[CRISP-TEAM] A proposal for the LACNIC CRISP Members
robachevsky at isoc.org
Tue Dec 16 12:01:35 CET 2014
Thank you very much for this proposal. In my opinion it is a significant
step forward towards reaching a solution. We would like to update the
RIPE community on this progress and get some feedback, and I appreciate
your perspective on a few things I mention below.
I think the format and the governance model is quite clear from your
proposal. However, it would be helpful if we could articulate the
purpose of this Council more clearly, especially outlining the function
that cannot be performed by the executive branch of the RIRs, and using
the existing mechanisms (e.g. a members meeting).
To illustrate what I am looking for, below are some questions I am
pondering myself when thinking about the Council and its role:
- is this is to channel and collate feedback from the community (or the
RIR membership) ?
- is this to enable some oversight to ensure that IANA services still
meet the expectations of the global community (by whatever means)?
- is it all of the above (or none of the above)?
BTW, both points make sense to me, as I can imagine a situation when the
service level requirements cannot be resolved by existing mechanisms
(e.g. through a GM), e.g. LACNIC community is unhappy with the IANA
services, while RIPE is perfectly fine.
I think if we reach consensus regarding the principal points/charter
finding a compromise on its composition and governance model would be
Andres Piazza wrote on 15/12/14 22:34:
> Dear Colleagues,
> Taking in consideration that the MONC proposal made by LACNIC community
> could bring some pushback from other members of the group, and having
> heard about the issues that may be unconfortable for the rest of the
> CRISP Members, we would like to propose a compromise idea:
> - Eliminating the word Mulsitakeholder from the language of the proposal.
> - Not referring to the Council at the MoU level. We can mention the
> Council in the CRISP output just as a advisory body created by the
> NRO-EC for specific oversight purposes.
> - The report of the council would not be mandatory for NRO-EC.
> - No special seats at the council are reserved for other stakeholders
> such as Governments.
> - The creation of the council should still be referred at CRISP outcome.
> - The NRO-EC should as the RIR communities to appoint 3 members for each
> region considering diversity.
> I hope you can appreciate the effort done by the members of LACNIC
> community in this group.
> Andrés Piazza
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP