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

Paul Rendek rendek at ripe.net
Mon Jan 12 10:05:58 CET 2015

Hello ALl,

Please see my comments in line.

On 1/12/15 8:40 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> On 2015/01/12 16:48, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> 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.
>>> ---
I am happy with this text suggestion. It covers this just fine.

>> 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.
> I don't feel strongly about this, except for ensuring selection of the
> Review committee is to be conducted by RIR communities, and this is my
> observation.
> To me, since NRO EC will be conducting the SLA review, it makes sense
> for NRO EC to set up the Review Commitee and the selection be left to
> the RIR communities.
> I'm also fine with the RIRs, as an equivalent of this but I think we
> should be consistent in the word we use, to avoid confusion.
> I'm not sure how it would be possible for RIR communities to set up a
> Review Committee as a procedural matter, in defining the call for
> nominations, nomination procedures, etc.

I support using 'the RIRs' here.

>> 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").
> Strongly agree. This seems to be causing confusions.
> Alternatively, I'm also fine with describing in brackets such as :
again, I support using the 'the RIRs'. It is understood and will  cause
less confusion.


More information about the CRISP mailing list