[CRISP-TEAM] Update from the ICG

[Izumi Okutani]

Thank you Andrei for your comment.

If no comments for other suggesions until UTC 13:00 tomorrow 29th Jan, 
what I plan to do is to contact Alex as the chair of NRO, Paul Wilson 
and Adiel as the ICG members from NRO and follow up for their guidance 
on the CRISP Team's role (if any) in future steps of the Timeline.


Regards,
Izumi

On 2015/01/28 17:17, Andrei Robachevsky wrote:
> 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