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

As one of those that suggested the work of RC be assigned to NRO-NC
globally (even though did not successfully convince the CRISP) during the
proposal development, I support the suggestion made by Hans.

Cheers!

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net> 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,
>
> --
> Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair
> email: hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
>
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20150922/7a2eabd2/attachment.html>