[CRISP-TEAM] Review Committee

Alan Barrett apb at cequrux.com
Thu Jan 8 13:30:39 CET 2015

On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Alan Barrett wrote:
>It seems that we need to revise the Review Committee text.  Let's go 
>back to the public comments that triggered the changes that I made.  I 
>am searching for such comments now.

I found the following comments.


Andrew Dul, 30 Dec 2014

Sec 3, paragraph 5: Describes in general the periodic reviews of 
the new IANA numbers function contract between the NRO EC and 
the functions operator.  Has the CRISP team considered if the 
proposed review process should developed more than is currently 
drafted?  For example: Should there be some basic statements about 
the process details? Such as ... The review it will be conducted 
at minimum ever X years?  The review report will be publicly 
disclosed and the review committee selection and process conducted 
in an open and transparent manner.  If the NRO EC determines 
that a change is needed with the IANA numbers function contract; 
the RFP for a new contractor will be conducted in a fair, open 
and transparent process in line with applicable industry best 
practices and standards.


Hans Petter Holen, 31 Dec 2014

I think it may be sufficient with one member pr region, but 
maybe an alternate is needed. So in order to give advice it 
should be the consensus advice of one pr region. As this is 
not desicion making, voting is not needed, the team can simply 
document different opinions in a single advice to the NRO EC.

For selecting the members I think that should be left to the RIRs 
by a method of its own choosing - assuming it will be done in a 
manner simillar to the NRO NC.


Filiz Yilmaz, 4 Jan 2015

I suggest a change such as: "The proposed Review Committee is 
a tool for the five RIRs to evaluate and review performance of 
the IANA functions provided, together with their communities 

I suggest this because I read the proposal such that this Review 
Committee is not a mere new entity composed of only RIR Staff but 
it is a collective involving RIR Community members. If so, it 
is best to make it more explicit, to assure there is community 
involvement in the review/audit mechanisms. If not, or the details 
of the Review Committee is not to be set at this stage, then my 
suggestion can be ignored. However, either case, a note that 
the selection of any such Review Committee will follow open and 
transparent RIR mechanisms will be beneficial to the proposal in 
my opinion.


MAEMURA Akinori, 29 Dec 2014

We therefore propose to have requirements for representatives to 
Review Committee to have sufficient knowledge in reviewing the 
IANA function on number resources. In addition, it may be useful 
to have rough guidelines on the role and key points of review, 
to share a common understanding and secure quality of the advice 
above a certain level.

Lastly, we believe members of Review Committee must be selected by 
the community of each RIR region, such as in the form of elections 
conducted for NRO NC(ASO AC). NRO EC should not be involved in its 
selection to allow Review Committee to provide impartial advice to 
NRO EC, representing the RIR communities.


Seun Ojedeji, 7 Jan 2014

I had made suggestion about process of building the review team 
i.e the formation, charter et all be determined before the 
transition is completed.  May i know what the CRISP team decided 
about this?


More information about the CRISP mailing list