ENUM Review Note to the Mercer Paper

Governance And Constitutional Committee.
Thursday April 21 10:10 pm.

Note to Annex 1 - The Mercer Paper

The final version of the paper was received by the Committee on Wednesday 20 April 2005 at 10:15 am. The paper was circulated in confidence to Grant Forsyth and Michael Sutton on Wednesday 20 April at 1:15 pm, for review and comment.

A reply was received back from Grant at 6:45 pm and the substantive part of the reply is included below.

A reply was received from Michael 21 April at 2:32 pm concurring with Grant's notes.

The G&C Committee have not discussed any content in these mails since they were received and the deadline for receipt of this document to the office is 9:00 am tomorrow (Friday), so no further comment is being made at this point.

Grant's notes:

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:45:58 +1200
From: Grant Forsyth <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Advice received by Gov and Const Committee
To: "'chris@kriss.net'" <chris@kriss.net>, Michael Sutton <michael.sutton@awacs.co.nz>, Grant Forsyth <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>

Dear Chris

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review the report prior to its wider circulation.

I think the report is well written, shows a comprehensive review of the issues and makes some useful recommendations.

The observations and recommendation do, however, need to be received in the clearly acknowledged perspective from which they were developed, and that is that the TF's work is being reviewed from the position of a project - a position that is acknowledged to be unclear.

I think the report should be forwarded to all of Council with the recommendation that it be attached to the minutes of the next Council meeting and open to public access.

There are, however some matters of fact or presentation, which I would like to see corrected in the report, or addressed by way of an accompanying commentary - in the form of this email and whatever Michael and others might want to note.

I note the following:

1. Key events, page 12: Absent from the list of events is the ENUM TF teleconference held on 29/3 and attended by 3 INZ officers at which action points were determined, including one for me to seek and e vote on the Council list - which is noted correctly in the key events. I think it is important to include this event (email from Jordan noting the action points is attached) as this gives context for future actions.

2. Budget, page 13: This list of figures is presented as if it has some agreed authority. It does not. The following items have not been agreed as activities/expenditures:

$56,6600 UCI PUA ENUM Prototype - Phase 2

$22,000 2nd ENUM workshop

$20,000 provision for ENUM trial

While the Project management and task force meeting costs similarly have not been agreed, I accept that it would be prudent to include provision for them.

Some note needs to be included that the above expenditures are under consideration.

Additionally, it should be noted that there has been discussion on various funding sources in support of the above and other expenditure. I recall a discussion at Council regarding the preferred use of INZ Project funding for some these sorts of work.

3. Financial Authority, page 22: "The ENUM TF could have involved the ED more in formalising the contractual arrangements they initiated." I strongly reject that observation. In my experience, the process that the ENUM TF went through in the preparation of briefs, review of all drafts on the list - including the ED -, advertising for interested parties, and taking guidance from the Treasurer, left little or no further opportunity for the TF to include the ED. At no time was the ED left out - other than at the point of decision (where the ED has no formal vote anyway) and communication (not entering into any written contractual undertaking). I fully accept that in the interest in getting the work underway, after regrettable administrative delays (the ENUM TF did not get the proposals until the Tuesday, although they had been received at the office on the preceding Friday). I am not wishing to criticise the ED, a lot was happening, but it is not correct to suggest that the ENUM TF could have done more.

Besides the recommendations, the report notes a number of actions which I think also warrant discussion at Council.

These include:

a. Purpose, page 1: suggestion that "....policies and procedures to satisfy the INZ G & C Committee and INZ Exec Committee...". Respectfully, I suggest that besides the INZ G&C Committee, the other body rightfully interested is the whole of Council.

b. Key events, page 12: I note that at a meeting of the INZ EC, there was a suggestion to constitute a "Policy group" and to have the ENUM TF "subsumed into the policy group". I have heard discussion of this idea but seen nothing formal about it. I understand that the INZ EC does not have the authority to disband a TF. I don't know what a "policy group" is. Are those who are promoting this idea going to put a paper to Council for consideration - or a paper to the ENUM TF or the Technical Committee, from whom I understand the ENUM TF was "begat"?

I trust you find the above helpful as they are provided with that intent in mind.

If I can be of any further assistance to the INZ G&C Committee prior to its presentation of this report and commentary to Council, please let me know.

Kind regards

Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
TelstraClear

Reply from Michael Sutton

From: "Michael Sutton" <michael.sutton@awacs.co.nz>
To: <chris@kriss.net>, "'Grant Forsyth'" <Grant.Forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Advice received by Gov and Const Committee
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 14:32:49 +1200

Dear Chris

I concur with all that Grant Forsyth has noted in his email to you.

Explicitly, the Report should be made available to all Councillors and be attached to the minutes of the next Council meeting.

I have taken time to review the document and will provide additional written comment at a later date.

Best Regards

Michael S. Sutton
Councillor - InternetNZ 2003 - 2006
Chair - Enum Task Force
InternetNZ Project Manager - UCI PUA Enum Prototype
Sponsor - IPv6 Initiative
Sponsor - Multicast Initiative
Member Audit & Technical Committee.

Action points note sent from Jordan to the ENUM list:

From: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Reply-To: InternetNZ Enum Task Force List <enum-sg@internetnz.net.nz>
To: InternetNZ Enum Task Force <enum-sg@internetnz.net.nz>
Cc: Executive Committee <admin-ctte@internetnz.net.nz>
Subject: [enum-sg] Enum TF Teleconf - Action Points
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:02:47 +1200

Hi all

Arising out of the teleconference at 3pm the following action points. Sorry about the delay, was on the phone on other teleconfs thru to just now.

GRANT FORSYTH to:

• Email Council backgrounding the issue of MS writing delegation paper, and organising a confirming E-vote to ratify the contract.

DPF to:

• work with Chris Streatfield to get ExCom signoff of the Mco contract.

CHRIS STREATFIELD to:

• work with David Farrar to get ExCom signoff of the Mco contract.
• work with Jordan Carter to do the figures for the budget. These to then be circulated to the TF for discussion and agreement. Once agreed, sent to Council for inclusion in the Business Plan.
• propose any required changes to the Task Force's Terms of Reference to ensure INZ policies are being adhered to.

PETER MACAULAY to:

• arrange contracts once signoff is received with respect to the Mco and MS papers.

JORDAN CARTER to:

• work with Chris Streatfield to do the figures for the budget. These to then be circulated to the TF for discussion and agreement. Once agreed, sent to Council for inclusion in the Business Plan.

--
Jordan Carter
Research & Policy Officer
InternetNZ