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 ([email protected]) 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: [email protected] | http://hph.oslo.net
