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

Tue Jun 7 18:00:53 CEST 2016

Dear Izumi,
Thank you for your comments and the link provided, your availability to
help as well.
Warm regards.
Janvier

2016-06-07 14:11 GMT+01:00 Izumi_Okutani <izumiokutani at yahoo.co.jp>:

> Dear Janvier,
>
> It would be excellent if you could give some updates at the AFRINIC
> meeting. There have been some updates in other RIR meetings as well, the
> most recent at RIPE72.
>
> *IANA Stewardship Update*
> https://ripe72.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/#tue3
>
>
> Please feel free to let me  know if there is anything you would like to
> confirm about the status of our work - There is no need to feel you need to
> consult the CRISP as this is totally up to each region on how you would
> like to update your communities but I am happy to help in any way if needed.
> Many thanks also for sharing other IANA related updates on the CRISP Team
> ML.
>
>
> Izumi
>
> Sent from iPhone
>
> 2016/06/07 14:54、Janvier NGNOULAYE <jnoulaye at gmail.com> のメッセージ:
>
> 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 ?
>
> Warm regards
> Janvier
>
> 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
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20160607/e5b4a6be/attachment-0001.html>