On 16 March 2017 at 12:22, Jason Schiller jason-phone@schiller.net wrote:

All,

Apologies. I was working in the Google Doc to try and capture procedures wrt what was discussed in our meeting.

I have reverted that, and will work elsewhere: https://goo.gl/cbFlBa (you all have access, comments and suggestions welcome)

I think we need one clarification wrt to the procedures we are currently accepting. The month in which the RIR RC members will produce the performance matrix is still TBD. This should not prevent accepting the procedures. Nurani and I have an action item to work with the NRO EC and solidify it.

(hopefully this will not matter as Nurani and I will complete our action item prior to adoption)

I would like to note that there is no time requirement between when the RIR RC members provide the performance matrix, and when we complete our initial review and release a draft to the community. The 30 days time limit is with respect to the amount of time the community has to provide comments to the draft. (this is in addition to any other comments that have previously been expressed since the previous report).

___Jason

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:06 PM, German Valdez german@nro.net wrote:

...

Hi

As discussed today, please provide your comments to the RC draft procedures.

Deadline for comments March 30 (two weeks)

Regards

German

...

On 8 Mar 2017, at 3:52 pm, 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:

https://goo.gl/ihCY6G

Kind regards,

Nurani

...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net Subject: Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures Date: 8 March 2017 at 14:15:39 GMT+1

...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net Subject: Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures Date: 8 March 2017 at 14:12:07 GMT+1 To: rc@nro.net Resent-From: Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net Resent-To: rc@nro.net

It seems like my message from earlier this week was not delivered to the mailing list. Nurani

...

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net Subject: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures Date: 6 March 2017 at 08:44:52 GMT+1 To: rc@nro.net

Dear 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

---

Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc

---

Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc

Jason/Nurani,

Thanks for this work. Jason, extra thanks for the summary! It really helps to see where we are currently.

Pls find my comments inline the latest link you have provided for the "working" document as well as below inline:

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Jason Schiller jason-phone@schiller.net wrote:

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 is a 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 appointment text. The text is word for word out of the charter, but with an additional requirement that the method be "published".

Douglas was concerned that this would require a definition for published, and additional procedures 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.

+1 with you and Nurani. I think the wording is fine and I believe we mean "publicly published" for the sake of transparency. We can use "publicly published" if this will help clarifying what is meant with "published". RIR communities are familiar with the term.

B. "Of the community" Douglas suggests the text "The two community appointees should be of the community and have 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.

+1 with you and Nurani. It should be made very clear here. Maybe even say " The two community appointees should be *from* the community and...", might be clearer for non-native English speakers like me.

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 interest

E. "Review process date" Douglas felt per our charter, the date must come from the EC. Changes have been suggested.

I am not keen on this change. It is now too much up in the air when this report will be requested and created.

I see what Douglas is saying but we already expanded on the Charter and and now our Procedures are already requesting RIRs to publish an IANA Numbering Services Operations Review Matrix every year first to base our review on. So in that sense I think we can also set the timing for this Matrix to come from RIRs.

The RIR Staff already agreed with these timelines during the last meeting too. I think we should note a time period when to expect this Matrix from RIRs so we can also know when our report and so our work is required.

F. "Performance Matrix" Douglas had concerns about giving the performance matrix a specific name which could be limiting.

Jason suggested "performance matrix" was not intended to be restrictive, but set the minimum of what the RIR would provide.

Nurani suggested that we did not prescribe the name, and we are not particularly attached to it.

We need to call it something. I am not attached to the name either but it is something that does not exist in the Charter necessarily so it needs a name to be referred in the documentation properly.

If there is no other suggestions, I think a name as "Performance Matrix" actually does a good job describing what is expected as of its content.

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 consensus without holding a vote. New text has been suggested.

Sure. But if we are going to be strict on this, then we also need to be strict on reaching more than the quorum requirement in meetings where we will have discussions on procedural changes. Current quorum requires only 5 voting members for meetings, which is not enough to reach the suggested 80% supermajority requirement. Alternatively we can utilize electronic voting for procedural changes so that potential low attendance to meetings will not be a burden to bring the necessary changes to procedures.

Thanks again. Filiz

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 discussion of our last meeting, and some re-writing that occurred in our work room.

Primarily this consists of two things 1. stuff about community engagement 2. a preamble section 0 discussiong purpose.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NeXGqxadTTkVDR9wPWV0sC- gIQ0xZB1fzpYo5SRfeDA/edit#

As discussion has wound down, I would like to recomend we shift to a discussion of the working draft.

___Jason

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Douglas Onyango ondouglas@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thanks 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:

https://goo.gl/ihCY6G

Kind regards,

Nurani

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net *Subject: **Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures* *Date: *8 March 2017 at 14:15:39 GMT+1

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net *Subject: **Fwd: Draft IANA Review Committee procedures* *Date: *8 March 2017 at 14:12:07 GMT+1 *To: *rc@nro.net *Resent-From: *Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net *Resent-To: *rc@nro.net

It seems like my message from earlier this week was not delivered to the mailing list. Nurani

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Nurani Nimpuno nurani@nimblebits.net *Subject: **Draft IANA Review Committee procedures* *Date: *6 March 2017 at 08:44:52 GMT+1 *To: *rc@nro.net

Dear 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 https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc

---

Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc

Dear Douglas,

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Douglas Onyango ondouglas@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Filiz On 28 March 2017 at 01:46, Filiz Yilmaz koalafil@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

E. "Review process date" Douglas felt per our charter, the date must come from the EC. Changes have been suggested.

I am not keen on this change. It is now too much up in the air when this report will be requested and

created.

