[Iana-transition] NRO Proposal for consolidation of RIR regional inputs into single ICG response

[John Curran]

On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 
> I find it a little concerning that last week when some of us asked (at
> the ARIN meeting) about how the global process was going to work there
> wasn't really a response.  And then 6 days later there is this
> "proposal"...that apparently the NRO EC has all agreed to? 

This proposal was written since that time, and is a proposal 
for the community to discuss.  The NRO has not adopted it,
although each of the NRO-EC members has reviewed it and
considered it a reasonable starting point to release for
discussion.

> 2/3rds agreement amongst these 15 is all that is needed to call any
> proposal consensus. Add to that 1/3 of the panel is composed by RIR
> staff.  Can someone confirm that the RIR staff on this team are voting
> members of the 15?  

Interesting question... what do you propose?

> This process is starting to not look very bottom up to me.
> 
> We have a sitting body, the NRO NC, which was elected/appointed by each
> of the RIR constituencies to represent each region.  Why aren't they
> being considered a valid group to perform this function (of judging
> consensus) in an open and transparent manner?

This team will have to work on a expedited basis on a topic
which is not number resource policy (that which the NRO NC
representatives were elected for...)  I will note, having 
observed that NRO NC/ASO AC since inception, that it is a 
remarkably diligent council, but is not particularly brisk
due to its fairly rigorous methods.

> I agree this isn't part of their normal duties, but given the CRISP
> process is  "an adaptation of the existing Global Policy Development
> Process"...  Why not use the NRO NC who already has the responsibility
> for the Global Policy Development Process? 

I can think of several very good reasons - the  ASO AC does not 
have any operating experience working with the IANA on requests, 
escalations, reporting, et (which is actually quite a bit of the 
IANA accountability aspects that must be covered), it has existing 
operating procedures which may not responsive to the time demands -
<https://aso.icann.org/documents/operational-documents/operating-procedures-aso-ac/>,
it has no method for moving forward except with complete agreement
among all all submissions from the RIR processes, it doesn't craft
documents, but instead is dependent on the RIR regional policy 
development processes (which are far too time intensive for this),
etc.

> Are there conflicts that the NRO NC would have by performing in this
> role?  Or maybe we need a separate group completely separate from the
> NRO/ASO?  How the members of this team are chosen is important if we
> believe it will be hard to achieve consensus quickly on a submission to
> the ICG. 

How do you believe they should they be chosen in the ARIN region?

> Maybe this is too simple...why not just take the submissions from each
> of the RIRs, do some work to collate and collect the input.  Create the
> submission document, then put that out for discussion and have consensus
> judged by the the NRO NC on that document.  (Maybe iterate once on the
> first round of feedback) Note any substantive objections in an appendix.

What you describe above for process is what the consolidation team 
should be doing... consolidate input from each region into a submission
document and drive discussion on areas that lack consensus.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN