[CRISP-TEAM] Related to Review Committee Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] IANA policy vis IANA operation - How they differ?

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Thu Dec 25 16:46:24 CET 2014


This thread looks to me like another comment related to Review Committee.

Seun suggests NRO NC to conduct the review, to make use of existing
mechanisms. He also asks the rationale behind trying to say NRO-NC would
not be the ideal team to follow-up with staff operations at community level.

How shall we consider his feeback to have NRO NC to take this role?

 - Do you agree to have NRO NC to conduct the review as suggested, to
   make use of the exising mechanisms? or
 - Do you think we should seperate the roles of bodies which provides
   policy advice and reviews service level of the operation?

What do you think?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] IANA policy vis IANA operation - How they
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:26:14 +0100
From: Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net>
To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>, "ianaxfer at nro.net"
<ianaxfer at nro.net>

I do support the point of using existing structures and not create new.

As far as I can remember this was the clear consensus at the last RIPE

Hans Petter

On 23 December 2014 09:34:33 CET, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>Dear all,
>I have been following various discussions in this process (including
>this commuity) where some are of the opinion that policy should be
>from operation. While i also agree with that, but they then go further
>apply same separation to the community. This is where i think perhaps
>need to get a clear rationale for that distinction.  Here is what i
>- Within the context of IANA operations (down to RIR level) policies
>always been separated from its implementation (operations) by process
>- The processes are executed by 2 main sections of the community, the
>and the non-staff members
>- By process staff is largely assigned operations (IANA implementation)
>- By process the non-staff members of the community are largely
>the policy development
>However we would agree that staff participate in PDP because they are
>process part of the community and their participation is important. I
>don't understand the rationale behind trying to say NRO-NC (for
>would not be the ideal team to follow-up with staff operations at
>level, infact i think they will be in a better position to do the job.
>think it will only the fine to select other representative from the
>community if the current work of the NRO NC is already recognised to be
>significantly enormous (which is not the case in this situation).
>Inview of this, i will like to suggest that CRISP team strongly
>utilising existing structures effectively instead of creating new ones.
>have 15 members of NRO-NC but we also know that global policies are not
>something that happen often....also the ASO(NRO-NC) in this particular
>are the ones involved with ICANN and they would be more informed and
>better on the operations processes.
>It will be good to know what aspect of this that i may have missed,
>otherwise i think maximising the current systems would go a long way in
>global resource utilisation.
>*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:     
><http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
><http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
><seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>ianaxfer mailing list
>ianaxfer at nro.net

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-------------- next part --------------
ianaxfer mailing list
ianaxfer at nro.net

More information about the CRISP mailing list