Re: [IANA-RC] [AC-COORD] A Note for need of Second f2f meeting of ASOAC/RC
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
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 iPhone
On 2 Mar 2017, at 00:37, Jason Schiller jschiller@google.com wrote:
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
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:
- 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)
What should IANA do once it gives are RIR its last /8, and then later finds it is holding IPv4 addresses from returns?
Can IANA give more 4-byte ASNs to an RIR the has a glut of two byte ASNs?
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
Filiz,
Thank you. I think I have been focusing on the work rather than the topic of having meetings.
I agree having a f2f meeting is contrary to our charter.
I would prefer avoiding going against our charter.
I would also like to limit the number of f2f meetings (if at all).
I would also like to avoid a 3+ month process of trying to work through these issues over email and teleconferences.
I am not advocating for more f2f meetings.
I am advocating for using as much available time we have at the ICANN meeting to try and ensure we don't need more f2f meetings, and reassess if we don't make enough progress.
I hope that we can resolve all our boot strapping issues in 1.5 hours, or at least make enough progress that we can easily and quickly resolve it over email.
It is not clear to me that there is consensus about the role of the RC, hence what is expected of us. It is not clear to me how contentious this discussion might be.
I share most of the concerns put forward in the document. It is impossible to use those concerns to justify some number of f2f meetings without knowing how contentious things will be. That is why I suggested milestones, and why my focus has been on getting the work done, and deferring on the topic of more f2f meetings until we have a better grasp on what is still outstanding.
I think at this point it is more productive to table the discussion on more f2f meetings, and shift to a discussion of working through those issues.
Assuming we are still planning to have a f2f at the ICANN meeting, I would like to use as much of the available time to try and resolve all our boot strapping issues or at least make enough progress that we can easily and quickly resolve it over email.
Assuming this topic is not contentious, then our procedures should be set in our 1.5 hours.
Assuming this topic is contentious, then I would like to use all available time to work through the issues, and insure the highest likelihood of being far enough along that it is clear we will not need more f2f meetings or multiple months of email and teleconferences.
___Jason
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Filiz Yilmaz koalafil@gmail.com wrote:
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 iPhone
On 2 Mar 2017, at 00:37, Jason Schiller jschiller@google.com wrote:
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
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_1_of_3.pdf - 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)
- What should IANA do once it gives are RIR its last /8, and then later
finds it is holding IPv4 addresses from returns?
- Can IANA give more 4-byte ASNs to an RIR the has a glut of two byte
ASNs?
- 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
Hi Jason and all,
Thanks for your active contribution so far. Just a very quick clarification on the questions you have brought up below.
On 1 Mar 2017, at 18:37, Jason Schiller jschiller@google.com wrote:
<snip>
What should IANA do once it gives are RIR its last /8, and then later finds it is holding IPv4 addresses from returns?
Can IANA give more 4-byte ASNs to an RIR the has a glut of two byte ASNs?
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?
These questions are indeed interesting, but they are clearly outside of the scope of this group.
I believe the text is rather clear on this matter.
Please see the CRISP proposal https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf
... III.A. The elements of this proposal "Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives from each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the IANA functions operator’s performance and meeting of identified service levels.” ... III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee To ensure that the service level defined in the proposed agreement is maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator, the NRO EC will periodically review the service level of the IANA Numbering Services provided to the Internet Number Community.
The RIRs shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review. The Review Committee will, as needed, undertake a review of the level of service received from the IANA Numbering Services Operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding the performance of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, including especially any observed failure or near- failure by the IANA Numbering Services Operator to meet its obligations under the proposed agreement. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely to oversee the performance of the IANA Numbering Services, and the Review Committee’s advice and comment will be limited to the processes followed in the IANA Numbering Services Operator’s performance under the proposed agreement. Activities of the Review Committee shall be conducted in an open and transparent manner. Reports from the Review Committee shall be published. …
I hope this clarifies the matter.
Kind regards,
Nurani
___Jason
Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc
participants (3)
-
Filiz Yilmaz -
Jason Schiller -
Nurani Nimpuno