[CRISP-TEAM] [Call for comments] Maximum Review Interval Term to be 3 years (was: Re: Review Committee changes)
apb at cequrux.com
Wed Jan 7 07:56:18 CET 2015
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> " Such reviews shall be conducted not less than once every three (3)
> years, and more frequently on request from the Boards of at least
> two of the RIRs."
>We also want to be prepared for rationale on why we think is three is
>good, and not other period, such as one, two, five years, etc.
>Would you help me clarify whether this is based on some existing
>mechanism/practice as a reference, or this is what you feel is reasonable?
>If it's the former, I think it would make it simple to explain when
>receive clarifications/suggestions for changes on the IANAXFER list.
I suggested three years in a message on 16 December, and did not
receive any comments. This interval is not based on any existing
practice, but is simply what I thought would be reasonable.
I note that the the existing NTIA/ICANN IANA contract has a
duration of three years, and that the ICANN bylaws require review
of ICANN structures (including the ASO) at least every five years.
Perhaps it would make sense to tie reviews to contract renewals?
Something like this:
Such reviews shall be conducted at some time during the last 12
months of the term of the proposed contract or its successors,
or at any time on request from the Boards of at least two of the
RIRs, and shall in any case be conducted not less than once every
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP