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

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

Review Committee meeting at ICANN58?
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Feb '17

23 Feb '17

Hi German and all, As my schedule at ICANN58 is filling up, I was wondering what had been decided about whether or not the Review Committee was meeting at ICANN. Was there a decision to have a meeting at ICANN58 as well? And if so, when would that be? Thanks, Nurani

2 1

Background: The CRISP proposal, the SLA, and the Review Committee
by Nurani Nimpuno 15 Feb '17

15 Feb '17

Hi all, I thought it might be helpful to provide a little bit of background of the review committee before our first conference call on Wednesday, wearing my hat as (former) vice chair of the CRISP team. Apologies for the length of this mail. As a reference, it is be useful for everyone on the Review Committee to read the CRISP proposal: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf (In particular of course: III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee) THE CRISP PROPOSAL When the CRISP team was working on its proposal for the stewardship transition of the IANA numbering functions, there was strong consensus that the number community trusted the RIRs to manage the stewardship of the IANA functions through an SLA with IANA. To be clear, the IANA Numbering Services was, and is still a matter of simple bookkeeping. This was in fact, the core of the proposal. There was no feedback from the community, suggesting a need for new mechanisms or organisations to be set up post-transition. It was felt that all five RIR communities have strong, inclusive, bottom-up structures and that there were appropriate processes within each RIR region for the community to engage in the bottom-up governance of its RIR. THE SLA The CRISP proposal did intentionally not prescribe exact SLA text, as it was felt that was something that needed to be defined and negotiated between the RIRs and ICANN. Instead, the CRISP proposal defined a set of guiding principles for the RIRs and IANA to respect as they were finalising the SLA. The RIRs then proposed SLA text that was reviewed by the CRISP team and the community, and then negotiated with ICANN. THE REVIEW COMMITTEE It was however recognised that the SLA with IANA was a new arrangement. And as a community with a strong tradition of community participation, it was felt that there should be some, very lightweight mechanism for the community to assist the RIRs in its review of the IANA SLA performance. It would also provide the RIRs with a channel to seek input on the SLA performance, should it feel the need for this, without having to create a new mechanism each time. It is important to point that that it was agreed that we did not want to create an organisation or a committee that would grow into something more important than it had to be, or risk becoming something separate from the existing processes and structures within each regional RIR community. We therefore intentionally made the Review Committee very lightweight, with a very limited scope. It was further felt that the number community is well experienced in organising itself to carry out such work, so there was little need for the CRISP team to be over-prescriptive in the details of the RC. It was also well understood that the Review Committee would have very little work to do for the first five years, and would therefore have plenty of time to define its relevant framework. THE FORMATION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE It might also be helpful to know that the reason the Review Committee was formed with members appointed to it, before the transition had even taken place, was not because there was a sense that there was a lot of work to take on. The RC was simply put together to give assurance to everyone, before the transition had taken place, that our community was well prepared to handle the transition. REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER We asked the NRO EC to define the charter which it has done here: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter_FINALclean.… The charter is very clear about the role of the Review Committee being one of advising and assisting the RIRs in their review of the SLA performance. The RIRs have full time staff to carry out this work and it is not the role of the Review Committee to carry out the review itself, nor to redefine the SLA. As such, the Review Committees role is really quite simple and clean. I hope this background was helpful to people. I am of course happy to further clarify any of this if necessary during our call. I look forward to our call on Wednesday. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno

6 7

Draft Agenda for 1st IANA RC Teleconference
by German Valdez 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

Based on Jason and Douglas feedback could we agree in the below agenda? Personally, I think it’s quite ambitious so I would allocate 2 hours. Comments/suggestions are welcomed 0. Agenda Review 1. roll call 2. discussion of minutes/notes/recording 3. Leadership of the team 4. Review of charter https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter_FINALclean.… 4.1 Questions of understanding about charter 5. Discussion of high level role and procedures https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GCV5BtB8ew2yVdEfMI6_ulW9UebFF4W8Agtx5Pv… 5.1 Document areas of agreement 5.2 Document areas of disagreement 6. Organizational structure 6.1 document proposed structure 6.2 document objections to proposed structure 6.3 process for organizational role selection 7. Discussion of detailed procedures 7.1 list of procedures needed 7.2 rough details of each procedure (not specific text) 7.2.1 document areas of agreement 7.2.2 document areas of dis-agreement 7.2.3 discuss possible conflicts with charter and need for re-charting 7.2.3.1 All meetings via teleconference 8. Meeting schedule and next meeting dates. 9. Review decisions made, decisions pending, action items 10. Any other business German

5 6

Doodle Poll IANA RC First Teleconference - DEADLINE Thursday February 2nd
by German Valdez 03 Feb '17

03 Feb '17

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

5 9

Re: [IANA-RC] Welcome to the IANA Review Committee Mailing List
by German Valdez 31 Jan '17

31 Jan '17

Hi Nurani Apologies for the problem. I updated your email account. According to the IANA RC chapter the list archives are public you can find them at https://www.nro.net/pipermail/rc/ Please let me know if I can be of any help Regards German > On 31 Jan 2017, at 5:02 PM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)nimblebits.net> wrote: > > Dear German, > > I seem to not have received any of the mails to the Review Committee list except for the welcome mail below. I did some digging around, and it seems like my old Netnod-address got subscribed to the list instead of my current one. That mail is obsolete and I can no longer access it. > > Could you please subscribe my current email address? > > Thanks, > > Nurani > >> On 5 Oct 2016, at 15:24, German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Friends >> >> As you may know the composition of this Review Committee was announced yesterday in the NRO website. >> >> https://www.nro.net/news/iana-numbering-services-review-committee-compositi… >> >> It’s been almost a year since the confirmation of the charter of this group so I’d suggest you have a quick check to the final version of the charter at >> >> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter_FINALclean.… >> >> As established in the charter this mailing list is publicly archived. >> >> Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you to support the start up of this group. >> >> Regards >> >> German >> _______________________________________________ >> Rc mailing list >> Rc(a)nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc >

2 1