Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns"
Dear colleagues, Please find below another email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer@nro.net mailing list. As stated in my previous mail, we very much welcome the RIPE community's continued input in this discussion on the ianaxfer@nro.net mailing list. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message:
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" Date: 4 februari 2015 20:53:49 CET To: "ianaxfer@nro.net" <ianaxfer@nro.net>
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 <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 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 <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. https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-...
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. 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-...
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: 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 <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. https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-December-9-meeting-DRAFT-NOTES-...
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-communi...
https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-proposal...
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 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: 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 ianaxfer@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
Most of the comments I made about Richard Hill's posting to the ICG-forum mailing list also apply to Guru Acharya's complaints. In addition to this: - the RIPE community members on the CRISP team were approved by the RIPE chair and community at a plenary session of the RIPE meeting in London on Nov 7, 2014. The selection process was open and there were two candidates, both of whom were approved. - re: claims of top-down decision-making and restriction of information flow/transparency issues, the CRISP team have an extensive public written record to show otherwise. It is abundantly clear both to observers and to those who contributed that Guru Acharya's claims on this are untenable. Nick On 05/02/2015 13:36, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Please find below another email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer@nro.net mailing list.
As stated in my previous mail, we very much welcome the RIPE community's continued input in this discussion on the ianaxfer@nro.net mailing list.
Kind regards,
Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team
Begin forwarded message:
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" Date: 4 februari 2015 20:53:49 CET To: "ianaxfer@nro.net" <ianaxfer@nro.net>
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 <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 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 <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. https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-...
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. 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-...
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: 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 <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. https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-December-9-meeting-DRAFT-NOTES-...
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-communi...
https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-proposal...
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 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: 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 ianaxfer@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
-- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 6169698 52 Lower Sandwith St | INEX - Internet Neutral | Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie
On 5 Feb 2015, at 22:03, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
claims of top-down decision-making and restriction of information flow/transparency issues, the CRISP team have an extensive public written record to show otherwise. It is abundantly clear both to observers and to those who contributed that Guru Acharya's claims on this are untenable.
Indeed.
participants (3)
-
Jim Reid -
Nick Hilliard -
Nurani Nimpuno