[IANA-RC] Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures
koalafil at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 13:11:14 CEST 2017
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com>
> Dear Filiz
> On 28 March 2017 at 01:46, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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
> The Charter imbues the NRO-EC with the power to specify the date.
The Charter also imbues broadly, due to its language, that Review Committee
will produce a report without having any input from RIRs in the first
place. But during our meeting at ICANN58, I am not sure if you were able
to follow through remote participation, we discussed this is highly
unrealistic as the Review Committee, first needs a report from RIRs to be
able to create the final Review report.
Hence we came up with the introduction of the Performance Matrix, where
RIRs can report on their first hand experience with IANA on operational
issues so Review Committee can produce their report based on that.
What I am saying is that our actual review can only start after we receive
this Performance Matrix from RIRs.
And since now this is there in our Procedures, we can rightly ask for a
timeline for its production from RIRs, so we can plan our follow-up work on
the review of it. Otherwise we will just have a 30 day window that we do
not know when it will happen. This does not make sense to me.
> language in the proposed Procedure are inconsistent with the Charter
> and should be removed, unless the Charter changes to support it.
I do not this is a inconsistency. We just introduced a more detailed
request from RIRs to be able to perform the task properly. Our task is
noted in the Charter for us to perform.
> I am not saying the advise to the RIRs should be recalled per se. We
> just need to sell it to the NRO-EC, and ask them to own and pronounce
> themselves on it. This way it won't look like the RC made a decision
> that is outside its remit.
Most of NRO-EC was in the meeting during the Review Committee meeting in
Copenhagen, as well as the RIR Staff of the Committee.
My impression was that they found this helpful and practical too already.
But if others and especially the Chairs have a differing opening on this, I
am happy to be contradicted.
Either way, as it stands now, I do not agree with your suggested change on
this. And if the agreement I thought we reached during the meeting at
Copenhagen will be changed on this, then it should be changed by support
from others too. I have not heard enough support from others.
> >> 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.
> When I was suggesting edits, this is exactly what I had in mind. 80%
> vote is practical once the voting is detached from meetings.
> Mechanisms like electronic voting provide just what we need to
> engender this level of participation.
I am not sure I understand what you mean here.
Are you suggesting we vote electronically for everything and take no
decisions during meetings?
If so, I object again:
RIR communities managed to work with consensus all this time. I have faith,
the 15 of us, coming from that tradition, will be able to make healthy
decisions after performing healthy consensus discussions for majority of
the issues on the plate of RC. Electronic voting can be used to formalize
specific things, like a change in our procedures, agreed but is not be
required to reach each and every decision.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rc