[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: Follow up: The Future of the CRISP Team
jnoulaye at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 07:54:40 CEST 2016
Dear Nurani & Izumi
Thank you for the updates.
We are now in Afrinic-24 meeting in Gaborone in Botswana.
Could I plan to give some updates to the community during the Afrinic
meeting about this status of CRISP ?
2016-06-03 18:43 GMT+01:00 Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp>:
> 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 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:
>> 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!
>> -------- 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>
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CRISP