[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern
nurani at netnod.se
Tue Feb 3 19:23:18 CET 2015
Excellent mail! Thank you Izumi.
In my view this covers all the points very well. I have no additions or suggested changes.
> On 3 feb 2015, at 18:29, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> CRISP Team,
> This is a draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern
> expressed by 5 Guru Acharya.
> I intend to send this to icg-forum, and report to IANAXFER list with a
> link (like John Curran did).
> I welcome your feedback on the draft below until UTC 17:30 4th Feb.
> Dear ICG members,
> On 22 January 2015 Guru Acharya wrote to the icg-forum list with a
> number of concerns about the CRISP team process. The CRISP Team was not
> able to confirm concrete evidence/facts on these concerns, as explained
> We also note that while present as an observer on a number of CRISP
> teleconferences, we did not observe Guru Archaya raisinig any of these
> concerns on ianaxfer at nro.net mailing list or on any of the regional
> community lists on which the CRISP process was being discussed.
> Guru Acharya writes:
>> I would like to highlight the following concerns about the process
>> by CRISP, which disqualify it from satisfying the criteria of following a
>> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA.
>> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team was a
>> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an
>> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group if
>> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the RIR
>> executive committee. The selection criteria for the candidates was
> not made
>> public by the RIR executive committee. This is important given that
>> non-CRISP participants were excluded from the decision-making process.
> Before setting up the CRISP Team, RIRs published the process for
> producing a single proposal from the global IP addressing community to
> the NTIA, and there was an opportunity for discussions on the public
> <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list as below:
> On 16 October the five RIRs published a process for producing a single
> proposal from the global IP addressing community to the NTIA.
> According to this process the CRISP team would consist of 15 members,
> two appointees from each RIR region who are not RIR staff, and one RIR
> staff member from each region, who shall assist with the submission
> development effort. Each RIR was to appoint their CRISP team members by
> a method of its own choosing by 15 November 2014. There was some
> discussion on the public <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list on 21 October
> about standardising a CRISP team selection process across all five RIR
> regions, but no broader community support was expressed for this change.
> Following this announcement each of the five RIRs announced an open call
> for participants, to which any one could express their interest, as well
> as the process according to which the selection of the CRISP members
> would be conducted. The process and relevant announcements of each RIR
> are described in the Internet Number Community Response to the ICG RFP
> (sections VI.B.1-VI.B.5 on "Community Process").
> In most cases the RIR executive committees made the final selection of
> CRISP representatives from community volunteers. This is in line with
> the roles of the RIR Executive Committees in other areas of RIR
> operations. At no point in the process were any explicit objections
> raised to any of the CRISP team members, nor were any appeals made by
> volunteers not selected to join the CRISP team.
>> 2) Top-down decision-making by the CRISP team: While the general
> public was
>> invited to provide comments for the draft proposals prepared by
> CRISP, they
>> were excluded from the decision-making process. Commenters were merely
>> informed that their input had either been accepted or rejected by the
>> team after due consideration. Notably, non-CRISP participants were not
>> allowed to contribute to CRISP's tele-conferences or CRISP's internal
>> mailing list, where the actual decision-making took place. Mere
>> consultation of the general public without their involvement in the
>> decision-making process does not constitute a bottom-up multi-stakeholder
> Each of the RIR communities had conducted discussions on the IANA
> stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and the role of
> the CRISP Team is to consolidate it as a single global proposal.
> The proposal to establish a CRISP team was distributed to all of the RIR
> communities and the <ianaxfer at nro.net> mailing list established on 16
> October 2015. The first CRISP team teleconference was held on 9 December
> 2015. This provided the community with nearly two months during which
> they could comment on or object to any elements of the CRISP team
> proposal (as noted above, there was some discussion around 21 October
> relating to CRISP team selection processes, but there was not community
> support for changing the proposed process).
