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

[Izumi Okutani]

Andrei and all,


Many thanks to all CRISP members who have shared your feedback.

I very much like this suggested text by Andrei and note about the need
to fix the URL. Sounds less defensive and express the point we consider
as important.

I was hoping to share the updated version earlier but had been caught in
other things before flying tomorrow - I will be off-line for the next 2
hours but I intend get back to the list with the updated draft response
in about coming 3 hours, around UTC13:00.

In the meantime, if anyone has concerns about incorporating Andrei's
suggested text, please share your comment on the list.



Thanks,
Izumi

On 2015/02/04 6:04, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> 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
>