[Community-Discuss] IANA nubering service review commitee

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Dec 9 19:41:49 UTC 2015

> > > - 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)
Yes, but in this case, those reasons presuppose the existing (arguably erroneous) decision to comprise a new committee.

If, instead, we simply appoint the task to the NRO NC, then there is no longer such a requirement and the full NRO NC should be the body appointed to the task, including the board-appointed member from each region.

If we stick with the currently defined structure, then it does, in fact, disqualify the board-appointed NRO NC member from serving and serves as an additional argument for the detrimental nature of the current decision.
> > > - 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.
> >
> 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.

No… I’m saying that separation of roles is only necessary or useful _IF_ there is a conflict of interest.

I’m further saying no such COI exists in this case.

I view it this way… NRO/RIRs are a customer of IANA functions role. NRO NC/ASO AC are the contract administrators for that customer/vendor relationship.

The role of this new committee is to decide on a periodic basis whether or not IANA functions provider has performed adequately to the satisfaction of the NRO/RIRs.

Who better to make that determination than the contract administrators? If the NRO NC/ASO AC were given the responsibility for identifying potential replacement
vendors or selecting one, then I would say there is a COI. However, evaluating whether or not the contractor has performed being decided by the collective of the
contract administrators seems not only free from COI, but much more likely to yield an accurate result.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20151209/47b67aed/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list