Hello,

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

On 5 Feb 2015, at 14:26, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:

> In short, I don't see a problem with the CRISP proposal (+ repeat my
> previous support for it) and am satisfied that Richard Hill's concerns are
> either misplaced or else have been adequately addressed.

Me too!

I wholeheartedly support the CRISP proposal and the open process it used to engage with everyone and reach consensus.

Same here.

I have shared my thoughts on this before but I would like to repeat my support for the proposal submitted by the CRISP team.

I also want to note again that I found the process followed to come up with this proposal extremely open and transparent.

In my belief CRISP team did a very good job of creating awareness on the topic, collecting feedback, consolidating the collected feedback and turning it into an efficient and workable proposal document. While doing that, they kept transparent, welcoming and engaged openly with those who provided specific feedback too.

I've saw a lot of good discussion in many fora and in my opinion all necessary issues are addressed adequately by the CRISP team.

I thank them for their meticulous work.

I also noticed various individuals who are not RIR Staff or who are not CRISP team members, volunteered their time in making announcements to encourage others to participate on this very important proposal in various fora too. So a lot of hard work is put in by many different stakeholders in many different ways in this case, in both creating awareness and actively participating in the process.

In short, I see this as a very good example of a bottom-up, open and transparent decision making process that successfully resulted in the proposal submitted.

Kind regards

Filiz Yilmaz

_______________________________________________
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer