[IANAxfer@apnic] The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" (1 of 2)

  • To: "ianaxfer@apnic.net" <ianaxfer@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [IANAxfer@apnic] The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" (1 of 2)
  • From: Craig Ng <craig@apnic.net>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:04:15 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-AU, en-US
  • Delivered-to: ianaxfer@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id: accept-language:content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: x-originating-ip:content-type:mime-version; bh=802A8uqarl7p+mRuwlEZU+SVVW/UPRIi2VbqgXy57AU=; b=Ih9+TKUXzYTUAhp8Hd4WRQ8Q8xZkfU2sm3suMwntwILNpRJ+1elLSHcIj1EyP/w2jVA1EhApOmsMC a4JeA14YLLBmtdZCKSpJVao8iBOBAE/V2vCvVjACtzhd90PbtE5/+b0hkXOASPDF5u0D/ZcorQkzqL AxSTKFnwK+TpeIxY=
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/>
  • List-help: <mailto:ianaxfer-request@apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: <ianaxfer.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:ianaxfer@apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer>, <mailto:ianaxfer-request@apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/ianaxfer>, <mailto:ianaxfer-request@apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Thread-index: AQHQQOgK0+3q4COq5UCNAivlcu6tiw==
  • Thread-topic: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" (1 of 2)

    • FYI - Below is the CRISP team's response to comments made by Guru Acharya
      in relation to the CRISP team process.
      (APNIC Staff representative to CRISP team)
      >-------- Forwarded Message --------
      >Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns"
      >Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:37:01 +0900
      >From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
      >To: icg-forum@icann.org
      >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 ianaxfer@nro.net 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
      >> by CRISP, which disqualify it from satisfying the criteria of following
      >> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA.
      >> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team was
      >> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an
      >> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group if
      >> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the
      >> 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
      ><ianaxfer@nro.net> 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.
      >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 <ianaxfer@nro.net> 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.
      >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
      >> 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
      >> 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.
      >The proposal to establish a CRISP team was distributed to all of the RIR
      >communities and the <ianaxfer@nro.net> 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 <ianaxfer@nro.net> mailing list, which were forwarded to mailing
      >lists of RIR regions by the CRISP Team members.
      >Subscription to <ianaxfer@nro.net> 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:
      >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 <ianaxfer@nro.net>.
      >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.
      >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:
      >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";
      >> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP
      >> 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
      >> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team
      >> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If
      >> CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal
      >should be
      >> returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the
      >> 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:
      >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 ianaxfer@nro.net 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 <ianaxfer@nro.net>
      >mailing list:
      >Contract details in general, including renewal process, duration:
      >Arbitration process:
      >Review process:
      >Intellectual property rights:
      >Charter of the review team:
      >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,
      >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

      Attachment: smime.p7s
      Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature