[IANA-RC] [AC-COORD] A Note for need of Second f2f meeting of ASOAC/RC
koalafil at gmail.com
Thu Mar 2 11:01:41 CET 2017
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.
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:
> 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 22.214.171.124.vi 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 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rc