Jason,This thread is about a suggestion on having F2F meetings.Our charter says we are allowed to have our proceedings over teleconferences only.I am not prepared to go against our Charter and frankly I cannot see the need because I am not convinced what is expected of us requires that.Filiz
Sent from my iPhonereposing 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 / emailYes, we need to figure out our general process- I hoped this would be done prior to CopenhagenThe SLAs are clearly defined and agreed toYes, 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- specifically section 1.2.8.1.vi in:- Pre-existing ICANN performance reporting:- Between all of this I hope that we will easily agree what needs reportingand 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 engagementThe 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 widethe 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 reportin about an hour.Optimistically if we quickly agree that our scope is narrow, and the only communityengagement needed is to ask for feed back on the draft, then we can conclude thisdiscussion, 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 thescope and have concerns that the wider the scope, the more complicate thecommunity engagement procedures.I reasonably hope we can get consensus on scope in 1.5 hours and spend 30 minsmaking notes on process. I am willing to spend a day putting pen to paper with somefeed back here and there from those that are willing and available, and then haveanother 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 moref2f 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 thescope 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 completeall 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 goesand 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 whilethere are no community concerns with IANA operator's performance, which has beenthe case.If fact there are only three issues I am aware of and the IANA operators reached out tothe 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 timeto get ratification)1. What should IANA do once it gives are RIR its last /8, and then later finds it isholding 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