March 2017 - Rc - nro-apps-2.ripe.net

Participation List IANA RC f2f Meeting in ICANN 58
by German Valdez 08 Mar '17

08 Mar '17

Hi As requested in the last teleconference this is the information of IANA RC members participating remotely or on site in the coming meeting during ICANN 58 AFRINIC Omo Oaiya - ON SITE Douglas Onyango - ON SITE Madhvi Gokool - PON SITE APNIC Tomohiro Fujisaki - ON SITE Brajesh Jain - ON SITE George Kuo - remotely ARIN Louie Lee - ON SITE Jason Schiller - ON SITE Nate Davis - ON SITE LACNIC Nicolas Antoniello - remotely Edmundo Cazarez - remotely Ernesto Majo - ON SITE RIPE NCC Filiz Yilmaz - ON SITE Nurani Nimpuno - ON SITE Andrew de la Haye - ON SITE Regards German Valdez

1 1

Webex Details IANA RC 1st Teleconference - Wednesday February 15th 2017 at 12:00 PM UTC
by German Valdez 07 Mar '17

07 Mar '17

Dear Colleagues Thank you for completing the poll to set the 1st IANA Review Committee Teleconference. Based on your feedback the teleconference would take place at Wednesday February 15th 2017 at 12:00 PM UTC IANA Review Committee 1st Teleconference Wednesday, 15 February 2017 12:00 pm | UTC | 2 hrs Join WebEx meeting https://apnic.webex.com/apnic/j.php?MTID=mcc7249a609a5ff8083d1f75d1e59209e Meeting number: 572 054 243 Meeting password: ianarc https://apnic.webex.com/apnic/globalcallin.php Regards German

3 5

test
by Razvan C. Oprea 07 Mar '17

07 Mar '17

test

1 0

RC meeting in ICANN 58
by German Valdez 06 Mar '17

06 Mar '17

Hi We are aiming to have a f2f meeting during ICANN 58 meeting on Wednesday March 15th from 11:00 - 12:45 Denmark time (GMT +1) As established in the IANA RC chapter we’ll provide remote participation tools. Please could you confirm your availability at this date and time Thanks German

15 15

Re: [IANA-RC] [AC-COORD] A Note for need of Second f2f meeting of ASOAC/RC
by Jason Schiller 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

reposing because with the whole thread my mail is too big for the list: Filiz, Rather than a point by point thread which seems difficult to follow, let my try to plainly (and bluntly) restate my previous email. Yes we need to boot strap things. No, that has not been progressing well over teleconference / email Yes, we need to figure out our general process - I hoped this would be done prior to Copenhagen The SLAs are clearly defined and agreed to - https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/SLA-Executed-ICANN-RIRS.pdf Yes, we need to figure out or process for compiling the report - I believe this will be clear and simple - Nate is taking the first stab - There is lots of prior work - Pre-existing SLAs - https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2012/icann-proposal - specifically section 1.2.8.1.vi in: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_volume_i_elecsub_par… - Pre-existing ICANN performance reporting: - https://www.iana.org/performance/metrics/20160930#c293 - Between all of this I hope that we will easily agree what needs reporting and our process to compile and review the performance will be self evident, and quickly resolved as we review the preliminary report. Yes, we need to figure out or process for reviewing the report - I believe this will be clear and simple - given everything involved in compiling the preliminary report (see above) I hope that review will be self evident, and quickly resolved. This leaves the general discussion of the role of the RC, and the subsequent discussion of procedures wrt community engagement The scope here is potentially very wide, with a lot of room for contention. It is unclear how quickly we can resolve the contention, and how wide the scope will be which directly impacts how much procedure is needed. ----- Optimistically if preliminary report is good and has everything people are looking for, and we feel there is appropriate detail about how the data is collected and processed, then we can likely close out our procedures for creating and reviewing the report in about an hour. Optimistically if we quickly agree that our scope is narrow, and the only community engagement needed is to ask for feed back on the draft, then we can conclude this discussion, as quickly as we can get agreement and simply lift text from the charter. ----- I am personally optimistic on the first, and see more room for contention on the scope and have concerns that the wider the scope, the more complicate the community engagement procedures. I reasonably hope we can get consensus on scope in 1.5 hours and spend 30 mins making notes on process. I am willing to spend a day putting pen to paper with some feed back here and there from those that are willing and available, and then have another meeting for 1 hour where we tweak and agree to the final procedures. ------ I am concerned as time is currently structured, we will only get resolution, if everything is non-contentions and our scope narrow. If that is not the case, it will likely drag out over phone / email, and ultimately be justification for more f2f meetings. I don't think it makes sense to set up 4 face to face meetings over the next two years. Things should be driven by the amount of work pending. I think we should keep having face to face meetings until we have resolution on the scope question, agreement about the report contents and how we judge compliance, and our process documentation hammered out. I would like to invest a maximum of time in Copenhagen in order to ensure we complete all this work and not need another face to face meeting. I think it will become evident how easy this work is by how the scope discussion goes and if we leave that discussion with good process notes. ------ Once we have all the process, I expect the review process to be very light weight. I also expect the community engagement process to also be very light weight while there are no community concerns with IANA operator's performance, which has been the case. If fact there are only three issues I am aware of and the IANA operators reached out to the communities and/or ASO AC seeking clarification on how to implement global policy. And those both took only a few days discussing and consulting with the community.\ (In the case of the first the answer was new global policy which took a long time to get ratification) 1. What should IANA do once it gives are RIR its last /8, and then later finds it is holding IPv4 addresses from returns? 2. Can IANA give more 4-byte ASNs to an RIR the has a glut of two byte ASNs? 3. When should we open the reclaimed IPv4 pool, as soon as APNIC runs out, or at the 6 month mark that is just a month or so off? ___Jason

3 3

Re: [IANA-RC] [AC-COORD] A Note for need of Second f2f meeting of ASOAC/RC
by Jason Schiller 01 Mar '17

01 Mar '17

(apologies for cross posting AC-Coord and RC) Brajesh, I believe the attached document is in response to action item 20170111-06: "BJ to send the suggestion about a second F2F meeting to the list." After review of the document it seems this is justification is based on the need to complete Review Committee work. Reading between the line I think you are suggesting that the the Review Committee members should also meet during the ASO AC face to face at the ICANN meeting. In addition, the Review Committee needs a second face to face meeting for a few years while the RC is boot strapping, and settling in. If my assessment is correct, I would suggest that this discussion moved to the RC list. If you agree, please respond as such and move ac-coord(a)aso.icaan.org to bcc Thanks, __Jason On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain(a)spectranet.in> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I have attempted a brief note as attached for further deliberations. > > > > Basically for Review Committee to function effectively, there is need for > in depth multiple deliberations with constant feedback/inputs from > Community. Such inputs are best sought through interaction being present > at ICANN. > > > > Thanks and regards > > > > Brajesh > > _______________________________________________ > AC-coord mailing list > AC-coord(a)aso.icann.org > https://aso.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ac-coord > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller(a)google.com|571-266-0006

5 4