Minutes
Teleconference 7 April 2010, 11:00 UTC
EExecutive Council Attendees:
- RIPE NCC: Axel Pawlik (AP, Chairman)
- LACNIC: Raul Echeberria (RE, Secretary)
- ARIN: John Curran (JC, Treasurer)
- AFRINIC: Adiel Akplogan (AA, Member)
- APNIC: Paul Wilson (PW, Member) (from 11:40 UTC)
Observers:
- ARIN: Nate Davis (ND)
- APNIC: German Valdez (GV)
- LACNIC: Ernesto Majó (EM)
- LACNIC: Hartmut Glaser (HG)
- RIPE: Andrei Robachevski (AR)
Agenda
- 1. Welcome Apologies, Agenda Bashing
- 2. Previous Minutes
- 3. Review Action Items
- 4. Confirming next retreat
- a. 25 – 27 June
- b. Brussels
- 5. Update from the CCG / PCG
- a. Status Enhanced Coordination Submission to UN
- b. Report from London LEA Event
- 6. Update from the ECG
- 7. NRO Incorporation
- 8. Treasurer’s Report
- 9. IETF / IAB
- 10. ICANN/IANA
- 11. ITU
- a. NRO membership
- b. A. Ntoko speech (via PW)
- c. Country based allocations (via PW)
- d. ME RIR (via PW)
- 12. AOB
- 13. Adjournment
1. Welcome Apologies, Agenda Bashing
The chairman welcomed everybody and called the meeting to order at 11:10 UTC.
2. Previous Minutes
A few edits were suggested, and a new version of the minutes were sent to the EC.
The minutes are approved.
3. Review Action Items
Action 200907-05: AA will look at Terms of Reference as well as a process model for the ASO review, and propose them to the NRO EC.
AA said he’d sent an email to the list and that PW has already commented. This action item is ONGOING.
Action item: 200908-001 (including ex 200910-02): JC to draft statement for the EC giving the ECG direction on RPKI work.
RE said this action item had been merged with another. CLOSED.
Action item: 200906-04: NRO to start the preparation of the incorporation process with
immediate effect.
This action item is ONGOING.
Action item: 200906-17: CCG to work on an awareness campaign for ASN 2 byte exhaustion.
This action item is OPEN.
Action Item 2010-R01: AP – RPKI implementation: Prepare Statement of Work, Budget, Timeline for the next 24 months.
In reply to a question by RE, AP said he had committed to prepare a statement of work, a budget and a timeline with the aim of potentially sharing some of the development costs. This action item is ONGOING.
Action Item 2010-R02: JC – Will bring a draft NRO budget to the NRO EC meeting.
JC said that he would draft a budget process and use it to circulate the budget over the course of the quarter. He suggested that the NRO budget to the EC meeting should be incorporated into action item 201003-01. All agreed so the action item was CLOSED.
Action Item 2010-R03: AP – Prepare and discuss plan for joint, dedicated Comms FTE with EC and EG’s
This action item was CLOSED, and it’s contents included under 2010-R04.
Action Item 2010-R04: AP & PR – Obtain information on the NRO “employing” an FTE.
AP said that what they had done so far is to think on how expensive a Comms FTE would be if it were hosted at the RIPE NCC and it was around 60k euros. He said that he was interested in knowing how expensive it would be to do the same at the other local organizations and to see how much sense it would make to keep that FTE away from Paul R. He added that they could discuss it later on. This action item is ONGOING
Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property.
AP said that he had asked for this report and would send it to the list as soon as he had it.
RE said that LACNIC has not made any statements in this regard.
JC said that he believes ARIN might have documents with statements to this effect, including their policy manual, and that his concern was to make sure that they are all somewhat consistent.
PW said that the situation in APNIC was similar.
This action item is ONGOING.
Action Item 2010-R08: JC – Written material and written powerpoint slide deck on c29 briefing to be given to NRO.
JC said that ARIN already has some briefing material and would take the lead on prepping that and send it to the CCG.
This action item is partially DONE/partially ONGOING.
Action Item 2010-R09: NRO- Talk to the community & ICANN. The NRO is aware of some proposals in this direction and the NRO is not against. There is a process in place and those that propose this kind of initiatives have to follow that process.
