[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern
john.sweeting at twcable.com
Tue Feb 3 20:28:22 CET 2015
On 2/3/15, 12:23 PM, "Nurani Nimpuno" <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:
>Excellent mail! Thank you Izumi.
>In my view this covers all the points very well. I have no additions or
>> 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
>>> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA.
>>> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team
>>> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an
>>> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group
>>> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the
>>> 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
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team
>>> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
More information about the CRISP