EL agreed with the draft as a starting point and underlined the 
importance of the MONC for the
 > LACNIC community.

Please see inline for more minor commments on other parts (three parts).



>
> CRISP Teleconference held on Thursday, December 11th 2014 ( 13.00
> UTC)
>
> 0. Welcome
> 1. Agenda Review
>
> 2. Actions Review
> Action I: GV to create a private, closed mailing list for CRISP members as soon as possible.
> Action II: GV to update Micheal´s draft CRISP timeline
> Action III: Craig, Andrei, Michael and Esteban to prepare and share a first draft of the document.
> Action IV: GV to gather proposals in each RIR regions and post on NRO website.
> 3. Discussions about the draft proposal
> a) Briefing from the initial draft volunteers
> b) Discussions
> 4. Drafting tool(s)
> a) Agree on the tool to use
> 5 Reconfirm next steps & schedules
> a) Timeline to fix 1st draft as CRISP team
> b) Communications with respective RIR regions c )The next call date
> 6 AOB
>
> 7 Adjourn.
> CRISP members present:
>
> AFRINIC
> Alan P. Barrett, AB Mwendwa Kivuva, MK Ernest Byaruhanga, EB (
> APNIC
> Izumi Okutani, IO
> Craig Ng, CN
>
>
> ARIN
> Michael Abejuala, MA John Sweeting JS
>
> LACNIC
> Esteban Lescano, EL Nico Scheper, NS Andres Piazza AP
>
> RIPE NCC
> Nurani Nimpuno, NN Andrei Robachevsky, AR
>
> 1. Agenda Review
>
> No agenda items were added.
>
> 2. Actions Review
>
> IO presented and reviewed the agenda and the four actions items proposed during the last meeting.
> All the actions were done.
>
> Action II: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-
> oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team
>
> Action IV: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-
> oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition- process
>
> IO encouraged all the RIRs to share the information above within their communities as APNIC has
> already done.

share the information above --> share key updated about developing the 
proposal by CRISP team

----
IO encouraged all the RIRs to share key updated about developing the 
proposal by CRISP team within their communities as APNIC has already done.
----

> 3. Discussions about the draft proposal
>
> a) Briefing from the initial draft volunteers
> b) Discussions
>
> IO suggested that AR and MA share the essence of the proposal.
>
> AR underlined that the proposal was based on high-level principles that RIPE community discussed
> during the past months. He recommended looking for the gaps and absences that NTIA- ICANN contract
> has and
>
>
> trying to fill them.
>
> AR described the content in each section (1-6 ) of the draft proposal and highlighted that section
> 3 has a simple and straightforward approach, seeing the IANA services separated from the policy
> development process.
>
> In relation to section 6 AR underlined that RIPE is the only RIR that has completed the community
> process.
>
> IO thanked AR for the information shared on the draft and asked MA to add any further explanation.
>
> MA agreed with all the explanations given by AR. In addition he pointed out that the information of
> the ARIN community survey was included in the draft and underlined that the draft was a good
> starting point.
>
> IO thanked to MA and asked CN to make a brief summary of the similarities and differences among the
> 3 proposals circulated between APNIC, RIPE and LACNIC.
>
> CN explained the differences among the AOC, SLA and MONC remarked on the document.
>
> IO asked the CRISP Members to give an input from the perspective of each region.
>
> AB from AFRINIC region explained that there is no formal proposal in the region and underlined that
> the community identified some important aspects to be included (bottom-up process, documentation,
> addition languages other than English and satisfied with SLA or MOU)
>
> MA highlighted some important subjects such as stability and SLA.
>
> EL agreed with the draft as a starting point and underlined the importance of the MONC for the
> LACNIC community.
>
> CN clarified NN questions about the role of the NRO in this process. CN explained that the NRO is
> just a coordination body for the 5 RIR. CN remarked on the idea that 5 RIRs work as a group and not
> separately. CN said that the signatories of the new agreement would be the 5 RIR. In addition he
> highlighted that APNIC proposal is based in AOC and SLA and that their community is satisfied with
> those concepts.
>

(add)

CN clarified IO's question about how much of details have been 
considered about NRO representatives to review SLA including criteria of 
review. CN explained this is the stage the basic concept has been shared 
and no objections observed.

> After a brief discussion about the NRO EC role in all this process and how they will take notice of
> the report and recommendations of this group, AR clarified about the internal structure related to
> the SLA within the IETF.
>
> 4. Drafting tool(s)
>
> a) Agree on the tool to use
>
> IO concluded that all RIRs agreed and are satisfied with the draft proposed and asked for
> volunteers to continue working on the draft.

  IO concluded --> IO observed

> CN suggested that the 4 volunteers proposed in the 1st Teleconference continue with the draft and
> all of the agreed.

Perhaps this part makes more sense to move under "b) Discussions"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IO concluded that all RIRs agreed and are satisfied with the draft 
proposed and asked for volunteers to continue working on the draft.

CN suggested that the 4 volunteers proposed in the 1st Teleconference 
continue with the draft and all of the agreed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> AR suggested having just one person (MA) editing the document in order to have consistency.
>
> MA agreed in being the editing person.
>
> EL suggested a process of working between the 4 volunteers; first sharing the information between
> them and then sharing with the rest of the CRISP Team.
>
> 5 Reconfirm next steps & schedules
>
> a) Timeline to fix 1st draft as CRISP team
>
> IO reconfirmed that December 18th will be published the first draft to ianaxfer mailing list and
> suggested that CRISP team members could provide feedback to MA until December 16th so the 1st draft
> could be finished by December 17th.
>
> Action item: CRISP team members to provide feedback to MA until 16 December.
>
> Action item: MA will finish the draft on December 17th.
>
> b) Communications with respective RIR regions
>
> After a brief discussion about the use of the mailing lists (Crisp and Ianaxfer) and about opening
> the archives or not, it was decided to use the CRISP mailing list just for internal coordination
> and generate the
>
> discussion in the global mailing list in order to avoid confusions and be
> transparent.
> On the other hand, AB proposed a compromise to open the archives in the CRISP mailing list at the
> end of producing the first draft.
>
> AK and NN agreed with AB.

No objections expressed to AB's proposal by other members.


> GV clarified that the role of the NRO in this process was a facilitator of the process. He added
> that the CRISP team members own this process.
> AR suggested to share documents with the community either as an online publication or PDF format.
>
> C) Next call date
>
> CRISP team members agreed in having next Teleconference on December 17th                        C.
> C.

Thank,
Izumi

(2014/12/12 18:54), German Valdez wrote:
> Dear CRISP Team
>
> Thanks to LACNIC staff for providing the attached notes.
>
> For you perusal, draft notes of yesterday teleconference.
>
> Please advise on comments, additions, changes you���d like to be incorporated.
>
> Here in +10 UTC, its finalising business day, Maybe if you can review the notes at yout COB today I could share it in the ianaxfer mailing list and published them in the website during the weekend (including your comments)
>
> Cheers
>
> German
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>