[CRISP-TEAM] More comments on the ICG-list

Andres Piazza andres at lacnic.net
Fri Jan 23 13:10:23 CET 2015

I kept thinking about this message. First of all I have not seen this 
person or his name in any discussion.

Do you know to which community he belongs?

El 22/1/15 a las 7:07, Alan Barrett escribió:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:

I agree with Alan, and want to add:

> I also noticed factual inaccuracies.
> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team:
> I don't know how CRISP Team members were selected in other regions, 
> but in the Afrinic region, anybody was free to volunteer, and the 
> Board made a decision using an internal process.  Criteria were 
> published.

Criteria was published for each RIR in the CRISP report, and also in the 
5 communities. There were cero complaints about the compositions.

> 2) Top-down decision-making by the CRISP team:
> Several aspects of the comment are accurate, but the statement that 
> the general public was not involved in decision making is inaccurate.  
> Decisions on wording or level of detail were made by the CRISP Team, 
> but decisions on substance were made by following the will of the 
> community to the best of our ability.  The community was free to 
> comment on any decisions that they disagreed with.

Also, this person did not make any single comment neither on CRISP 
Teleconferences (that were open to the public) nor to IANAXFER mailing 
list. He is not speaking from a personal point of view.

> 3) Lack of information and transparency:
> The crisp internal mailing list was publicly archived as soon as the 
> first draft was produced, not only after the proposal was finalised.

We can list:

-IANAXFER as a public list with constant reports from Izumi and the 
support staff

- Open (almost daily) teleconferences.

- Archives available since the first draft.

> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal:
> Yes, we refused to deal with several low level details, bit we believe 
> that those details are not essential aspects of the proposal.  I think 
> that we had rough community consensus for that approach.

Also agree, Alan.

Not only we perceived consensus on the lists, but there were not 
complaints either at the regional levels. Not a single.

However, I believe we need to be more prepared for answering this:

4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP team
refused to deal with essential aspects of proposal such as the contract
renewal process, contract duration, jurisdiction, arbitration process,
review process, high level details of the contract, intellectual property
rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team cited
these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If the
CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal should be
returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the mandate
of the CRISP team. Note that the charter of the CRISP team, which was
prepared by the NRO EC in a top-down manner, does not suggest that such
essential aspects should be excluded from the proposal. This limited
interpretation of the agenda and issues by the CRISP team is against the
ethos of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process.

Lets accept for a moment that the charter may have been developed "in a 
top down manner by the NRO-EC".  It was also published before the work 
of CRISP started.

Also, the scope definitions were public with the first draft. Why he did 
not comment at that moment and he does it now?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150123/8f39265a/attachment.html>

More information about the CRISP mailing list