[CRISP-TEAM] Comment from Richard Hill at "Icg-Forum at Icann.Org"

[Andrei Robachevsky]

Hi,

I agree that we do not need to respond, unless the ICG requests comments
from us.

Alan Barrett wrote on 21/01/15 09:39:
> The process issues here are exactly the same:  did the CRISP charter or
> the ICG RFP require us to specify more details than we actually
> specified; and did the CRISP Team adequately consider Richard Hill's
> position?

I do not think so. I think the boundary conditions were set by the NTIA
criteria:
- Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
- Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
- Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services; and,
- Maintain the openness of the Internet.

Also regarding the overall process "Once a proposal is developed, ICANN
will review the proposal to ensure it is in compliance with the defined
framework and criteria and determine: 1) adherence to the NTIA
principles and 2) conformity with the principles outlined by the
community input."
(https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en).

All of the above suggest a rather high level of the expected input.

My view is that there is a transition proposal and its implementation,
which are not the same thing. The former documents the requirements and
principles as set by the community, the latter - develops the details in
accordance with the requirements (like the actual legal terms, etc.).

Andrei