Doodle Poll IANA RC First Teleconference - DEADLINE Thursday February 2nd
Dear Colleagues Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee. Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day. I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members. http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7 Regards German Valdez
Hi Thank you for the input received so far. We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience. Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome. Thanks! German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules. If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible. We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists: 1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee-composition/ Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering-services-review-committee-c... Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee: B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee: C. IANA Review Committee: D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN E. I abstain 2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member. Thoughts on meeting procedures? 3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document. 4. EMPTY SECTIONS: 3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments ___Jason On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
Hi Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available. Are you ok with the approach? Regards German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering-services-review-committee-c...
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
On Wednesday we have the LACNIC staff member, but loose an AFRINIC voting member. (I am not trying to suggest one is more important that the other wrt quorum and getting stuff done. Certainly having an AFRINIC voting member is important to voting, but either way we have less than 8 voting members and thus I don't believe we can "take any actions") I am ok with either day. __Jason On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi
Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no
I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available.
Are you ok with the approach?
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review- committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering- services-review-committee-charter/
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
Hi Yes, difficult situation, on Thursday we would miss 3 voting members against 2 on Wednesday. Unless I hear from you, I’ll publicise the suggested date and time of the teleconference on Monday February 6th Regards German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 1:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
On Wednesday we have the LACNIC staff member, but loose an AFRINIC voting member.
(I am not trying to suggest one is more important that the other wrt quorum and getting stuff done. Certainly having an AFRINIC voting member is important to voting, but either way we have less than 8 voting members and thus I don't believe we can "take any actions")
I am ok with either day.
__Jason
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no
I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available.
Are you ok with the approach?
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering-services-review-committee-c...
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
Jason, not sure if your voting member count is correct: With Thursday I see 3 voting member missing. Wednesday only 2. Just for your information. Filiz On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi
Yes, difficult situation, on Thursday we would miss 3 voting members against 2 on Wednesday.
Unless I hear from you, I’ll publicise the suggested date and time of the teleconference on Monday February 6th
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 1:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
On Wednesday we have the LACNIC staff member, but loose an AFRINIC voting member.
(I am not trying to suggest one is more important that the other wrt quorum and getting stuff done. Certainly having an AFRINIC voting member is important to voting, but either way we have less than 8 voting members and thus I don't believe we can "take any actions")
I am ok with either day.
__Jason
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no
I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available.
Are you ok with the approach?
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering-services-review-committee-c...
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
Oh my... thank you for keeping me honest. (Apologies for any confusion). So it seems Wednesday is indeed better, especially so considering Omo newly ability to attend. ___Jason On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
Jason, not sure if your voting member count is correct: With Thursday I see 3 voting member missing. Wednesday only 2.
Just for your information.
Filiz
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi
Yes, difficult situation, on Thursday we would miss 3 voting members against 2 on Wednesday.
Unless I hear from you, I’ll publicise the suggested date and time of the teleconference on Monday February 6th
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 1:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
On Wednesday we have the LACNIC staff member, but loose an AFRINIC voting member.
(I am not trying to suggest one is more important that the other wrt quorum and getting stuff done. Certainly having an AFRINIC voting member is important to voting, but either way we have less than 8 voting members and thus I don't believe we can "take any actions")
I am ok with either day.
__Jason
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no
I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available.
Are you ok with the approach?
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review- committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering- services-review-committee-charter/
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
German, My Wednesday 12pm meeting just cancelled so I can be available if that helps. -Omo On 2 February 2017 at 15:19, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi
Yes, difficult situation, on Thursday we would miss 3 voting members against 2 on Wednesday.
Unless I hear from you, I’ll publicise the suggested date and time of the teleconference on Monday February 6th
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 1:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
On Wednesday we have the LACNIC staff member, but loose an AFRINIC voting member.
(I am not trying to suggest one is more important that the other wrt quorum and getting stuff done. Certainly having an AFRINIC voting member is important to voting, but either way we have less than 8 voting members and thus I don't believe we can "take any actions")
I am ok with either day.
__Jason
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no
I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available.
Are you ok with the approach?
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review- committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering- services-review-committee-charter/
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net
Much better, thanks Omo!. That would put Wednesday with 13 members available instead of 12. Then I’ll proceed to set the webex platform and publicise the meeting. Thanks German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 1:24 AM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net> wrote:
German,
My Wednesday 12pm meeting just cancelled so I can be available if that helps.
-Omo
On 2 February 2017 at 15:19, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Yes, difficult situation, on Thursday we would miss 3 voting members against 2 on Wednesday.
Unless I hear from you, I’ll publicise the suggested date and time of the teleconference on Monday February 6th
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 1:11 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
On Wednesday we have the LACNIC staff member, but loose an AFRINIC voting member.
(I am not trying to suggest one is more important that the other wrt quorum and getting stuff done. Certainly having an AFRINIC voting member is important to voting, but either way we have less than 8 voting members and thus I don't believe we can "take any actions")
I am ok with either day.
__Jason
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Wednesday 15/2 @ 12:00 PM UTC and Thursday 16/2 @ 11:00 AM UTC have the same results 12 yes and 3 no
I would suggest to go for the earliest option where more community representatives are available.
Are you ok with the approach?
Regards
German
On 3 Feb 2017, at 12:54 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller@google.com> wrote:
Looks like early Thurs 2/16 has the best attendance. 12 yes, and 3 no. Voting members: AFRINIC: 1v APNIC: 1v ARIN: 2v LACNIC: 2v RIPE: 1v
I think we need to discuss quorum and voting rules.
If we conclude that 10 members are eligible to make decisions at this meeting, then we do not have enough people available to make any decisions. I think it would be hard (and improper) to claim people not attending the call are not eligible.
We can try and advance the procedures on list, but I'm not sure how best to do that. So far there seems to be two outstanding discussion items in the text that currently exists:
1. use of PTI Review Committee vs IANA Review Committee. Note: Oct 4 announcement calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" Note: It also lists Fiona Asonga and Dr. Ajay Kumar as members. https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee-composition/
Note: Our charter calls it "IANA Numbering Services Review Committee" https://www.nro.net/final-version-iana-numbering-services-review-committee-c...
Can we close the loop on this with an email vote? A. PTI Review Committee:
B. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee:
C. IANA Review Committee:
D. I don't care what we call it: Jason Schiller - ARIN
E. I abstain
2. There is an open question about if "all meetings will be conducted by teleconference" as stated in the charter. There is no text under "meetings" at all at this point. Nicolas thinks a face to face meeting might be needed to sum up reports prior to community presentation. Nicolas questions if we can change this, and if it requires a charter change. Jason suggests we should make good procedures (with the charter in mind) and if we need to change the charter to have good procedures then we look into that. Jason suggested possible middle ground: "all meetings will be available by teleconference for public oversight, and participation by RC members, observers, and invited guests." Jason also asked if there is a possible need for private meetings like when censuring a member.
Thoughts on meeting procedures?
3. Any objections on the text written so far? If not, can we consider that part done (for now) and work on filling our the rest of the document? (I can't tell is silence is acceptance) We will of course have a second look once complete and we ratify the document.
4. EMPTY SECTIONS:
3. Composition 3.1 selection 3.2 term 3.3 removal 4. Meetings 5. Amendments
___Jason
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:28 PM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote: Hi
Thank you for the input received so far.
We are still missing 4 members to submit their preference. Please do it at your earliest convenience.
Bear in mind that IANA RC teleconferences are open for the public so advance notice is always welcome.
Thanks!
German
On 31 Jan 2017, at 12:30 AM, German Valdez <german@apnic.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Here is my proposal to organise the first teleconference for the IANA Review Committee.
Given that we have representatives from all RIR regions I’d like to propose the options of 11:00 AM or 12:00 PM UTC. This is based on experience in dealing with such diverse groups. This would allow IANA RC members in California currently in -8 UTC and representatives in Australia currently in +10 UTC be able to join the call in a not so terrible time of the day.
I’m including two weeks in the poll, 6 - 10 and 13 - 17 of February
In order to have enough time to advise the time and date of the teleconference please complete this poll by Thursday February 2nd. I’d announce and send the details of the call based on the most suitable time for the majority of the IANA RC members.
http://doodle.com/poll/hhzep4qz57vdrgc7
Regards
German Valdez_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
-- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
-- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net
participants (5)
-
Filiz Yilmaz -
German Valdez -
Jason Schiller -
Jason Schiller -
Omo Oaiya