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

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Wed Mar 1 18:37:53 CET 2017

reposing because with the whole thread my mail is too big for the list:


Rather than a point by point thread which seems difficult to follow,
let my try to plainly (and bluntly) restate my previous email.

Yes we need to boot strap things.

No, that has not been progressing well over teleconference / email

Yes, we need to figure out our general process
   - I hoped this would be done prior to Copenhagen

The SLAs are clearly defined and agreed to
   - https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SLA-Executed-ICANN-RIRS.pdf

Yes, we need to figure out or process for compiling the report
   - I believe this will be clear and simple
   - Nate is taking the first stab
   - There is lots of prior work
      - Pre-existing SLAs
        - https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal
        - specifically section in:

     - Pre-existing ICANN performance reporting:
        - https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics/20160930#c293
  - Between all of this I hope that we will easily agree what needs
     and our process to compile and review the performance will be self
     and quickly resolved as we review the preliminary report.

Yes,  we need to figure out or process for reviewing the report
   - I believe this will be clear and simple
   - given everything involved in compiling the preliminary report (see
     I hope that review will be self evident, and quickly resolved.

This leaves the general discussion of the role of the RC,
and the subsequent discussion of procedures wrt community engagement

The scope here is potentially very wide, with a lot of room for contention.
It is unclear how quickly we can resolve the contention, and how wide
the scope will be which directly impacts how much procedure is needed.


Optimistically if preliminary report is good and has everything people are
looking for,
and we feel there is appropriate detail about how the data is collected and
then we can likely close out our procedures for creating and reviewing the
in about an hour.

Optimistically if we quickly agree that our scope is narrow, and the only
engagement needed is to ask for feed back on the draft, then we can
conclude this
discussion, as quickly as we can get agreement and simply lift text from
the charter.


I am personally optimistic on the first, and see more room for contention
on the
scope and have concerns that the wider the scope, the more complicate the
community engagement procedures.

I reasonably hope we can get consensus on scope in 1.5 hours and spend 30
making notes on process.  I am willing to spend a day putting pen to paper
with some
feed back here and there from those that are willing and available, and
then have
another meeting for 1 hour where we tweak and agree to the final procedures.


I am concerned as time is currently structured, we will only get
if everything is non-contentions and our scope narrow.  If that is not the
it will likely drag out over phone / email, and ultimately be justification
for more
f2f meetings.

I don't think it makes sense to set up 4 face to face meetings over the
next two years.
Things should be driven by the amount of work pending.

I think we should keep having face to face meetings until we have
resolution on the
scope question, agreement about the report contents and how we judge
and our process documentation hammered out.

I would like to invest a maximum of time in Copenhagen in order to ensure
we complete
all this work and not need another face to face meeting.

I think it will become evident how easy this work is by how the scope
discussion goes
and if we leave that discussion with good process notes.


Once we have all the process, I expect the review process to be very light
I also expect the community engagement process to also be very light weight
there are no community concerns with IANA operator's performance, which has
the case.

If fact there are only three issues I am aware of and the IANA operators
reached out to
the communities and/or ASO AC seeking clarification on how to implement
global policy.
And those both  took only a few days discussing and consulting with the
(In the case of the first the answer was new global policy which took a
long time
  to get ratification)

1. What should IANA do once it gives are RIR its last /8, and then later
finds it is
    holding IPv4 addresses from returns?

2. Can IANA give more 4-byte ASNs to an RIR the has a glut of two byte ASNs?

3. When should we open the reclaimed IPv4 pool, as soon as APNIC runs out,
    or at the 6 month mark that is just a month or so off?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nro.net/pipermail/rc/attachments/20170301/6d3e4b8f/attachment.html>

More information about the Rc mailing list