MANRS Community Input: Scoping a Future Review of MANRS Actions

Thank you for participating.

This survey aims to gauge whether a future review of the MANRS Actions is needed, and to understand the potential scope and priorities of such a review.

Please note that this is not a review of the Actions themselves, nor an assessment of your organization’s conformance. It is a scoping exercise to collect input from the community across MANRS programs.

Your feedback will help determine:

- Whether a review is necessary
- Which areas may need attention
- How extensive a future review should be

Your responses will be used only to inform planning for a possible future review. The review itself will follow the MANRS Development Process.

Thank you for your valuable input.

General information

Question Title

* 1. What is the type of organization you represent?

Question Title

* 2. If your organization is a MANRS Participant, when did you join the initiative?

Question Title

* 3. How would you rate the MANRS program actions for current purposes?

	Requirements are too strong	Fit for purpose	Requirements are too weak	No opinion
Network Operator Program	Network Operator Program Requirements are too strong	Network Operator Program Fit for purpose	Network Operator Program Requirements are too weak	Network Operator Program No opinion
IXP Program	IXP Program Requirements are too strong	IXP Program Fit for purpose	IXP Program Requirements are too weak	IXP Program No opinion
CDN and Cloud Program	CDN and Cloud Program Requirements are too strong	CDN and Cloud Program Fit for purpose	CDN and Cloud Program Requirements are too weak	CDN and Cloud Program No opinion
Network Equipment Vendor Program	Network Equipment Vendor Program Requirements are too strong	Network Equipment Vendor Program Fit for purpose	Network Equipment Vendor Program Requirements are too weak	Network Equipment Vendor Program No opinion

Question Title

* 4. If any of the MANRS program Actions need to be updated, which program has the highest priority in your opinion? Rank them from highest (1) to lowest (4)

Scope of the review

Question Title

* 5. What should be the scope of the review?

	No need for substantive review - the requirements are up to date	Only editorial changes are needed to make the document more readable	The requirements should be reviewed with an eye on precision and clarity	The auditing requirements should be made stronger to better ensure conformance	The scope of the requirements should be expanded, and the requirements should be made stronger
Network Operators Program	Network Operators Program No need for substantive review - the requirements are up to date	Network Operators Program Only editorial changes are needed to make the document more readable	Network Operators Program The requirements should be reviewed with an eye on precision and clarity	Network Operators Program The auditing requirements should be made stronger to better ensure conformance	Network Operators Program The scope of the requirements should be expanded, and the requirements should be made stronger
IXP Program	IXP Program No need for substantive review - the requirements are up to date	IXP Program Only editorial changes are needed to make the document more readable	IXP Program The requirements should be reviewed with an eye on precision and clarity	IXP Program The auditing requirements should be made stronger to better ensure conformance	IXP Program The scope of the requirements should be expanded, and the requirements should be made stronger
CDN and Cloud Program	CDN and Cloud Program No need for substantive review - the requirements are up to date	CDN and Cloud Program Only editorial changes are needed to make the document more readable	CDN and Cloud Program The requirements should be reviewed with an eye on precision and clarity	CDN and Cloud Program The auditing requirements should be made stronger to better ensure conformance	CDN and Cloud Program The scope of the requirements should be expanded, and the requirements should be made stronger
Network Equipment Vendor Program	Network Equipment Vendor Program No need for substantive review - the requirements are up to date	Network Equipment Vendor Program Only editorial changes are needed to make the document more readable	Network Equipment Vendor Program The requirements should be reviewed with an eye on precision and clarity	Network Equipment Vendor Program The auditing requirements should be made stronger to better ensure conformance	Network Equipment Vendor Program The scope of the requirements should be expanded, and the requirements should be made stronger

The adoption

Question Title

* 6. If the program Actions are reviewed and updated, how should new requirements be adopted by existing participants?

A participant can indicate the specific version of the Actions they commit to (e.g. an organization that conforms to an older version of the program Actions is still in compliance)

A grace period will be provided to update the controls and ensure conformance with the new requirements

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 7. What should happen to non-conformant participants?

Non-conformant participants can voluntarily leave MANRS or continue to be listed with potentially negative publicity for their non-conformance. For example, Network Operators' scores are already publicly available (Ready, Aspiring, Lagging).

Non-conformant participants are given a grace period to fix the problems. If they remain non-conformant, they should be suspended from MANRS, but can re-apply.

Other (please specify)

If you prefer to reach out to us privately, please contact us any time at contact@manrs.org