[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern
rendek at ripe.net
Wed Feb 4 07:25:07 CET 2015
+1 from me. Thanks for circulating this mail for our comment
to the CRISP list. I have no comment and fully support this text.
On 2/3/15 7:28 PM, Sweeting, John wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>>>> 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.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP