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_part... - 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