[NRO-IANAXFER] NRO-NC role in Review Committee

Hans Petter Holen hph at oslo.net
Wed Dec 31 16:34:25 CET 2014


Hi Alan,
Thanks for sharing this. I will add my personal thoughts in this.

On 31/12/14 14:00, Alan Barrett wrote:
> There has been a suggestion that the work of the "Review Committee" 
> proposed in the CRISP draft should be handled by the NRO-NC, or 
> alternatively, that the chair of the NRO-NC should be co-opted to 
> serve on the Review Committee.
As a starting-point I have been of the opinion that we should not create 
any new structures, but use existing structures.

In addition the RIRs has several "sub-contractors" allready, like 
network providers, datcentre opreators etc. So this is really nothing new.
The "oversight" over existing contracts are done by the board of each RIR.
The board answers to the membership, and membership is open (unless the 
membership fees are prohibitive).

As the IANA contract is of special interest to the numbering community 
at large there may be wise to have an independent review committee. It 
may give the RIRs even a stronger case against the IANA operater in the 
event of SLA breaches.

In the RIPE region, and probably others too, we have several Working 
Groups giving input to and reviewing RIPE NCC performance for the 
database, meassurement, and services in general - so we can argue that 
there is some tradition for invoving the community in spesific areas of 
RIR operation.

>
> The CRISP Team believes that is would be wise to to keep the 
> operational performance review process independent of the policy 
> development process.  Because the NRO-NC (or ASO-AC) has a role in 
> global policy development, we think that the proposed Review Committee 
> should be independent of the NRO-NC.
The NRO-NC is not involved in the actual policy development. The NRO NC 
verifies that the policy process has been followed, so I am not overly 
concerned of mixing the two oversight.
The advantage of keeping them together is that the NRO NC allready gives 
IANA advice on interpretation of policy.
Having two separate bodies may require some careful spesification of the 
mandate of the new review comittee vs the mandate of the NRO NC.

On the other hand, setting up a separate body for this is a clear 
message to the NRO NC to stick to its mandate and not extend this. (I am 
not saying it does that - just making sure for the future...)

>
> The draft proposal says "The NRO Executive Council shall establish a 
> Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO Executive Council 
> in its periodic review. Any such Review Committee should be a team 
> composed of representatives from each RIR region ...". The CRISP Team 
> has not discussed how many members the Review Committee might have, or 
> what procedure the NRO EC might follow in choosing the members.

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.

The Review Committee should  establish its own working procedures to be 
approved by the NRO EC (like the NRO NC) This will leave the details 
like how often to review, how to work and so on to be decided later on.

If the community thinks this is a good idea, I think we should set up 
the comittee prior to the NTIA desicion and have ti operational as soon 
as possible, to show the community and NTIA that the consept is feasible 
and will work.

Seasons greetings,

Hans Petter





More information about the ianaxfer mailing list