[CRISP-TEAM] the Review Committee: Comment from Seun Ojedeji Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

[Alan Barrett]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>Seun Ojedeji has asked us a question on why our draft proposal doesn't
>specify the Review Committee will be selected in the manner similar to
>NRO NC. He doesn't seem to have further comments for my explaination and
>making the suggestion below:
>
>  - uniforum membership requirement
>  - uniform selection process
>
>My observation is that this should be left to each RIR region.
>
>However, we can perhaps state a common principle in the selection of the
>Review Committe such as :
>
>---
>The selection of the Review Committe members should be conducted in an
>open, transparent, bottom up process, appropriate for each RIR region.
>There should be equal representation from from each RIR region in
>constituting the Review Committee.
>---

That principle is fine.

Seun also suggested that, instead of saying that "the NRO EC" shall
create a Review Committee, the document should give that responsibility
to "the RIRs" or "the RIR communities".  I'd also be fine with that
change.

More generally, in other cases where we say that the NRO EC will 
do something, we could consider saying "the RIRs".  The cases that 
come to mind are: deciding to move the IANA function away from 
ICANN in the future (section III.A.1), last paragraph "the NRO EC 
may in the future determine ..."); periodic review of the service 
level (section III.A.4 fisrt paragraph "the NRO EC will conduct 
periodic reviews"); creation of the Review Committee (section 
III.A.4 second paragraph "The NRO EC shall establish a Review 
Committee").

--apb (Alan Barrett)