[CRISP-TEAM] A proposal for the LACNIC CRISP Members

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you Adres for coming up with positive compromise ideas.
I really appreciate LACNIC representatives' efforts in working towards 
what works for the whole numbering communities.

Just so that I understand and clear to CRISP team members, is there 
additional element you consider PDF summarized by Craig at the 2nd call?

If there is, I'd appreciate it if you could highlight it and briefly 
share, so CRISP team understands it properly.

I find Andrei's questions helpful in explaining the rationale behind the 
proposed idea to each of our communities.

I would like to add one question myself, on what is meant by diversity.

 >> - The NRO-EC should as the RIR communities to appoint 3 members for each
 >> region considering diversity.

I wonder what would be the diversity we would like to ask NRO-EC to 
consider. Would you be able to share what you have in mind?
Many thanks Andres.



Regards,
Izumi


(2014/12/16 20:01), Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> 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
> much easier.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrei
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andr�s Piazza
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>