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

Sweeting, John C John.Sweeting at charter.com
Fri Jun 3 21:14:36 CEST 2016

Izumi and Nurani,

Thank you so much for the update. It is much appreciated.


On 6/3/16, 1:43 PM, "crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of Izumi Okutani"
<crisp-bounces at nro.net on behalf of izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:

>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
>    - 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
>  - 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
>  - 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
>>   - 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
>CRISP mailing list
>CRISP at nro.net

More information about the CRISP mailing list