[CRISP-TEAM] Future steps and communicating with RIRs
nurani at netnod.se
Fri Jan 23 07:49:18 CET 2015
That works for me.
On 23 jan 2015, at 02:50, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> Andrei and CRISP Team,
> That is consistent with my initial view as well and personally agree -
> but would also like to see if this works for all in the Team.
> Since Seun Ojedeji is asking questions about the next steps, I would
> like to suggest we reply to the IANAXFER list now, what our plan is i.e.,
> - We communicate with RIR *after* the ICG formally accepts the proposal
> - Clarify that this is intended for communication as reference to the
> - The CRISP Team would like to hear acknowlegement from RIRs about
> this proposal and that there are actions expected on their part, for
> clarity and visibility to the community that RIRs formally
> acknowledge this
> If this makes sense, I am happy to draft a response, so all in the team
> can see if you are comfortable with the message and the wording.
> As for early preparation, I think we can expect CRISP Team members, who
> are RIR staff to go back within their respective RIRs and start
> preparation needed at this stage.
> Hope this makes sense to everyone?
> On 2015/01/23 2:29, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>> Izumi, colleagues,
>> I agree with your considerations and support Nurani's proposal. My only
>> question is timing of such communication. I still think that it is
>> premature to do this before the numbers community proposal is formally
>> accepted by the ICG.
>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 22/01/15 18:08:
>>> Alan, Andrei, Nurani and CRISP Team,
>>> Many thanks for your input about future steps and whether/how we should
>>> communicate with RIRs.
>>> I personally found Nurani's suggestion covers perspectives from both sides.
>>> I tried to summarize what is needed in regards to future steps and what
>>> is our role as the CRISP Team.
>>> In my view, the role of the CRISP Team is to develop the proposal and
>>> implementation is left to RIRs. Looking at it from this point, I do not
>>> feel there is a need to inform RIRs as the CRISP Team and it can be left
>>> to the RIRs.
>>> At the same time, it is our role to share what are the expected future
>>> steps clearly to the community. I see some value in informing RIRs to
>>> give additional visibility to the community that :
>>> - We clearly demonstrate in visible form that the CRISP Team have
>>> communicated with RIRs, so that RIRs formerly acknowdledges the
>>> proposal and proceed with preparations they consider as needed
>>> - It is clear to the community, by receiving some respsonse from RIRs,
>>> that RIRs have formerly acknowledged the proposal, which require
>>> some actions by them, and they will proceed with necessary actions
>>> and engage with the community where needed
>>> i.e., it would be helpful if RIRs could formally respond and express
>>> Actually, I think the CRISP Team members do trust the RIRs and I also
>>> assume this is the same for most of our number resources community
>>> members, but this may be useful to give assurance and clarity about
>>> future steps for those who may not be so familiar with RIRs and its
>>> community, given there are questions on the IANAXFER list.
>>> In doing so, we should be careful in not making it looks as though the
>>> CRISP team is in a position to request RIRs of actions, and this is
>>> simply commnication as a reference, sharing information which may be
>>> useful to the RIRs.
>>> I felt Nurani's suggestion meets this adequately in my view.
>>> So let's see if there are further input until UTC12:00 23rd Jan as I
>>> suggested in my earlier e-mail. My current suggestion is to take this
>>> approach suggested by Nurani, in case there are no concerns/other
>>> comments expressed.
>>> I continue to welcome to hear your input, and I think it's good that we
>>> are sharing different perspectives so far, so we consider this well.
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP