[Community-Discuss] IANA nubering service review commitee
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 11:59:21 UTC 2015
On Dec 8, 2015 21:25, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > 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.
SO: FWIW I happen to be one of those who suggested that the NRO-NC be
assigned reviewers role during the preparation of the proposal, while there
were other +1 it wasn't sufficient enough to convince the group at that
time. One reason that said then was the need to separate roles instead of
just integrating to the ASO AC role, it was clarified/agreed then that
separation of the roles does not extend to the people, which I think was
IMO I still think we should have just assigned the separated role to the
NRO-NC globally. Nevertheless, I guess leaving it the way it was done was
to give each community independence of choice and option.
> > - 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.
SO: In our case, we agreed that the CEO appoints the 3rd person and I think
the 3rd must be staff as required by the review committee charter. That is
why the board appointed NRO-NC member may not apply. Another reason is that
the charter requires the 2 appointees be elected/selected by the community.
(Well we may argue whether those appointed by board can be said to be
appointed by the community)
> > - 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.
SO: This is correct.
> > - The separation of roles whenever possible has always been a good
> 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.
SO: Trying to parse your statement above seem to imply there is conflict of
interest? I don't think so and I think separation of roles process wise is
already done. Separation of roles in relation to person is what is in
question and since there is no conflict in the roles (process wise) then we
should not worry about the person part.
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss