[Community-Discuss] IANA nubering service review commitee

Tue Dec 8 12:41:37 UTC 2015

Hi all,

French version :

Le débat essentiel n'est pas de discuter autour de la capacité de nos deux
représentant élus par la communauté au NRO NC/ASO AC à servir  au niveau
IANA numbering services  review commitee.

La proposition du Internet Numbers community proposal a définie la mise en
place d'un nouveau comité de review de "IANA numbering service review
commitee" au lieu de confier la mission au NRO NC/ASO AC par défaut.

Ma proposition était de définir le peofile des gens et comment est-ce que
nous les sélectionnons, ce qui n'exclut en rien les deux représentants
actuels du NRO NC/ASO AC, mais de donner aussi la chance à d'autres
personnes aussi compétentes de servir si posible.

Ce qui amène à des questions et des reflexions :

- Pourquoi la proposition n'a-t-elle pas recommandé l'utilisation du NRO
NC  ASO AC comme reviewers par défaut, pour le "IANA Numbering service
review commitee" ?

- Si on veut utliser les ressources disponibles au niveau du NRO NC / ASO
AC,  Pourquoi exclure celui désigné par le board au NRO NC / ASO AC ?

- certaines personnes font référence à des problèmes de coût lié à la mise
en place d'un nouveau comité de volontaire qui doivent travailler
exclusivement par téléconférence. Sommes-nous entrain de dire qu'à cause de
coût, Afrinic ne serait pas en mesure d'honorer cet engagement lié son core
business si nécessaire ?

- La séparation des rôles dès que possible a toujours été une bonne option.

English version

The key issue is not to talk about the ability of our two representatives
elected by the community at NRO NC / ASO AC to serve  IANA numbering
services review committee.

The Internet number community proposal has defined the establishment of a
new review committee for the  "IANA numbering services" instead of
entrusting the NRO NC / ASO AC by default.

My point  was to define the profile of the people and how do we select
them, which does not exclude the two existing representatives at NRO NC /
ASO AC, but also give chance to other competent people to serve if possible.

This leads to some questions and reflections:

- Why the proposal has not recommended the NRO NC / ASO AC as reviewers  of
the "IANA Numbering Service"?

- If we were to use the resources available at the NRO NC / ASO AC, Why
exclude the one designated by the board ?

- Some people refer to "costs" issues related to the implementation of a
new voluntary committee who must work exclusively via teleconference. Are
we saying that because of "costs", Afrinic would not be able to honor this
commitment linked to its core business if necessary?

- The separation of roles whenever possible has always been a good option.

Good day to all

Arnaud.

2015-12-07 21:41 GMT+01:00 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>:

> Arnaud,
>
> Your concerns are specious IMHO.
>
> The ASO AC acts as advisors on policy matters.
>
> The role here being discussed for this supposed new committee is to review
> as representatives of the RIR community whether or not ICANN has performed
> the IANA functions for the numbers community to an adequate level.
>
> The ASO AC as elected representatives of the RIR community are, in fact,
> perfectly capable of taking on that role. Their advisory role on policy is
> not a conflict of interest for this oversight role IMHO.
>
> You are very presumptuous to claim that McTim or I do not understand the
> function of NRO NC/ASO AC. I’m quite certain that we understand it very
> well and have significant experience working with said group over many
> years.
>
> Owen
>
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:56 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> It seems that there is something that escapes you. This task is also
> technique, which can not be as simple as you thought. Moreover, in my
> humble opinion there is no additional cost to generate because the meeting
> will be made remotely by videoconferencing.
>
> More importantly, it seems to me that the function of NRO NC / ASO AC,
> escapes you, this committee is already involved in ALS level as advisors,
> they can not be reviewer again, which would amount to be judge and party.
>
> 2015-12-07 17:08 GMT+00:00 McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Having the NRO NC/ASO AC do this task seems to me to be the simplest
>> path forward.
>>
>> There is no need to set up a new committee, with its associated costs
>> and effort to do what the NRO NC could easily do with minimal effort.
>> The SLA review wouldn't take up much time at all on an annual basis,
>> would it?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> McTim
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Dear Afrinic community,
>> > I understood after the face to face discussions on this topic, that we
>> can
>> > still send comments and suggestions on this.
>> >
>> > Since the role of this committee is to verify compliance with the SLA in
>> > providing services on this critical function which  is both
>> administrative
>> > and technical , it is important to define the profile of those who are
>> to
>> > serve on this committee, define the selection mechanism and their term.
>> >
>> > I think that instead of automatically appointing  those who are already
>> > serving  at NRO NC / ASO AC, we shall open it and give chance to other
>> > competents people to also serve.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Arnaud
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Community-Discuss mailing list
>> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20151208/6118531f/attachment.html>