[IANA-RC] [AC-COORD] A Note for need of Second f2f meeting of ASOAC/RC

Jason Schiller jason-phone at schiller.net
Mon Feb 27 21:45:19 CET 2017


RC members,

Looking at the document I have some comments, but generally support the
concerns advanced.

I think there is quite a lot of boot strapping work required, wrt our role,
our operating procedures,
our procedures for crafting and reviewing the performance report, and our
procedures for
community engagement.

Up until now, have not made good progress over phone and email.

I am concerned that we are have not scheduled enough time to advance these
discussions.

I could easily see spending a whole day in the hallway consulting RC
members and putting pen
to paper in drafting operating procedures as I did with ASO AC voting
procedures in Helsinki.

---------
" C) Committee Second F2F meeting is primarily required for first 2 years
of ICANN
       transition to fulfil the following needs."

Agreed.  I do believe there is a bunch of boot strapping work, and as of
yet, we have not been
very effective advancing things over the phone or email.  I am not sure I
would
specifically scope this to two years.  It might be better to decide what
are the important
milestones, and keep meeting until we can be far enough along that the work
can
easily complete without in person meetings.

---------
" C) 1) The physical attendance would enable to Gauge the sense of
          services by the RIRs. Service level needs to be clearly defined
          and accepted by all stakeholders"

I believe there is work to be done here, but it will be reviewing a sample
report, getting consensus on what we should report and its format.  And
determining our process for creating and reviewing the document.


I believe the SLAs are clearly defined, agreed to, and accepted by the RIRs
and
ICANN.

https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SLA-Executed-ICANN-RIRS.pdf

And should not be very different from pre-existing SLAs
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal

specifically:
section 1.2.8.1.vi.
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_1_of_3.pdf


One would expect the report to also be aligned with the IANA's monthly
performance reporting as covered in section 1.4.
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_2_of_3_redacted.pdf

As reported here:
https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics/20160930#c293


Though I expect we would consider the underlying data, and spot check that
it agrees with our
perception and recollection of recent events.

I believe Nate plans to come with a preliminary report for our review.
I suspect the review of such a report will be non-controversial.

I expect the only concerns to be raised will be cosmetic, such as word
smithing,
formatting, and consideration that something was left out, or requires more
detail.

We also need a procedure for how to compile the report and conduct the
review.

My hope is that the report comes together easily, and the review is
straight forward
and we all agree that the procedure can be very simplistic.

---------
"C) 2) It would also help in sensing if there are conflicting situations
          developing for example if GAC community feels any major
          issues/conflicts now or potential ones.

      3) To seek the feedback and comments from community. And to
          get to know the emerging issues."

Agreed.  But I believe the customer of the IANA service is the numbers
community,
and it is the concerns of the participants at the RIR / NOGs that we are
concerned
about.

Possibly the three members of the RC should have a session at each of their
regional RIR
meetings, and coordinate with other RC members on any take aways from the
community?

------

C) 4) The conference calls are open to public thus many issues/
     unexpected questions may emerge and RC has to appear
     cohesive in tackling such queries. FOR THIS RC NEEDS TO HAVE
     A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF APPROACH TOWARDS
     ISSUES WITHIN ITS CHARTER AND PROCESSES to handle any
     issues."

Agreed.  I think the point here is that we do not have a clear picture of
the
role of the RC, especially wrt community engagement.  We have already
seen how this has slowed down our discussion.

-------

C) 5) Primarily the focus of community is to see and observe and get
     the confidence that indeed ICANN governance is now truly
     multi stakeholder and not influenced/controlled by select few
     in this first ICANN transition year. ASOAC/RC has to put its
     cohesive approach towards success of transitioned ICANN."

Agreed.  I think this goes hand in hand with the previous point.

The NTIA proposal sought to shift its oversight to the relevant
community such that the IANA Numbering Services Operator
would be held accountable to the Internet Number Community
in a way that would support and enhance the multistakeholder
model.

The charter states we need to show the report to the community
and seek feed back before submitting a recommendation to the
NRO EC.  But the process nor depth is not specified.  This has
lots of room for interpretation, and will likely be the most difficult
topic.

There is quite a big gap between this two positions.

This could range from simply putting the draft report on a mailing list
and asking for community concerns, to making an IANA performance
Experience Report at RIR meetings, to having an open meeting where
community concerns are regularly solicited.  There could be a more
formal process for judging that the community has put forward reasonable
concerns and desires and out of cycle review.  There could be a formal
process for SLA Development that can be used if a new SLA is required,
or existing performance metrics need changing.

One thing is clear though, the output can only be providing information to
the community and recommendation to the RIRs/ NRO EC.


--------

"C) 6) The objective has to be such that clear operational processes
      are put in place in first two years. We need to keep in mind, it
      may take close to a year or may be more if ICANN Board
      ratification is also needed on some matters/processes."

I believe all of this can be sorted within the RC.  I think at worst, we
decide something that is contrary to the charter, and need to work with
the NRO EC / RIRs to see if we can modify the charter.

The only such issue that I currently know of is the provision that all
meetings
will be by teleconference.  It is unclear if a face-to-face meeting with
remote
participation / observation is inside or outside the spirit of this charter
requirement and if this can happen without amending the charter.

If you see specific issues that need to go to the ICANN Board, please
provide some discussion.


___Jason






On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet.in>
wrote:

> Jason,
>
>
>
> I agree with your assessment.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards
>
>
>
> Brajesh
>
>
>
> *From:* Jason Schiller [mailto:jschiller at google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 8:07 PM
> *To:* Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet.in>
> *Cc:* German Valdez <german at nro.net>; AC COORD <ac-coord at aso.icann.org>;
> rc at nro.net
> *Subject:* Re: [AC-COORD] A Note for need of Second f2f meeting of
> ASOAC/RC
>
>
>
> (apologies for cross posting AC-Coord and RC)
>
>
>
> Brajesh,
>
>
>
> I believe the attached document is in response to action item 20170111-06:
>
> "BJ to send the suggestion about a second F2F meeting to the list."
>
>
>
> After review of the document it seems this is justification is based on
> the need to
>
> complete Review Committee work.
>
>
>
> Reading between the line I think you are suggesting that the the Review
> Committee
>
> members should also meet during the ASO AC face to face at the ICANN
> meeting.
>
> In addition, the Review Committee needs a second face to face meeting for
> a few
>
> years while the RC is boot strapping, and settling in.
>
>
>
> If my assessment is correct, I would suggest that this discussion moved to
> the RC list.
>
>
>
> If you agree, please respond as such and move ac-coord at aso.icaan.org to
> bcc
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> __Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet.in>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I have attempted a brief note as attached for further deliberations.
>
>
>
> Basically for Review Committee to function effectively, there is need for
> in depth multiple deliberations with constant feedback/inputs from
> Community. Such inputs are best sought  through interaction being present
> at ICANN.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards
>
>
>
> Brajesh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AC-coord mailing list
> AC-coord at aso.icann.org
> https://aso.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ac-coord
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 <(571)%20266-0006>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rc mailing list
> Rc at nro.net
> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nro.net/pipermail/rc/attachments/20170227/118ca685/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Rc mailing list