[CRISP-TEAM] Update from the ICG

[Andrei Robachevsky]

HI,

Izumi Okutani wrote on 28/01/15 02:45:
> Thank you for sharing Patrik's presentation Nurani.
> It gives us comprehensive picture of where we are.
> 
> Good question Andrei and this was something I wanted to clarify as well.
> It was initially my understanding that we are waiting for guidance from
> NRO EC about this.
> (Based on "Communicate to the IANAXFER about next steps?" thread)
> 
> I would be happy to ask for clarification to the ICG if appropriate -
> One point I'd like to confirm is whether it is the ICG as the whole
> group which is in the position to clarify, or whether this is left to
> the numbers commmunity as in the proposal submission.
> 
> My current understanding is the latter and I'm happy to be corrected if
> I misunderstand. If this understanding is consistent with others in the
> CRISP Team, my suggestion for the next step would be:

My understanding is also that it is left to the community, not the ICG,
to define the processes (beyond the requirements of openness,
transparency and inclusiveness).

> 
>  - First confirm with NRO EC, which has set up the charter of the
>    CRISP Team, with cc to ICG members representing NRO (Paul & Adiel).
>  - If the NRO EC/ICG members from NRO think this is a matter to be
>    confirmed with the ICG, we can confirm this to the ICG.
> 
> What do you think about this understanding and approach?
> 

This approach makes sense to me. Thank you Izumi.

Regards,

Andrei

> 
> 
> Izumi
> 
> On 2015/01/27 23:51, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 27/01/15 15:37:
>>> Hi Andrei,
>>>
>>> Thanks. This is a good question and it is not entirely clear to me
>>> either.
>>>
>>> But perhaps any such matters need to be clarified through the proper
>>> channels. It was certainly not my intention to bypass any official
>>> communication between the ICG and CRISP via the chairs.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should try to identify if there are other aspects of the
>>> process that we need to seek clarification on and if so, do this
>>> through the CRISP chairs?
>>>
>>
>> IMO, this is a good suggestion.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>>> Nurani
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 jan 2015, at 15:06, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Nurani,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for this. This is an excellent overview.
>>>>
>>>> One aspect is not clear to me: what would be the process of the
>>>> (numbers) community review of the ICG strawman proposal (and the final
>>>> version, too), and is it expected that the CRISP team will play any
>>>> role
>>>> there?
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>> Nurani Nimpuno wrote on 27/01/15 14:12:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> My colleague Patrik F�ltstr�m (co-chair of the ICG), just gave the
>>>>> following update on the IANA Stewardship Transition from the ICG,
>>>>> at an igov-meeting I was in.
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked him if I could forward it to my CRISP colleagues which he
>>>>> approved of. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nurani
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp