[CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12]
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri May 6 17:42:16 CEST 2016
Thanks to all who have shared your comments on the list.
I see Janvier is not available on Mon 9th, so let's have a call on Tue 10th May, UTC1300.
It's a shame Andrei and Paul cannot join with either dates, but I will circulate the key points of the discussions at the call, so that those who were not at the call may add comments.
@German, would you help us send the Webex invitation? The suggested agenda is the future of the CRISP Team.
Andrei raised a good question.
> When is the transition completed? Is it when NTIA announces that the
> consolidated proposal meets the requirements, or when the contract is
> terminated (not extended), or when all elements are implemented. The
> problem, of course, the the NTIA itself is rather vague about this, but
> unless we clarify this at least for ourselves there is a risk of having
> a dormant group for extended time.
My understanding is, at least theoretically, by the time the contract terminates, the implementation is completed.
i.e., The transition is completed when the NTIA's IANA contract is terminated.
There may be a case where certain elements of implementation are not totally completed, but if we feel comfortable enough for the NTIA to terminate the contract, it is probably safe to say that key issues from our perspective is covered.
That's just my interpretation, and I welcome to hear any other thoughts on when we consider the transition as completed.
On 2016/05/02 22:33, Paul Rendek wrote:
> Hey Izumi,
> I am sorry, I am in a management retreat all next week but I think its
> okay to miss the call so if everyone else is fine with your dates,
> please do not change this for me.
> I like option 1, I think that there is no cost attached to this and it
> seems normal to leave the group dormant, but as is until September.
> On 02/05/16 17:18, Sweeting, John wrote:
>> Hi Izumi,
>> I can make either day work. I think option 1 is ok since it really means
>> that we are just on standby in case the NRO EC sees a need for us in the
>> process. I think option 2 is probably the same, if the NRO EC sees a need
>> then they would most likely call on the current members that are
>> On 5/2/16, 5:37 AM, "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,
>>> We would like to consult you about the status of the CRISP Team.
>>> The NRO EC chair reached out to the CRISP team chairs last week, to
>>> discuss the status of the CRISP Team. The NRO EC believes the current
>>> status of the CRISP team is unclear at the moment, and needs to be
>>> Their observation is that with the SLA finalised, there is most likely no
>>> foreseeable concrete work needed by the CRISP Team in the future.
>>> We agreed that there will be almost no activity for the CRISP team
>>> between now and the expected completion of the transition in Sep.
>>> However, as there are still implementation steps waiting to be completed,
>>> in the unlikely event of input needed from the community, there needs to
>>> be a clarity on how that is handled.
>>> We discussed two scenarios:
>>> 1. 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 have discussed it in the CRISP Team and this is not a
>>> new idea.
>>> 2. The CRISP team closes down officially immediately without waiting for
>>> the transition to be completed. If an event arises that requires
>>> community input before the completion of the IANA transition, the NRO EC
>>> will create a new CRISP team (CRISP 2.0), which will respond on behalf of
>>> the community. This is an idea shared by the NRO EC Chair.
>>> The chairs discussed this among ourselves after our conversation with the
>>> NRO EC chair. We both feel that there is better clarity and continuity,
>>> if the CRISP team remains open, but dormant unless called upon, until the
>>> completion of the transition. While we don¹t believe it is very likely
>>> that the CRISP team is called upon to act between now and September, we
>>> also see very little cost in keeping it open, but dormant. In our view, a
>>> potential new CRISP 2.0 introduces new ambiguity at the very final stages
>>> of this process.
>>> However as we have done with every step of this process, we would like to
>>> consult the whole team on this issue. We welcome any inputs online/at the
>>> call from you before Thu 12th May.
>>> Hence, we would like to suggest to move the next CRISP Team call to
>>> - Mon 9th May UTC1300 or
>>> - Tue 10th May UTC1300
>>> (Instead of 25th May as our next regular call, which is during RIPE 67)
>>> *If you are unavailable on either of the dates (or both), please let us
>>> We'll decide the date of the next CRISP call by 4th May, based on number
>>> of available members.
>>> Nurani & Izumi
>>> CRISP mailing list
>>> CRISP at nro.net
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>> CRISP mailing list
>> CRISP at nro.net
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
More information about the CRISP