> The CRISP team members agreed with the arrangements laid out in the
> proposal (while developing some additional mechanisms, including the
> internal CRISP mailing list and a working definition of quorum for the
> group). CRISP team members also understood a key part of their role to
> be facilitating input from the regional communities, and this was
> evident throughout the process - teleconference notes from the third
> teleconference onwards record various CRISP team members conveying input
> from their regional mailing lists.
> A concrete record of all the concerns raised by the community on various
> mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and made available at:
> This spreadsheet indicated the issue, the initial mail in which the
> issue was raised, the CRISP team's discussion of the issue and the
> current CRISP team position. This clearly demonstrates that the process
> of community participation facilitated by the CRISP team worked smoothly
> to address a wide range of community input throughout the process.
>> 3) Lack of information and transparency: The CRISP team had two mailing
>> lists. The mailing list used internally by the CRISP team was a closed
>> mailing list that was not publicly archived till after the proposal was
>> finalised. This resulted in community evaluation of the process and
>> proposal in the absence of requisite information about the reasons
> for any
> As noted in the initial CRISP team proposal and charter, "The CRISP team
> shall also work through a public mailing list and the archive of such
> mailing list will be publicly available. The name of the mailing list
> will be <ianaxfer at nro.net>.
> At its initial teleconference, CRISP team members suggested that a
> separate mailing list for use by CRISP team members only would be useful
> in the interest of efficiency and to allow quick editing iterations on
> the proposed response.
> While there was general agreement, concerns about transparency were also
> noted, resulting in a commitment to publish archives of the internal
> list at the time of publishing the first draft (19 December 2014). The
> archive was publicly available from this point and some CRISP team
> members shared a link to the archive with their communities directly. A
> direct link to this mailing list archive was posted to the ianaxfer
> mailing list and on the NRO CRISP webpage after 8 January 2015 due to an
> oversight, while the archives were publicly made available when the
> first draft of the proposal was published.
> The archive of the internal mailing list is available at:
> It is possible to confirm from our announcements that linkes to the
> archives of the CRISP team mailing list was intended to be shared:
> "Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings,
> minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public archive
> of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at:
>> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP team
>> refused to deal with essential aspects of proposal such as the contract
>> renewal process, contract duration, jurisdiction, arbitration process,
>> review process, high level details of the contract, intellectual property
>> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team
>> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If the
>> CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal
> should be
>> returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the
>> of the CRISP team. Note that the charter of the CRISP team, which was
>> prepared by the NRO EC in a top-down manner, does not suggest that such
>> essential aspects should be excluded from the proposal. This limited
>> interpretation of the agenda and issues by the CRISP team is against the
>> ethos of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process.
> As noted above, a concrete record of all the concerns raised by the
> community on various mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and
> made available at:
> This spreadsheet, the records and notes from CRISP teleconferences and
> the archived mails on both the internal and public mailing lists
> demonstrate that the CRISP team closely considered all issues, concerns
> or suggestions raised by the community via ianaxfer at nro.net or the
> regional discussion lists. Where specific suggestions were not reflected
> in the proposal, detailed justification was provided to the community
> via the ianaxfer mailing list.
> While the CRISP team did note certain constraints on its remit, as it
> understood that remit, the issues noted by Guru Acharya were addressed
> specifically in the following mails to the public <ianaxfer at nro.net>
> mailing list:
> Contract details in general, including renewal process, duration:
> Arbitration process:
> Review process:
> Intellectual property rights:
> Charter of the review team:
> As discussed at length in various CRISP teleconferences, it was felt
> that in identifying the processes of proposal development and its
> implementation, it required a solid understanding of the CRISP team's
> remit and responsibility. As Guru Archaya notes, this remit was not
> explicitly spelled out by the original CRISP proposal, but was
> identified through CRISP discussions over the duration of the process
> and incorporating community input made publicly at the time. We believe
> that the proposal submitted to the ICG fulfils that remit, while not
> extending into areas beyond the authority or expertise of the CRISP team.
> I hope that this effectively addresses the issues raised in this email,
> and I would be happy to expand further on any issues you feel could
> benefit from more explanation.
> Yours sincerely,
> Izumi Okutani
> Chair, the CRISP Team
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP