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

Sweeting, John john.sweeting at twcable.com
Wed Dec 31 20:28:53 CET 2014

I find your suggestions well thought out and very clear. I agree with the
points you have made and look forward to further discussion.

On 12/31/14, 10:34 AM, "Hans Petter Holen" <hph at oslo.net> wrote:

>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
>ianaxfer mailing list
>ianaxfer at nro.net

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

More information about the ianaxfer mailing list