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

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Thu Mar 2 16:22:45 CET 2017


Thank you.  I think I have been focusing on the work
rather than the topic of having meetings.

I agree having a f2f meeting is contrary to our charter.

I would prefer avoiding going against our charter.

I would also like to limit the number of f2f meetings (if at all).

I would also like to avoid a 3+ month process of trying to
work through these issues over email and teleconferences.

I am not advocating for more f2f meetings.

I am advocating for using as much available time we have at the ICANN
to try and ensure we don't need more f2f meetings, and reassess if we don't
make enough progress.

I hope that we can resolve all our boot strapping issues in 1.5 hours,
or at least make enough progress that we can easily and quickly resolve it
over email.

It is not clear to me that there is consensus about the role of the RC,
what is expected of us.  It is not clear to me how contentious this
might be.

I share most of the concerns put forward in the document.  It is impossible
to use those concerns to justify some number of f2f meetings without knowing
how contentious things will be.  That is why I suggested milestones, and why
my focus has been on getting the work done, and deferring on the topic of
more f2f meetings until we have a better grasp on what is still outstanding.

I think at this point it is more productive to table the discussion on more
meetings, and shift to a discussion of working through those issues.

Assuming we are still planning to have a f2f at the ICANN meeting, I would
like to use as much of the available time to try and resolve all our boot
issues or at least make enough progress that we can easily and quickly
resolve it
over email.

Assuming this topic is not contentious, then our procedures should be set
in our
1.5 hours.

Assuming this topic is contentious, then I would like to use all available
time to
work through the issues, and insure the highest likelihood of being far
along that it is clear we will not need more f2f meetings or multiple
months of
email and teleconferences.


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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

Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nro.net/pipermail/rc/attachments/20170302/b0fe064c/attachment.html>

More information about the Rc mailing list