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

[Andrew Dul]

On 10/17/2014 11:14 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> Assuming we go forward with this plan as currently outlined, I'd like to
>> see that those who judge consensus on this team should all be community
>> members.
> Acknowledged.  If no one feels otherwise, I will carry that back as a 
> recommendation for change from this region.  
>
>> ...
>>> 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 only suggested that the members of the NRO NC were an appropriate
>> group to judge consensus during this process. I am well aware that the
>> current global policy process is very slow moving.  The members of this
>> team could certainly choose their own method for reviewing and moving
>> forward with this proposal.
> That is one option; we would be in a very bad place if the group could
> not come to agreement on the process to be used.  Given the risk that
> may result (and imputed risk to ARIN's ability to perform its mission),
> I would feel much more comfortable with nearly _any_ process for the 
> team to "review and move forward", so long as it is set in the charter 
> so that the team has certainty in processes and proceed immediately 
> with its consolidation work.
>
> How do other folks feel about this?  (I can convey a desire to strike
> this part from the proposed charter if that is the desire in this region,
> but would suggest that we also have compelling reasoning that we can
> share with the other regions should we propose this change...)
>
>>>> 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?
>> Given the restrictive timeline, my only suggestion would be to take
>> volunteers from the community and then choose by lot or vote of the AC.
> Andrew - you don't think that the volunteers should be from the pool of 
> people already elected by the ARIN community for AC or ASO AC roles?  I
> am quite concerned with people being selected for this role representing
> the region without the membership having already vetted them for such a
> responsibility...  Do you believe this is a needless concern?
I would expect that volunteers would likely come from those who sit on
the AC or ASO AC, but there are also individuals who don't currently sit
in those chairs that might serve this community very well.  If we aren't
going to use a preexisting body, then I don't think we should exclude
potential valuable contributors as members of the crisp team right from
the top. 

There is always the potential for someone chosen to not represent the
community, but that is a risk with any appointment/election.  Maybe that
is a reason not to draw lots or at least do a round of vetting prior to
drawing lots.

Andrew