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

Filiz Yilmaz koalafil at gmail.com
Thu Mar 2 11:01:41 CET 2017


Jason,

This thread is about a suggestion on having F2F meetings. 

Our charter says we are allowed to have our proceedings over teleconferences only.

I am not prepared to go against our Charter and frankly I cannot see the need because I am not convinced what is expected of us requires that.

Filiz

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Mar 2017, at 00:37, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
> 
> reposing because with the whole thread my mail is too big for the list:
> 
> Filiz,
> 
> 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 1.2.8.1.vi in:
>           https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_part_1_of_3.pdf
>      - 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 reporting
>      and our process to compile and review the performance will be self evident, 
>      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 above)
>      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 processed,
> then we can likely close out our procedures for creating and reviewing the report 
> in about an hour.
> 
> Optimistically if we quickly agree that our scope is narrow, and the only community 
> 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 mins
> 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 resolution, 
> if everything is non-contentions and our scope narrow.  If that is not the case, 
> 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 compliance,
> 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 weight.
> I also expect the community engagement process to also be very light weight while
> there are no community concerns with IANA operator's performance, which has been
> 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 community.\
> (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? 
> 
> ___Jason
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nro.net/pipermail/rc/attachments/20170302/e7fd7bbe/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Rc mailing list