[IANA-RC] Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures

Jason Schiller jason-phone at schiller.net
Mon Mar 27 23:22:43 CEST 2017


Things have been quite in the last few days regarding the draft RC
operating procedures.
I am guessing the quite means we are all fairly comfortable with the draft,
so I figure this is
a good time to summarize the discussions and changes, and port them to the
working draft.

The following 8 topics have been addressed:

A. "Published"
Douglas voiced a concern about the word "published" being inserted into the
RC appointment
text.  The text is word for word out of the charter, but with an additional
requirement that the
method be "published".

Douglas was concerned that this would require a definition for published,
and additional
procedures and complexity.

Nurani doesn't think it is complicated or burdensome, and supports
transparency.

Jason notes that the additional burden is on the RIRs, they have to publish
their method.
Also, there is precedent for this with the NRO NC removal.


B. "Of the community"
Douglas suggests the text "The two community appointees should be of the
community and
have the support of the community." is not needed.  "Community Appointees"
already suggests this.

Nurani + Jason suggest it is not entirely clear and the added text ensures
there is no confusion.


C. "Term length"
Douglas suggested that a 3 year term is directly in conflict with the
charter.
Nurani agreed, text now reflects that the RIRs decide.
Jason added an additional "published" to the text.


D. "Vice chair suggestions"
Douglas felt "suggestions" was too informal.
Jason suggested interest


E. "Review process date"
Douglas felt per our charter, the date must come from the EC.
Changes have been suggested.


F. "Performance Matrix"
Douglas had concerns about giving the performance matrix a specific
name which could be limiting.

Jason suggested "performance matrix" was not intended to be restrictive,
but set the
minimum of what the RIR would provide.

Nurani suggested that we did not prescribe the name, and we are not
particularly
attached to it.


G. "prescriptive voting procedures"
Douglas was concerned that the voting procedures were too prescriptive.
Simplified text has been suggested.


H. "Procedural changes"
Douglas did not want someone to simply conclude there was consensus
without holding a vote.  New text has been suggested.


I have ported the changes over to the working draft as well.

What is the draft vs the working draft?

The draft was the text we were attempting to adopt at our last meeting.

The working draft incorporates some changes based on the discussion
of our last meeting, and some re-writing that occurred in our work room.

Primarily this consists of two things 1. stuff about community engagement
2. a preamble section 0 discussiong purpose.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NeXGqxadTTkVDR9wPWV0sC-gIQ0xZB1fzpYo5SRfeDA/edit#

As discussion has wound down, I would like to recomend we shift to a
discussion of the working draft.

___Jason

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Nurani,
> I have added my comments to the Doc.
>
> Regards,
>
> On 8 March 2017 at 17:52, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> I sent the draft operating procedures that Jason and I drafted to the
>> list earlier this week, but it looks like it was not delivered to the list.
>> Therefore, please refer to the google document online instead:
>>
>> https://goo.gl/ihCY6G
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nurani
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures*
>> *Date: *8 March 2017 at 14:15:39 GMT+1
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net>
>> *Subject: **Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures*
>> *Date: *8 March 2017 at 14:12:07 GMT+1
>> *To: *rc at nro.net
>> *Resent-From: *Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net>
>> *Resent-To: *rc at nro.net
>>
>> It seems like my message from earlier this week was not delivered to the
>> mailing list.
>> Nurani
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net>
>> *Subject: **Draft IANA Review Committee procedures*
>> *Date: *6 March 2017 at 08:44:52 GMT+1
>> *To: *rc at nro.net
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> As our first Review Committee teleconference, Jason and I as chairs, took
>> on the action point to draft the operating procedures for the Review
>> Committee.
>>
>> Please find attached a draft for your perusal.
>> (Thanks to Jason who really did most of the work on this.)
>>
>> I suggest we discuss this at our meeting in Copenhagen next week.
>>
>> German,
>> could you please add this to our meeting agenda, as well as the Review
>> Process? Thanks.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nurani
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rc mailing list
>> Rc at nro.net
>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> UG: +256 776 716 138
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rc mailing list
> Rc at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/rc/attachments/20170327/255a3d61/attachment.html>


More information about the Rc mailing list