RE said that they had already agreed on a conclusion on this issue in Australia. AP agreed with RE, but said that the action item also involves talking to the community and ICANN, which hasn’t been done, so he suggested keeping the item OPEN.
Action Item 2010-R10: LACNIC – Produce the first draft letter of support to ICANN and distribute to the NRO for feedback and approval.
RE said that this action item was regarding IANA functions, that he’d just realized a few days ago that the person responsible for the action item had been changed during the last EC meeting and that he would do it in the next few days. This action item is ONGOING.
Action Item 2010-R11: PR – Review the PCG & CCG, explore the possibility of both groups merging together.
As PR was not present on the call, there were no updates on this action item, which remains OPEN.
Action Item 2010-R12: JC to implement 2010 IGF contribution, the NRO contribution will be U$D 30.000 in 2010.
This action item has been DONE.
NEW ACTIONS:
Action item 201003-01: JC to work in budgeting process to being used in the NRO in the future.
JC said he is writing a draft of the budget process which includes a timeline.
It is expected that the NRO do this in the second and third quarter each year so at the end of the year we already know what we tentatively approved for the following year. He added that it shouldn’t take more than a month to get the process up.
Action item 201003-02: AP to task the Registration Services Manager to work together in the implementation of the new statistics model.
AP said he wasn’t aware of this but would do so.
AP said he’d contact the RS Manager.
This action item is OPEN.
Action item 201003-03: RE to read and analyze the ICP2 and report to the EC.
RE said he was doing this and would report back in the next meeting. This action item is ONGOING
Action item 201003-04: Each CEO to inform their organizations that commitments to an NRO coordination group that will not be met should be brought to the attention of the CEO.
AP said this was a standing principle of sorts and that as such they should close the action item. All agreed and the action item was CLOSED.
Action item 201003-05: RE to organize a poll to select the preferred options after check the meetings for July, August and September.
This has been DONE.
Action item 201003-06: JC will talk with David Conrad in order to ask him that this request should do to AP as the NRO Chair, from an executive in the IANA.
AP said he’d received the request and replied to it.
This has been DONE.
AP added that there were also many completed actions on the list.
4. Confirming next retreat
AP said he believed they’d agreed to have a retreat in June after the ICANN meeting and that there was a general feeling that it should be in Brussels to minimize travel. After discussing possible dates, it was confirmed that the retreat would be held on June 25 and 26 (Friday and Saturday) in Brussels.
PW asked whether it would be a meeting of the NRO EC or if it was going to be the NRO EC plus some coordination groups (Engineering, etc.), to which AP replied that he’d contact those people and ask for their planning. In reply to PW’s question, AP replied that the possibility of meeting with the GAC would be discussed under agenda item 10.
Action item: AP – Contact coordination groups’ chairs and ask for their planning.
5. Update from the CCG / PCG
a. Status Enhanced Coordination Submission to UN
AP said that although he wasn’t present on the teleconference, he was aware that Paul Rendek (PR) was working with the other CCG members on a priority submission to the UN on enhanced coordination.
EM said that they had had discussions at CCG and PCG level and were preparing a document based on the cooperation report including a table with all the relevant activities in each region. He added that he expected the final version to be sent to the EC today.
b. Report from London LEA Event
AP said that he’d been there himself, that it was a smashing success in that the room was overflowing, that overall presentations went well and were well received, that there were law enforcement delegations of different sizes from all continents. He said that basically law enforcers had very much appreciated the chance to talk to them and lots of new relationships had been built.
6. Update from the ECG
AR said he would send a full report on ECG activities to the EC list chair later, but that he would point out some of the major items.
He said they’d had an RPKI retreat at the IETF in Anaheim and they’d discussed 4 major points. The goal was to look at the different assets of RPKI, mainly focusing on common components and identifying possible issues. The first thing they did was look at RPKI architecture globally. They looked at the final phase of the system, which was very important as some of the decisions made there might have some implications for the previous phases, including phase II. What they did was identify some criteria that would allow comparing different structures and actually made some comparisons. The planned deliverable from this particular point would be ECG recommendations to the EC on the global architecture of RPKI, in response to some of the requests the EC made during the retreat in Brisbane.
AR said that then they’d looked at RPKI phase II from a service description point of view, including a round of updates on how each RIR plans to roll out this service on 1st January 2011. He said that they’d looked at this from different angles such as policy framework, is this part of the registration services or a value added service, opt-in, opt-out, etc. and found no major inconsistencies were found, adding that the outcome of this overview could be very useful for the CCG.
He said that they’d also looked at the planning for phase II (1st January 2011). The goal was to define the requirements and plan activities. They’d looked specifically at the status of the documents in the IETF working group and concluded that although many of them are in the draft stage and could be considered stable references, the risk of using those non-stable documents was small, so the IETF is not a real show-stopper for moving into phase II. He said that it had also been agreed that the implementation of phase II requires coordination among the RIRs mainly limited to information exchange and results checkpoints, and that the planned deliverable would be a more detailed map of phase II with a list of those checkpoints and some of the checklists.
He said that to finally they’d looked at the CPS as the governing document for all our CAs. That they’d looked at it in more detail, focusing on sections that have implications of global significance. He noted that they’d had a CPS from APNIC and RIPE NCC, which they reviewed and found contained some differences, adding that they are working on that but had found no major inconsistencies.
AR concluded by saying that that was a brief summary of the RPKI retreat.
JC asked whether it was going to be possible to eventually have something from the ECG which says “these are the various phases that we all intend to support and these are the dates we intend to support them by,” some sort of reference project document to go from the ECG to the CCG, to which AR replied that indeed that was the intention and that probably it would result from phase II.
AR asked JC if he envisaged a date by which it should be done, and JC replied that there is significant pressure from the community to make sure that we have some sort of statement and timeline for these services.
AR said that the intention was to have something ready by the end of the next IETF meeting in July, and asked whether there were any milestones they should consider.
JC said that the challenge was that this needs to be publicly communicated by the ECG and they’d need time to prepare those materials, adding that a convergence on this should be reached probably at least 1 or 1.5 months before that IETF meeting. He added that it would be nice if the ECG could converge on a roadmap with timelines in the next month and, in particular, that if there’s anything that prevents that to escalate it to the NRO EC ASAP, to which AR replied that the point was taken.
AR said he’d also like to mention that ECG activity plan, which should shortly be submitted for EC approval. Some of the main items that were identified in the plan include reciprocal service monitoring (the outcome should be a recommendation); re-delegation of the secondary DNS service (this is mostly complete); signing of reverse zone (something discussed at the EC retreat as a possible project); resource certification, obviously; and finally one that certainly has low priority but, as the EC indicated that there is a possibility of address transfers in IPv6 space, we’ll need to look at the IPv6 arpa delegation scheme at some point. He said that for this activity plan they’d tried to use a modified template, according to what was discussed at the EC retreat, explicitly providing each RIR’s contributions so commitments are clear and agreed beforehand.
To conclude, AR mentioned that they had a signing party at the IETF, organized by ICANN and IANA, and that their PGP keys had been signed.
JC said he believed the EC owed AR the SLA for DNS services from ICANN, that AR had given it to them to seek approval from the EC. He said he’d seen approvals from ARIN, AFRINIC, RIPE and APNIC, but that he thought they didn’t have one from LACNIC. He asked AR if he was still waiting to hear that the EC is good with those changes to the SLA.
AR said he believed there was some confusion, not as regards the SLA itself and its approval, but as regards how they should communicate this SLA to IANA. He said in his opinion this is on the EC plate, and that if the EC wanted to put it on the ECG plate we need a new item, as the documentation framework is not very clear in this case.
JC said that one way of going about this was to ask the ECG to tell IANA here’s our expectation. He suggested that AP, as the chair, could communicate that to ICANN. He said that ARIN has a role in this only because they’re in the middle of a transition, and that he’d be happy to communicate it to the ICANN group doing these services. He said he wasn’t sure which was the most efficient way to handle this issue or how the EC would like to do it, but that it is important to make sure the SLA is understood.
AP agreed and said that it would be fine if JC simply did it and cc’d him as chairman.
Action item: JC to communicate with the ICANN / IANA group regarding the SLA for DNS services.
