[CRISP-TEAM] Some Follow up Items

Nurani Nimpuno nurani at netnod.se
Thu Jan 22 13:03:18 CET 2015

On 22 jan 2015, at 12:11, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

> On 2015/01/22 19:42, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> Alan Barrett wrote on 22/01/15 11:17:
>>>>>>> * Establish a process for selecting the Review Committee.
>>>> Just to clarify, based on information shared by Andrei, we inform the
>>>> IANAXFER list that we plan to do this in Step III (after Step II is
>>>> completed)?
>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf
>>>> It may be premature to inform RIRs at this stage, as the ICG may make
>>>> some changes after integration of the proposal with those of the other
>>>> two communities (protocol parameter and names).
>>> No, I think we should inform the RIRs now.  We can also mention that the
>>> ICG may make some changes, but I'd like to give the RIRs as much notice
>>> as possible.
>> I was actually suggesting that we wait till Phase I is over (no later
>> than 15 February, according to the timeline), since until then our work
>> is not done, as I see it.  Once the CRISP proposal is formally accepted,
>> it makes sense to communicate this fact, along with possible follow-up
>> items (I suppose the ICG may provide their perspective in their formal
>> response, too).
> Would this work for you Alan?
> Wait until Phase I is over?
> I have mixed feelings about which phase to formally request as :
> - it's better to be early for preparation but
> - it seems to me RIRs can proceed from now in reality as they consider
>   as needed, without waiting for the CRISP Team and
> - don't want to appear as though we are not ready to listen to the
>   ICG/the other two communities.
> Theoretically, some part of our proposal may change - so requesting
> after Phase II may be safe. If we can clearly explain that in case there
> are any changes after Phase III, it could incorporated by RIRs, I am OK
> with requesting RIR earlier as well.
> I would also be interested to hear from the CRISP Team members joining
> as RIR staff (and any other CRISP Team members who have opinions about
> this ofcourse).

I tend to agree with Andrei here. 
I don't find it quite appropriate for us to at this stage start telling the RIRs that they need to do x, y, z. 

As noted, the process is not over, but I also find it a little bit odd that we go to them and say "hey, you need to start defining some things here!". (The RIRs have staff on the CRISP team. And one would hope that they and their CEOs have read the proposal!)

As a general note, I think we should put more trust in the RIRs, their bottom-up structures, and their role in the community. 

One alternative way forward, could be that we formally send a brief note to the RIR CEOs. We simply point them to the proposal and ask them to consider its content as it will have implications for them. (No need to list what actions the RIRs need to take.) We could possibly ask for them to confirm receipt of this.

After that, we send a note to the community, informing them that we have communicated with the RIRs and they have acknowledged receipt in some way and that we trust that they are following the process and starting whatever internal work they need to meet the needs of the community. 


> Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list