FYI - Below is the CRISP team's response to comments made by Guru Acharya in relation to the CRISP team process.
Craig (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 <[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-stewardshi >p-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/consolidate >d-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-NOTE >S-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-commu >nity-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group > >https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-propos >al-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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
