[Community-Discuss] IANA nubering service review commitee

Arnaud AMELINA amelnaud at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 10:41:27 UTC 2015

English version :


Owen, We heard your dissent views on the IANA numbering service review
committee. Some of us think there is Conflict of Interest (the NRO NC/ASO
AC has a role in the path to the ICANN board relating to IP address
policy). This review work as defined, has a technical aspect wich is not
part of the NRO/NC mandate. It may well be that your view was considered by
CRISP, but we are working with what is defined with respect to IANA
numbering service review committee.  I am done on this topic.

French version :


Owen, nous avons entendu votre point de vue de la dissidence sur le comité
d'examen des services de numérotation de l'IANA. Certains d'entre nous
pensent qu'il y'a conflit d'intérêts (NRO NC / ASO AC) a un rôle  envers le
CA de l'ICANN lié à la politique de l'adresse IP). Ce travail d'évaluation
tel que défini, a un aspect technique qui ne fait pas partie du mandat NRO
/ NC. Il se pourrait bien que votre point de vue a été pris en compte par
le CRISP, mais nous nous travaillons avec ce qui été défini par rapport au
comité d'examen des services de numérotation de l'IANA. J'ai fini avec ce

Good day.
Le 8 déc. 2015 20:25, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> a écrit :

> > 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.
> We as a global body have more than 2 elected representatives on the NRO
> NC. There are two per RIR Region. (in addition to the one appointed by the
> board for each region,
> bringing the total to 15, not 2).
> >
> > 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.
> The point that others are making is that we believe this to be an error
> and believe that this role should be entrusted to the NRO NC/ASO AC. Not
> “by default” as you so obnoxiously put it,
> but by choice and because they are the people we have already chosen to
> represent the community in interactions with the IANA, so they are, in
> fact, the ones in the best position to provide
> oversight as to whether or not the IANA is meeting the needs of the
> community they were elected to represent.
> Creating an additional body of outsiders to oversee this process means you
> have a group of people who are not involved in the process on a regular
> basis making judgments from a
> less informed perspective using a more limited tool set and less data. I
> do not see how this can possibly be a good choice.
> > 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.
> I understand that your point is to take the current decision and treat it
> as a fait accomplis. However, others of us wish to express our dissent from
> that decision and reject its premise.
> > 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”?
> An excellent question. I do not have a good answer for you, which is one
> of the reasons I think it was an erroneous decision.
> > - If we were to use the resources available at the NRO NC / ASO AC, Why
> exclude the one designated by the board ?
> I see no reason to do so and I never called for any such exclusion.
> > - 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?
> Obviously not. However, the creation of, management of, maintenance of,
> election or selection of, and other processes needed to keep a committee
> operational are not without cost.
> What is being said is that we have a better choice readily available
> without any additional costs, rendering these costs unnecessary.
> > - The separation of roles whenever possible has always been a good
> option.
> No. The separation of roles when there is a conflict of interest is always
> an important and good choice. In this case, there is not only a conflict of
> interest, but a synergy of the roles such that the greatest benefit comes
> from combining them.
> The ASO/AC has a liaison role between the RIRs and the IANA providing
> stewardship over the global policy development process and managing the
> process of communication between the IANA and the RIR Communities. They are
> elected by and serve those communities. As such, they are in an ideal
> position to evaluate the level of performance of the IANA in its duties to
> those communities and provide the required feedback and oversight. Any
> other body would actually be by definition less informed and less able to
> render proper judgment.
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151209/29ac860b/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list