[CRISP-TEAM] Draft response to comments to ICG-Forum on process concern
andres at lacnic.net
Wed Feb 4 14:12:19 CET 2015
El 4/2/15 a las 14:04, Paul Rendek escribió:
> Hey Izumi,
> 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
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP