[CRISP-TEAM] CRISP's Team's observation about consensus for the proposal

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Feb 5 16:18:34 CET 2015

One important point I failed to cover - we feel we should leave it the
community to see if there was consensus.

We would like to give a few more days for comments on the IANAXFER list,
as we had just posted our reponse to icg-forum but as you can see, there
are already a few comments for support.


On 2015/02/06 0:11, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Paul and Alan (with the ICG hat),
> This is the summary of observations by the CRISP team on consensus for
> our proposal.
> CRISP Team, for the interest of time, I am sharing directly with Paul
> and Alan but please feel free to add anything else.
> 1. No furthe comment was confirmed from Richard on our latest reponse
>     to Richard's comments
>    Richard Hil's comment
>    "Again, the RIR legal team can surely work this out, but I still
>     think that (1) the community should give them some guidance and (2)
>     the community should have the opportunity to comment on
>     whatever the RIR legal team comes up with."
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000283.html
>    CRISP Team response:
>     - Note that while we didn't incorporate his point about
>       jurisdiction, a part of Richard Hill's comment was addressed in
>       our proposal.
>     i.e., describing that RIRs are to consult its communities before
>        fixing the SLA
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html
> 2. No support confirmed from other members of the community for RIchard
>     Hil's comments - a few people even expressed disagreements.
>     See our reponse to icg-forum on support expressed for the CRISP team
>     position
> 3. Several members of the community had explicitly expresed support for
>     our proposal.
>      - Seun Ojedeji, Pindar Wong, Wilfried Woeber, Jim Reid,
>         John Curran. Maria Hall, Bastiaan Goslings, Bijal Sanghani,
>         Mark Elkins, L Sean Kennedy,
>     ( Haven't quoted those who expressed general support with addtional
>       comments as it may be confusing -but basically addressed them)
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000355.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000352.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000357.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000354.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000351.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000325.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000306.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000275.html
>     https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000229.html
> 4. We consider concensus as general support and not addressing all
>     points desite lack of support from others. We do not think consensus
>     is restricted to unanimous support.
> As a reference, IANA CWG on Names define consensus as below:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iana-stewardship-naming-function-charter-14aug14-en.pdf
> ----
> Decision-Making Methodologies:
> In developing its Transition Proposal, work plan and any other reports,
> the CWG shall seek to act by
> consensus. Consensus calls should always make best efforts to involve
> all members (the CWG or subworking
> group). The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position
> as having one of the following designations:
> ? Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by
> an absence of objection
> ? Consensus ? a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
> In the absence of Full Consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the
> submission of minority viewpoint(s) and
> these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report.
> ----
> Regards,
> Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list