The Charter imbues the NRO-EC with the power to specify the date.

The Charter also imbues broadly, due to its language, that Review Committee will produce a report without having any input from RIRs in the first place. But during our meeting at ICANN58, I am not sure if you were able to follow through remote participation, we discussed this is highly unrealistic as the Review Committee, first needs a report from RIRs to be able to create the final Review report.

Hence we came up with the introduction of the Performance Matrix, where RIRs can report on their first hand experience with IANA on operational issues so Review Committee can produce their report based on that.

What I am saying is that our actual review can only start after we receive this Performance Matrix from RIRs. And since now this is there in our Procedures, we can rightly ask for a timeline for its production from RIRs, so we can plan our follow-up work on the review of it. Otherwise we will just have a 30 day window that we do not know when it will happen. This does not make sense to me.

The language in the proposed Procedure are inconsistent with the Charter and should be removed, unless the Charter changes to support it.

I do not this is a inconsistency. We just introduced a more detailed request from RIRs to be able to perform the task properly. Our task is noted in the Charter for us to perform.

I am not saying the advise to the RIRs should be recalled per se. We just need to sell it to the NRO-EC, and ask them to own and pronounce themselves on it. This way it won't look like the RC made a decision that is outside its remit.

Most of NRO-EC was in the meeting during the Review Committee meeting in Copenhagen, as well as the RIR Staff of the Committee. My impression was that they found this helpful and practical too already. But if others and especially the Chairs have a differing opening on this, I am happy to be contradicted.

Either way, as it stands now, I do not agree with your suggested change on this. And if the agreement I thought we reached during the meeting at Copenhagen will be changed on this, then it should be changed by support from others too. I have not heard enough support from others.

...

...

H. "Procedural changes" Douglas did not want someone to simply conclude there was consensus without holding a vote. New text has been suggested.

Sure. But if we are going to be strict on this, then we also need to be

strict on reaching more than the quorum requirement in meetings where we will have discussions on procedural changes. Current quorum requires only 5 voting members for meetings, which is not enough to reach the suggested 80% supermajority requirement. Alternatively we can utilize electronic voting for procedural changes so that potential low attendance to meetings will not be a burden to bring the necessary changes to procedures.

...

When I was suggesting edits, this is exactly what I had in mind. 80% vote is practical once the voting is detached from meetings. Mechanisms like electronic voting provide just what we need to engender this level of participation.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

Are you suggesting we vote electronically for everything and take no decisions during meetings? If so, I object again: RIR communities managed to work with consensus all this time. I have faith, the 15 of us, coming from that tradition, will be able to make healthy decisions after performing healthy consensus discussions for majority of the issues on the plate of RC. Electronic voting can be used to formalize specific things, like a change in our procedures, agreed but is not be required to reach each and every decision.

Regards, Filiz

Regards,

Dear all,

Thanks all for your active contribution. Let me attempt to help resolve any remaining issues in this document.

On 28 Mar 2017, at 17:21, Douglas Onyango ondouglas@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Filiz, On 28 March 2017 at 14:11, Filiz Yilmaz koalafil@gmail.com wrote:

...

Either way, as it stands now, I do not agree with your suggested change on this. And if the agreement I thought we reached during the meeting at Copenhagen will be changed on this, then it should be changed by support from others too. I have not heard enough support from others.

My contribution, like all others contributions, should be treated as a suggestions. If it lucks support, I will not push it any further. The RC is supposed to work via consensus.

As agreed at the lat meeting, Jason and I will reach out to the NRO EC (and RIR staff) to come up with some good timelines. We will take that back to the group for review and hopefully it will be a timeline that works for everyone!

...

...

When I was suggesting edits, this is exactly what I had in mind. 80% vote is practical once the voting is detached from meetings. Mechanisms like electronic voting provide just what we need to engender this level of participation.

...

I am not sure I understand what you mean here.

Are you suggesting we vote electronically for everything and take no decisions during meetings? If so, I object again:

No, I am not suggesting this. My suggestion was limited to major decisions -- in this case changing RC Procedure. The rest of the decisions will continue to be reached via consensus, as specified in the Charter.

Just to seek clarifications on the various positions here: Filiz, are you advocating that the operating procedures can be changed simply through consensus in the group? And Douglas, are you advocating that the operating procedures only can be changed through an 80% majority vote?

If so, do others care to comment on this?

All the best, Nurani

Regards,

Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138

---

Rc mailing list Rc@nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/rc

Hi Nurani,

Just to seek clarifications on the various positions here: Douglas, are you advocating that the operating procedures only can be changed through an 80% majority vote?

Yes Nurani. I feel that change of procedure is a potent decision, and requiring an 80% majority vote is justified. Most other decisions can be reached via consensus, in line with the Charter.

Regards,