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 ([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,
