[CRISP-TEAM] the initial draft announcement

[Izumi Okutani]

As you can see from this, I'm not a great writer :)

May I ask for help from German or a volunteer in the team to finish this
announcement, including the basic information part?

We'll continue to dicuss the grey part on key points.

> I thought of two more points:
> 
> * Where to comment (ianaxfer at nro.net mailing list, and/or regional
>   mailing lists).
> 
> * Opening of the archives of the crisp at nrp.net mailing list.

Good points. Totally agree with both.

> Thank you for that.  I noticed two typos: "CRIPS" should be "CRISP",
> and "seperate" should be "separate".

:P Thanks very much Alan.
The updated version.


--------------
* Where to comment : ianaxfer at nro.net
                      (how shall we position regional ML?)
 * The deadline:
    - Three days before (1/2) for as the 2nd draft?
      or Other suggestions?
 * Mention about how we handle late comments or not?
 * Link to the proposal document
 * Key points we worked on:
    - SLA and AoC
    - MONC
    - details to be refered to Craig's PDF
 * Overall schedule
 * Ref: proposals from each RIR region
        archives of the crisp at nrp.net mailing list

"Key points we worked" is important in agreeing details, so I drafted
specific description, to be revised with your feedback. Thanks!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The key points CRISP Team has worked are on regional differences we
observed on two points. Please see "Summary of RIR proposals" for more
details.

 https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Summary-of-RIR-proposals.pdf

1. Agreement to be exchanged with the IANA function operator.

   Differences:
    - RIPE community believes it is desirable to have a single SLA, and
      not AoC
    - Other communities propose AoC and SLA

   Proposal:
    - Exchange an agreement which can serve as SLA with the IANA
      function operator
    - While there will be no document called AoC, intended contents of
      AoC will be reflected in the same agreement which covers SLA
     AND/OR
    - IANA operator is considered as service operator, in which case,
      SLA suits better, as in the case of IETF.

   Rationale:
    - All regions agree about the need for SLA
    - As long as contents of AoC is reflected, it does not matter
      whether a separate document, or merged with SLA document


2. Oversight body/function

    Differences:
    -  LACNIC community prefers to have a broader based
       community group to review the performance of the
       IANA functions. Multi-stakeholder Oversight Numbers
       Council(MONC) is proposed.
    -  Some of the RIRs believe that MONC is complex and
       overly burdensome, to oversee the performance of a contract
       (over the past 12 months, the IANA functions operator has
       performed only eight transactions for the RIRs.)

    Proposal:
    - The NRO (as the umbrella body through which all the
      RIRs will enter into any proposed contract with the IANA
      functions operator) can commit to convening a broad based
      community group, in a manner similar to the creation of the CRISP
      team
    - This will be done on an annual basis, to advise and report to
       the NRO Executive Council on the performance of the SLA during
       the past year.

    Rationale: (This is my guessing - more than happy to be corrected)
     - Accommodates to conduct oversight without setting up a separate
       entity for this role.
     - We already have experience from CRISP team on nominations and
       selection process.


Izumi