[CRISP-TEAM] Draft Notes CRISP 2nd Teleconference

Andrei Robachevsky robachevsky at isoc.org
Mon Dec 15 09:01:59 CET 2014 

Thank you German for incorporating the comments. I am fine with the
notes from both teleconferences.

Thanks,

Andrei

Izumi Okutani wrote on 15/12/14 04:20:
> Thanks German for sharing the updated versions swiftly.
> 
> Notes for the 1st teleconference:
> I'm fine with it.
> If Andrei is OK, please go ahead an replace with the newer version.
> 
> Notes for the 2nd teleconference:
> I confirmed all my suggested changes are reflected.
> 
> Please go ahead and post it (2nd teleconference) within your business
> hour if no futher comments.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Izumi
> 
> 
> (2014/12/15 11:23), German Valdez wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have incorporated Andrei and Izumi comments.
>>
>> Same on December 9th notes (Andrei)
>>
>> Last version of the minutes are published now in the website. (also in
>> attachment)
>>
>> German
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
>> Date: Monday, 15 December 2014 12:11 pm
>> To: "crisp at nro.net" <crisp at nro.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft Notes CRISP 2nd Teleconference
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list