[CRISP-TEAM] the Review Committee: Comment from Seun Ojedeji Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
apb at cequrux.com
Mon Jan 12 10:12:06 CET 2015
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, 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.
>> 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.
If we say that "the NRO EC shall establish a Review Committee"
(existing text, and "The selection ... should be ... open,
transparent, bottom-up ..." (your suggestion), and "equal
representation from each RIR region" (your suggestion), then I
think that should be enough to satisfy Seun's concern.
> 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
> 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 don't want to say "the RIR communities shall establish a Review
Committee", because there's no mechanism for them to do that.
I would be fine with saying "the RIRs shall establish a Review
Committee", but if we do that then we should also say "the RIRs"
instead of "the NRO EC" in several other parts of the document,
>> 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
> NRO (a coordinating body for the five)
> NRO EC (The chief executives of the five RIRs)
I suggest adding something to section I.B "A description of the
customer(s) of the service or activity". We already describe the
RIRs there, but we could add a description of the NRO and the NRO
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the CRISP