[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Izumi,

This is a very clear response and I support it. I have one suggestion
regarding on of the last paragraphs of the response (below), but i am
not insisting on it.

And a nitpick:
>   https://nro/net/crisp-team

This URL doesn't work for me.

Izumi Okutani wrote on 03/02/15 18:29:
[...]
> 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.
> 

While developing the proposal the CRISP team was conscious about its
remit and responsibility. While addressing issues and the elements of
the proposal the team felt that it was important to identify the
critical components and implementation requirements, rather than work
out the actual implementation details. Our position was that the latter
should be developed by qualified RIR legal teams following the best
practices in this field. As stated in the response "[d]uring the
drafting process, the RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR
communities, and that the drafting process will be guided by the
principles..."

We believe that the proposal submitted to the ICG meets the expectations
of the numbers community, while not extending into areas beyond the
authority or expertise of the CRISP team.


Regards,

Andrei