IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
Dear RIPE community, As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA numbering services Service Level Agreement. In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method of its own choosing.” https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Public... The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who those members will be. I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community. It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list@ripe.net) by Monday, 28 September. If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior to the RIPE 71 in November. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind Regards, -- Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair email: hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Hans Petter, I think this may be an elegant solution. I am slightly suspicious of any new piece of work which is supposed to be lightweight and is then given to already busy people, as it has a habit of spiralling. I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts? That said, I don't think these are reasons to oppose your proposal, I just want to make sure they've been thought about. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ On 15/09/2015 18:26, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA numbering services Service Level Agreement.
In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method of its own choosing.”
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Public...
The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who those members will be.
I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community.
It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list@ripe.net) by Monday, 28 September.
If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior to the RIPE 71 in November.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Kind Regards,
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 09:58:16AM +0100, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I think this may be an elegant solution. I am slightly suspicious of any new piece of work which is supposed to be lightweight and is then given to already busy people, as it has a habit of spiralling.
I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts?
That said, I don't think these are reasons to oppose your proposal, I just want to make sure they've been thought about.
I'm mostly with Brian here. Hans Petter's suggestion works well for seeding but the question should be up for review one year into the committee members' terms to identify incompatibilities or synergies arising from the "personal union" approach. -Peter
Hi Brian, Thanks for your questions and comments. On 21.09.15 10.58, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I think this may be an elegant solution. I am slightly suspicious of any new piece of work which is supposed to be lightweight and is then given to already busy people, as it has a habit of spiralling.
The NRO-NC already has the following responsibilities as ASO AC according to 3b in the MOU with ICANN: https://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm * a role in Global policy development * make recommendations to the ICANN board on new LIRs * selecting ICANN board member two out of three years * make their own procedures The work of the review committee is to give advice on IANA performance for the numbers community. We do not have any experience with how much work this is going to be, but if we look at the work IANA does for numbers - it is in the range of one request every second month on average. So I would assume reading trough the monthly reports once or twice a year and checking that the Personally I would imagine that this added workload is more than manageable.
I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts?
Thats a good point. I will propose that we modify the terms of the review committee to match the ones of the NRO-NC.
That said, I don't think these are reasons to oppose your proposal, I just want to make sure they've been thought about.
Good point. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
Hans Petter, On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 07:13:17 +0200 Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts? Thats a good point. I will propose that we modify the terms of the review committee to match
On 21.09.15 10.58, Brian Nisbet wrote: the ones of the NRO-NC.
I support the proposal, including this modification. Cheers, -- Shane
Hans Petter, On 23/09/2015 06:13, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Hi Brian, Thanks for your questions and comments.
On 21.09.15 10.58, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I think this may be an elegant solution. I am slightly suspicious of any new piece of work which is supposed to be lightweight and is then given to already busy people, as it has a habit of spiralling.
Personally I would imagine that this added workload is more than manageable.
Grans so.
I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts? Thats a good point. I will propose that we modify the terms of the review committee to match the ones of the NRO-NC.
Sounds good and makes it all very easy indeed. Thanks, Brian
Hi,
Op 23 sep. 2015, om 18:00 heeft Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> het volgende geschreven:
Hans Petter, On 23/09/2015 06:13, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts? Thats a good point. I will propose that we modify the terms of the review committee to match the ones of the NRO-NC.
Sounds good and makes it all very easy indeed.
+1. Sounds like a good way to do this. Cheers, Sander
Hans Petter, all - On 23.09.2015 07:13, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
On 21.09.15 10.58, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I think this may be an elegant solution. I am slightly suspicious of any new piece of work which is supposed to be lightweight and is then given to already busy people, as it has a habit of spiralling.
The NRO-NC already has the following responsibilities as ASO AC according to 3b in the MOU with ICANN: https://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm * a role in Global policy development * make recommendations to the ICANN board on new LIRs * selecting ICANN board member two out of three years * make their own procedures
The work of the review committee is to give advice on IANA performance for the numbers community. We do not have any experience with how much work this is going to be, but if we look at the work IANA does for numbers - it is in the range of one request every second month on average. So I would assume reading trough the monthly reports once or twice a year and checking that the
Personally I would imagine that this added workload is more than manageable.
I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between the term lengths of the two different posts?
Thats a good point. I will propose that we modify the terms of the review committee to match the ones of the NRO-NC.
sounds all reasonable to me. I support this. Best, -C.
On 15 Sep 2015, at 18:26, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process.
+1 Just do it!
As one of those that suggested the work of RC be assigned to NRO-NC globally (even though did not successfully convince the CRISP) during the proposal development, I support the suggestion made by Hans. Cheers! On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA numbering services Service Level Agreement.
In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method of its own choosing.”
https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Public...
The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who those members will be.
I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community.
It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list@ripe.net) by Monday, 28 September.
If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior to the RIPE 71 in November.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Kind Regards,
-- Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair email: hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
participants (8)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Carsten Schiefner -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jim Reid -
Peter Koch -
Sander Steffann -
Seun Ojedeji -
Shane Kerr