[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern
rendek at ripe.net
Wed Feb 4 14:04:48 CET 2015
I have no concerns with Andrei's text. It's a fine suggestion.
On 2/4/15 10:12 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> 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.
> On 2015/02/04 6:04, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> 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:
>> 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
>> 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.
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP