Dear colleagues, Please find below another email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global [email protected] mailing list.
As stated in my previous mail, we very much welcome the RIPE community's continued input in this discussion on the [email protected] mailing list. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process > Concerns" > Date: 4 februari 2015 20:53:49 CET > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Dear all, > > > I would like to share the CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process > Concerns", which has been posted to icg-forum. > > I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is likely > to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:37:01 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 22 January 2015 Guru Acharya wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html > > The CRISP Team was not able to confirm concrete evidence/facts on these > concerns, as explained below. > > We also note that while present as an observer on a number of CRISP > teleconferences, we did not observe Guru Archaya raising any of these > concerns on [email protected] mailing list or on any of the regional > community lists on which the CRISP process was being discussed. > > > Guru Acharya writes: > >> I would like to highlight the following concerns about the process > adopted >> by CRISP, which disqualify it from satisfying the criteria of following a >> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA. >> >> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team was a >> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an > interview >> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group if >> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the RIR >> executive committee. The selection criteria for the candidates was > not made >> public by the RIR executive committee. This is important given that >> non-CRISP participants were excluded from the decision-making process. > > > Before setting up the CRISP Team, RIRs published the process for > producing a single proposal from the global IP addressing community to > the NTIA, and there was an opportunity for discussions on the public > <[email protected]> mailing list as below: > > On 16 October the five RIRs published a process for producing a single > proposal from the global IP addressing community to the NTIA. > https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team > > According to this process the CRISP team would consist of 15 members, > two appointees from each RIR region who are not RIR staff, and one RIR > staff member from each region, who shall assist with the submission > development effort. Each RIR was to appoint their CRISP team members by > a method of its own choosing by 15 November 2014. There was some > discussion on the public <[email protected]> mailing list on 21 October > about standardising a CRISP team selection process across all five RIR > regions, but no broader community support was expressed for this change. > See: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-October/000016.html > > Following this announcement each of the five RIRs announced an open call > for participants, to which any one could express their interest, as well > as the process according to which the selection of the CRISP members > would be conducted. The process and relevant announcements of each RIR > are described in the Internet Number Community Response to the ICG RFP > (sections VI.B.1-VI.B.5 on "Community Process"). > > In most cases the RIR executive committees made the final selection of > CRISP representatives from community volunteers. At no point in the > process were any explicit objections raised to any of the CRISP team > members, nor were any appeals made by volunteers not selected to join > the CRISP team. > >> >> 2) Top-down decision-making by the CRISP team: While the general > public was >> invited to provide comments for the draft proposals prepared by > CRISP, they >> were excluded from the decision-making process. Commenters were merely >> informed that their input had either been accepted or rejected by the > CRISP >> team after due consideration. Notably, non-CRISP participants were not >> allowed to contribute to CRISP's tele-conferences or CRISP's internal >> mailing list, where the actual decision-making took place. Mere >> consultation of the general public without their involvement in the >> decision-making process does not constitute a bottom-up multi-stakeholder >> process. > > > Each of the RIR communities had conducted discussions on the IANA > stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and the role of > the CRISP Team is to consolidate it as a single global proposal. > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team > > The proposal to establish a CRISP team was distributed to all of the RIR > communities and the <[email protected]> mailing list established on 16 > October 2015. The first CRISP team teleconference was held on 9 December > 2015. This provided the community with nearly two months during which > they could comment on or object to any elements of the proposal to set > up the CRISP team (as noted above, there was some discussion around 21 > October relating to CRISP team selection processes, but there was not > community support for changing the proposed process). > > The CRISP team members agreed with the arrangements laid out in the > proposal (while developing some additional mechanisms, including the > internal CRISP mailing list and a working definition of quorum for the > group). CRISP team members also understood a key part of their role to > be facilitating input from the regional communities, and this was > evident throughout the process - teleconference notes from the third > teleconference onwards record various CRISP team members conveying input > from their regional mailing lists. > > Invitations to join the CRISP Team Teleconferences as observers were > sent to <[email protected]> mailing list, which were forwarded to mailing > lists of RIR regions by the CRISP Team members. > > Subscription to <[email protected]> mailing list was open to anyone, and > there was no restrictions on posting comments to the list, including > making comments about the CRISP Team discussions at any of the CRISP > Team Teleconferences. > > A concrete record of all the concerns raised by the community on various > mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and made available at: > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRODiscussionList_20150116.pdf > > This spreadsheet indicated the issue, the initial mail in which the > issue was raised, the CRISP team's discussion of the issue and the > current CRISP team position. This clearly demonstrates that the process > of community participation facilitated by the CRISP team worked smoothly > to address a wide range of community input throughout the process. > >> >> 3) Lack of information and transparency: The CRISP team had two mailing >> lists. The mailing list used internally by the CRISP team was a closed >> mailing list that was not publicly archived till after the proposal was >> finalised. This resulted in community evaluation of the process and >> proposal in the absence of requisite information about the reasons > for any >> decisions. > > As noted in the initial CRISP team proposal and charter, "The CRISP team > shall also work through a public mailing list and the archive of such > mailing list will be publicly available. The name of the mailing list > will be <[email protected]>. > > At its initial teleconference, CRISP team members suggested that a > separate mailing list for use by CRISP team members only would be useful > in the interest of efficiency and to allow quick editing iterations on > the proposed response. > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-December-9-meeting-DRAFT-NOTES-v2.pdf > > While there was general agreement, concerns about transparency were also > noted, resulting in a commitment to publish archives of the internal > list at the time of publishing the first draft (19 December 2014). The > archive was publicly available from this point and some CRISP team > members shared a link to the archive with their communities directly. A > direct link to this mailing list archive was posted to the ianaxfer > mailing list and on the NRO CRISP webpage after 8 January 2015 due to an > oversight, while the archives were publicly made available when the > first draft of the proposal was published on 19 December. > > The archive of the internal mailing list is available at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/ > > It is possible to confirm from our announcements that links to the > archives of the CRISP team mailing list was intended to be shared from > publication of the first draft proposal: > > "Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, > minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public archive > of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at: > https://nro.net/crisp-team"; > > https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-community-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group > > https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-proposal-final-call-for-comments > > >> >> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP team >> refused to deal with essential aspects of proposal such as the contract >> renewal process, contract duration, jurisdiction, arbitration process, >> review process, high level details of the contract, intellectual property >> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team > cited >> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If the >> CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal > should be >> returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the > mandate >> of the CRISP team. Note that the charter of the CRISP team, which was >> prepared by the NRO EC in a top-down manner, does not suggest that such >> essential aspects should be excluded from the proposal. This limited >> interpretation of the agenda and issues by the CRISP team is against the >> ethos of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. > > As noted above, a concrete record of all the concerns raised by the > community on various mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and > made available at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > This spreadsheet, the records and notes from CRISP teleconferences and > the archived mails on both the internal and public mailing lists > demonstrate that the CRISP team closely considered all issues, concerns > or suggestions raised by the community via [email protected] or the > regional discussion lists. Where specific suggestions were not reflected > in the proposal, detailed justification was provided to the community > via the ianaxfer mailing list. > > While the CRISP team did note certain constraints on its remit, as it > understood that remit, the issues noted by Guru Acharya were addressed > specifically in the following mails to the public <[email protected]> > mailing list: > > Contract details in general, including renewal process, duration: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000213.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000135.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000143.html > > Jurisdiction: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Arbitration process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Review process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000134.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000172.html > > Intellectual property rights: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000145.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000127.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000342.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000173.html > > Charter of the review team: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000320.html > > While developing the proposal, the CRISP team was conscious about its > remit and responsibility. In the process of addressing issues and the > elements of the proposal the team felt that it was important to identify > the critical components and implementation requirements, rather than > work out the actual implementation details. Our position was that the > latter should be developed by qualified RIR legal teams following the > best practices in this field. As stated in the response to the ICG "The > RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below." > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > We believe that the proposal submitted to the ICG meets the expectations > of the numbers community, while not extending into areas beyond the > authority or expertise of the CRISP team. > > I hope that this effectively addresses the issues raised in this email, > and I would be happy to expand further on any issues you feel could > benefit from more explanation. > > > Yours sincerely, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
