[CRISP-TEAM] Milton's blogpost

Nurani Nimpuno nurani at netnod.se
Fri May 1 21:07:45 CEST 2015

Thanks Bill.

Just fyi, Kieren McCarthy has picked up on it too in The Register:


> On 30 apr 2015, at 08:42, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Thank you Bill.
> Andrei
> Bill Woodcock wrote on 30/04/15 07:32:
>> Response posted:
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/04/28/icann-wants-an-iana-funct
> ions-monopoly-and-its-willing-to-wreck-the-transition-process-to-get-it/
> #comment-40002
>> "A few clarifications on behalf of the CRISP Team:
>> First, the CRISP Team is not engaged in any negotiations, with
>> ICANN or anyone else. That task belongs to the RIR legal team,
>> which consists of one representative of the legal staff of each of
>> the five RIRs. While the CRISP Team represents the whole global
>> Numbers community, the RIR legal team represents the five RIRs, who
>> would ultimately be the signatories to the Numbers SLA. The CRISP
>> Team assembles the community’s position and principles, it doesn’t
>> negotiate with ICANN.
>> Second, the CRISP Team is not engaged in any “behind the scenes
>> discussion.” All CRISP Team communications are on the public
>> record. There is no CRISP Team communication happening which is not
>> visible to everyone, in the crisp at nro.net mailing list archive and
>> the call minutes.
>> Third, please note that the session at the ARIN meeting consisted
>> of several segments, only the first of which (the slides presented
>> by John Sweeting) was CRISP Team communication. Michael Abejuela
>> was speaking on behalf of the RIR legal team, which had been
>> drafting the SLA based on the CRISP Team Principles. I spoke purely
>> on my own behalf, of my own observations of the process and
>> potential difficulties in arriving at a timely and favorable
>> conclusion. Speaking on my own behalf, I was able to communicate a
>> little more frankly than would have been appropriate for the CRISP
>> Team to do.
>> Those particulars aside, the rest of your description of the
>> situation seems accurate to me. The IAB minutes that you cite are
>> particularly worthy of note: that ICANN is _refusing to renew_ the
>> MOU under which they provide Protocol Registry services to the
>> IETF, because it contains a termination clause, I find very
>> disturbing. I have to admit that if I were in the IETF’s shoes, I
>> might very well just take ICANN at their word and go on my merry
>> way, if they say they don’t want to renew the agreement."
>> _______________________________________________ CRISP mailing list 
>> CRISP at nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
> iEYEARECAAYFAlVBzs0ACgkQljz5tZmtij937gCfdxuraLxP4g4L+j2WTi2ImhCv
> KkUAoInllrgR7qqxieJzhmIGisXWr9u7
> =z3Ny
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

More information about the CRISP mailing list