[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Follow up: The Future of the CRISP Team

[Izumi Okutani]

Dear CRISP Team,


Nurani and I had a chance to talk face to face with Oscar Robles, the NRO EC Chair during RIPE72 in Copenhagen.
We would like to update you on our discussions.

* The CRISP Chairs have passed the message to Oscar Robles the NRO EC Chair, as shared on the CRISP Team ML
* Oscar believes the CRISP Team should be terminated, and not to maintain dormant status
    - There is nothing substantial left in implementation once the SLA is signed
    - We should give the community a sense of closure once this step is completed, and the closure of the CRISP Team will give a clear message
    - It would not be appropriate to give the wrong impression that the SLA is still open for community input, even after the signing
* Oscar suggests to:
    - Make an announcement to the global ianaxfer list upon finalisation of the SLA, together with the planned closer of the CRISP Team after signing between ICANN and RIRs
    - The CRISP Team closes when the SLA is signed

Nurani and I feel that we now better understand the reasoning by the NRO EC and have expressed that our priority is transparency. We also feel it is important to have predictability and have clarity on how we handle an unexpected situation, when a need comes up for a community review on consistency of implementation with the number community proposal/requested to clarify about the number community proposal, while probability of its need is extremely low.

We have expressed to Oscar:
  - Ultimately we are fine with either dormant or termination, but would like to confirm that the CRISP Team can be revitalised if needs arise on community's review of the implementation or clarification of the number community proposal
  - In re-vitalising the CRISP Team when such situation arises, it does not make sense to create a completely new CRISP Team to replace existing members, given the expected role is to provide review on consistency with the proposal, or to provide clarifications about the proposal. The members who were involved in the proposal development can provide such input.
  - To Oscar's question on what such situation can be, we listed IPR as one example of remaining implementation to be completed before the transition. However, this may not be the only situation, when including where clarification about the proposal is needed before NTIA's final approval.
  - We believe probability of such situation is very low. We also do not observe substantial risk in having inconsistency with the proposal in any remaining part of the implementation. The reason for confirming how the unexpected situation will be handled is to have clarity in advance as preparation for an unexpected situation, to be transparent and accountable to the community on how such situation will be handled, and to avoid confusion at the last minute of the transition
  - We are not suggesting to send mixed messages to the community about closing of the CRISP Team.
    It is sufficient to explain to the CRISP Team on the mailing list on how the unexpected situation will be handled, so we can always refer back. We are not necessarily suggesting to explain at this stage on the global ianaxfer mailing list.
  -

We are now waiting for the NRO EC's input and their decision.
Please let us know as soon as possible, if you have any questions or comments about the discussions.


Nurani & Izumi

On 2016/05/17 14:42, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> FYI.
>
> This is what Nurani and I had sent to Oscar Robles, the Chair of the NRO EC last Friday, regarding future of the CRISP Team.
> We are still waiting for response -  We'll consult the CRISP Team if anything notable comes up after we hear back from Oscar.
>
> Thanks to all who shared your views on this topic!
>
>
> Izumi
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Follow up: The Future of the CRISP Team
> Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 18:46:59 +0900
> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>
> To: Oscar A. Robles-Garay <oscar at lacnic.net>, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se>
>
> Oscar,
>
>
> With discussions among two of us and the CRISP Team, this is our feedback.
>
>   - Agree there is no longer need for regular activity as the CRISP Team
>   - Support the suggestion to have clarity of the CRISP Team status
>   - It is also important to have clarity on how we handle a situation, while the probability of its needs is expected to be low, of a situation where feedback on consistency with the number community proposal is needed for implementation
>   - To address such situation, we would like to suggest the following:
>
> The CRISP Team reduces all activity to 0, and becomes dormant. In the event of community input on the IANA transition needed before September, the CRISP team will reactivate and respond within its charter. If there are no such events, until it will formally resolve upon the completion of the transition.
>
> We see very little cost in keeping it open, but dormant and seems to achieve the same effect as the suggestion by the NRO EC, about the clarity of the CRISP status.
> We have also considered the option of dissolving the CRISP Team and set up CRISP Team 2.0 with new members as needed, and in our view, a potential new CRISP 2.0 introduces new ambiguity at the very final stages of this process.
>
> We are open to any clarifications needed about our suggestion and am looking forward to your feedback.
> If you would like to have a call with us, we are open to coordinate the time and schedule next week as needed.
>
>
> Nurani & Izumi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp