Things have been quite in the last few days regarding the draft RC operating procedures.I am guessing the quite means we are all fairly comfortable with the draft, so I figure this isa good time to summarize the discussions and changes, and port them to the working draft.The following 8 topics have been addressed:A. "Published"Douglas voiced a concern about the word "published" being inserted into the RC appointmenttext. The text is word for word out of the charter, but with an additional requirement that themethod be "published".Douglas was concerned that this would require a definition for published, and additionalprocedures and complexity.Nurani doesn't think it is complicated or burdensome, and supports transparency.Jason notes that the additional burden is on the RIRs, they have to publish their method.Also, there is precedent for this with the NRO NC removal.
B. "Of the community"Douglas suggests the text "The two community appointees should be of the community andhave the support of the community." is not needed. "Community Appointees" already suggests this.Nurani + Jason suggest it is not entirely clear and the added text ensures there is no confusion.
C. "Term length"Douglas suggested that a 3 year term is directly in conflict with the charter.Nurani agreed, text now reflects that the RIRs decide.Jason added an additional "published" to the text.D. "Vice chair suggestions"Douglas felt "suggestions" was too informal.Jason suggested interestE. "Review process date"Douglas felt per our charter, the date must come from the EC.Changes have been suggested.
F. "Performance Matrix"Douglas had concerns about giving the performance matrix a specificname which could be limiting.Jason suggested "performance matrix" was not intended to be restrictive, but set theminimum of what the RIR would provide.Nurani suggested that we did not prescribe the name, and we are not particularlyattached to it.
G. "prescriptive voting procedures"Douglas was concerned that the voting procedures were too prescriptive.Simplified text has been suggested.H. "Procedural changes"Douglas did not want someone to simply conclude there was consensuswithout holding a vote. New text has been suggested.
I have ported the changes over to the working draft as well.What is the draft vs the working draft?The draft was the text we were attempting to adopt at our last meeting.The working draft incorporates some changes based on the discussionof our last meeting, and some re-writing that occurred in our work room.Primarily this consists of two things 1. stuff about community engagement2. a preamble section 0 discussiong purpose.As discussion has wound down, I would like to recomend we shift to a discussion of the working draft.___JasonOn Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas@gmail.com> wrote:https://www.nro.net/mailman/liThanks Nurani,I have added my comments to the Doc.Regards,On 8 March 2017 at 17:52, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:______________________________Dear colleagues,I sent the draft operating procedures that Jason and I drafted to the list earlier this week, but it looks like it was not delivered to the list.Therefore, please refer to the google document online instead:Kind regards,NuraniBegin forwarded message:From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net>Subject: Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee proceduresDate: 8 March 2017 at 14:15:39 GMT+1Begin forwarded message:From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net>Subject: Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee proceduresDate: 8 March 2017 at 14:12:07 GMT+1To: rc@nro.netResent-From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net>Resent-To: rc@nro.netIt seems like my message from earlier this week was not delivered to the mailing list.NuraniBegin forwarded message:From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net>Subject: Draft IANA Review Committee proceduresDate: 6 March 2017 at 08:44:52 GMT+1To: rc@nro.netDear colleagues,
As our first Review Committee teleconference, Jason and I as chairs, took on the action point to draft the operating procedures for the Review Committee.
Please find attached a draft for your perusal.
(Thanks to Jason who really did most of the work on this.)
I suggest we discuss this at our meeting in Copenhagen next week.
German,
could you please add this to our meeting agenda, as well as the Review Process? Thanks.
Kind regards,
Nurani_________________
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
--Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
UG: +256 776 716 138
_______________________________________________
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
stinfo/rc
_______________________________________________
Rc mailing list
Rc@nro.net
https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc