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

Filiz Yilmaz koalafil at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 00:46:25 CEST 2017


Jason/Nurani,

Thanks for this work.
Jason, extra thanks for the summary! It really helps to see where we are
currently.

Pls find my comments inline the latest link you have provided for the
"working" document as well as below inline:

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Jason Schiller <jason-phone at schiller.net>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>
+1 with you and Nurani.
I think the wording is fine and I believe we mean "publicly published" for
the sake of transparency.
We can use "publicly published" if this will help clarifying what is meant
with "published".
RIR communities are familiar with the term.



>
> 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.
>
>
+1 with you and Nurani. It should be made very clear here.
Maybe even say " The two community appointees should be *from* the
community and...", might be clearer for non-native English speakers like
me.




>
> 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.
>
>
I am not keen on this change.
It is now too much up in the air when this report will be requested and
created.

I see what Douglas is saying but we already expanded on the Charter and and
now our Procedures are already requesting RIRs to publish an IANA Numbering
Services Operations Review Matrix every year first to base our review on.
So in that sense I think we can also set the timing for this Matrix to come
from RIRs.

The RIR Staff already agreed with these timelines during the last meeting
too.
I think we should note a time period when to expect this Matrix from RIRs
so we can also know when our report and so our work is required.



>
> 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.
>
>
We need to call it something. I am not attached to the name either but it
is something that does not exist in the Charter necessarily so it needs a
name to be referred in the documentation properly.

If there is no other suggestions, I think a name as "Performance Matrix"
actually does a good job describing what is expected as of its content.


>
> 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.
>
>
>
Sure. But if we are going to be strict on this, then we also need to be
strict on reaching more than the quorum requirement in meetings where we
will have discussions on procedural changes. Current quorum requires only 5
voting members for meetings, which is not enough to reach the suggested 80%
supermajority requirement. Alternatively we can utilize electronic voting
for procedural changes so that potential low attendance to meetings will
not be a burden to bring the necessary changes to procedures.

Thanks again.
Filiz


> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170328/5d598be9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Rc mailing list