[cooperation-wg] IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support

Hans Petter,

I think this may be an elegant solution. I am slightly suspicious of any 
new piece of work which is supposed to be lightweight and is then given 
to already busy people, as it has a habit of spiralling.

I would also welcome your thoughts on managing the difference between 
the term lengths of the two different posts?

That said, I don't think these are reasons to oppose your proposal, I 
just want to make sure they've been thought about.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301  tel: +35316609040  fax: +35316603666
web: http://www.heanet.ie/

On 15/09/2015 18:26, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> Dear RIPE community,
>
> As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the
> CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition
> Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based
> Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA
> numbering services Service Level Agreement.
>
> In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter
> for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will
> comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from
> each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from
> the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes
> that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method
> of its own choosing.”
>
> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Public-v1.pdf
>
>
> The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to
> establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA
> stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come
> to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who
> those members will be.
>
> I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and
> discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO
> Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is
> appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work
> of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we
> appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as
> our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting
> member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member,
> would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.
>
> I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that
> would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing
> NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of
> individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community.
>
> It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for
> selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I
> would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list at ripe.net) by
> Monday, 28 September.
>
> If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA
> Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior
> to the RIPE 71 in November.
>
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>
> Kind Regards,
>