7. NRO Incorporation
AP said he was under the impression that in general they were all supportive of the incorporation of the NRO in case there was a strong reason to do so, but that from the e-mail discussions during the last couple of days he seemed to detect a change in opinion that says let’s incorporate now for these the reasons, the strongest being from Paul.
RE said he’s in favor of incorporating now. That they’d been discussing this for a long time and should say yes or no. He added that they are all closer to yes than to no, so they should proceed with the incorporation. Of course, confirmation from the respective boards is needed, but his personal opinion as an EC member was that they should move ahead with the incorporation.
AP said that perhaps they could have a quick round to see what everybody views as the main reasons in favor or incorporating now, include these in the minutes and then prepare a document for their respective boards.
JC agreed and began the round by saying that ARIN has a different point of view: once the NRO is incorporated it will be alive, it won’t go away even if we don’t need it or it serves no purpose. He added that unless they’re very careful, the minute they incorporate they’ll need staffing. He said his board’s position is that they’re not against incorporation, that they’d like to do the preparations but not actually sign the incorporation until somebody shows one purpose for this organization that’s actually useful to them. He mentioned that a couple of weeks ago the possibility for the NRO to join the ITU had come up, that this was an example of one item that would push ARIN over the edge, adding that another one would be having a common coordinator for communications. He concluded by saying that he probably was not going go be able to incorporate just for the sake of incorporation given the direction that the board had given him.
AP said that JC had basically summarized the position he’d understood, adding that personally he wasn’t sure whether the ability of becoming an ITU member would push his board over the edge.
AA said that he believes AFRINIC would support incorporation, that the relationship with the ITU is just one reason. If the NRO is incorporated it can better represent the joint view in this IPv4 exhaustion period before governments, law enforcement, etc. He said AFRINIC supports it.
PW said APNIC had always been in favor of incorporation for the contingencies that may arise, that they’d never feared that the NRO would go out of control because they would share in its control. He added that they’d agreed quite a while ago that they would get the documentation into shape so that the NRO would be ready for incorporation as soon as the need to sign the documents arose, but as far as he knew that stage had not been reached yet. He said that in his opinion the main reason for incorporating was that they’d all more or less agreed that the NRO should join the ITU in some capacity and in order to do that they need to be incorporated.
RE said he endorsed PW’s comment, but that in addition in his opinion there’s another important point they should work on. He said it would be addressed under point 9: the working contingency plans. He added that he believes the NRO should have a role in a contingency plan, take responsibilities, for which it needs to be incorporated.
JC asked whether there was a recommendation of the NRO to incorporate and hire staff or whether it would be a virtual organization.
PW said in his opinion some dedicated NRO resources would be beneficial, with or without incorporation. But if the NRO were to have one staff member working for the NRO on a short term basis (e.g. year-to-year contract) he would not suggest doing it through the NRO, as at least in Australia hiring requires a lot of additional infrastructure having to do with payroll tax, accounting, workers’ compensation, etc. all these things that the NRO shouldn’t be set up to do unless in the future it has permanent staff. He said that even if the NRO were incorporated they should continue to use RIR resources as they do for other tasks, not hire NRO staff members.
JC asked whether PW recommended doing that with NRO budget, to which PW replied affirmatively, adding that he sees this as a separate issues. JC said the ARIN board has directed him to be cautious about anything that creates dedicated expenses on the NRO without identifying what the dedicated benefits are.
RE said that LACNIC has had the same concern. He said that so far the LACNIC board has not changed its view but in his personal opinion, the number of meetings they’re attending, the number of processes they’re following, everything has become more complicated. He added that they’re all trying to be everywhere, attend all meetings, that this is a model that will not work well in the future and that at some point they’ll need to have an NRO representative. He said they’d need to be ready to trust somebody to represent the NRO view so they can concentrate more on their own work. He agreed that if they now hire someone for communications purposes they can do it through the RIRs, but that in the future, if a more political resource was needed, he/she should be hired by the NRO.
AP said he agreed with PW on the staffing issue and with JC on incorporation. He proposed preparing a list of incorporation reasons to see whether they are strong enough to go to our boards and say it’s time to incorporate.
JC suggested preparing a list of incorporation reasons and specific tasks or expenses. He said he’d heard from PW and AP that it would be good to have NRO resources in term of staffing, communications, etc. provided by the RIRs, that he’d heard from RE a vision that in addition there could be some sort of leader or executive director of the NRO. RE replied that perhaps not an executive director but an external affairs officer.
JC suggested coalescing, preparing a statement, to which RE replied that maybe it was time to use the board’s list and promote discussion at that level. JC said that he thought the list would help once they have a draft position from the EC.
8. Treasurer’s Report
The treasurer, JC, said he’d sent the report to the list and mentioned some items from the report. He said that total NRO common expenses − not counting ICANN contribution (823k) − for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had been 121k, 151k and 232k, respectively. He observed that they’re accumulating some substantial common expenses, so he wants people to keep this in mind when talking about the vision for the future of the organization: the common NRO expenses are significant and growing.
AA observed that sometimes they just decide an NRO activity without knowing its cost, adding that in his opinion they should have a proper mechanism for defining what is a minor expense. AP agreed, saying that JC is tasked with writing a procedure and proposing it to the EC.
JC said that he agrees with AA, that as the treasurer, he is paying the expenses on the assumption that they’re approved by the NRO EC, and that the process he and Bob are putting together includes how to handle expenses both in advance and at the time they occur.
RE said that NRO expenses have increased significantly, but that it’s not worrying because the income for the RIRs combined has also increased.
JC said that his main concern was to make sure that if they spend 250k dollars in the NRO it will save the RIRs more than 250k collectively and to make sure that NRO functions are common functions and not duplicate functions. RE agreed.
9. IETF / IAB
RE informed about IETF activities in Anaheim.
There was a BOF about data escrow and that there was an intention of creating a working group on data escrow practices. To summarize the topic, he said that currently the gTLDs, as part of their contracts with ICANN, have to store their information under the control of a third party so that in case the company fails the information can be recovered by somebody else and the gTLD can continue working without major problems. He added that now many ccTLDs are working on the same kind of projects, so there was an initiative to work on format standardization and how the information is saved.
RE said the people who are leading the potential WG are Ed Lewis and James Galvin and there are some disussions about wheter those developments should include or not the IP addresss registries.
It was discussed the feasibility of that and different ways to contribute to this group.
RE agreed and said that we need to work on contingency plans now, independent of how the information is stored and transferred. He added that the technical detailed issues could be worked on later.
There was agreement in following up the work of that working group and also to start to work on contingecies plans for the RIRs.
AR said he thinks they should participate, but keeping in mind that at least initially the sense of gravity would be on DNS. All agreed.
10. ICANN/IANA
AP said he wanted to mention two things. First, a meeting with the GAC in Brussels, for which he proposed contacting Janis and seeing if they want the NRO there and what they expect from them. Everyone agreed with the plan for the GAC meeting.
AP’s second point was their opinion on the DNS surf plans that ICANN has written up and whether they should comment on that or not. PW proposed not replying or submitting comments on ICANN’s DNS surf plans. All agreed with this proposal.
11. ITU
a. NRO membership
AP said that they could defer the matter of NRO membership as sector member until after discussing incorporation.
PW asked whether the EC had unanimously agreed to recommend joining to their boards, to which AP replied that they hadn’t. AP added that he believes that becoming an ITU sector member as the NRO would only be possible after incorporation.
PW clarified that his question was whether or not they had actually agreed that they want to join the ITU.
RE said that the LACNIC board supports joining the ITU as the NRO.
JC said that if the NRO were incorporated the ARIN board would be in favor of joining as a sector member, as it would have the benefit of the NRO being at the table and participating. He said that regardless of whether or not the NRO is incorporated, these dialogues of the ITU are becoming very problematic without being a sector member, for which reason ARIN might very well join over the next 2-6 months.
AP asked whether that answered PW’s question, to which PW replied that it had seemed to him that they were working on the assumption that, if it could, the NRO would join the ITU in both sectors, and that he thought that was something worth confirming.
b. A. Ntoko speech
PW mentioned the recent interview with Alex Ntoko, of which he had received a brief summary. He said that he hadn’t known what respect the ITU itself was paying to its own IPv6 working group, but that this interview had struck him as very good evidence.
There was discussion around this topic. There was not resolution.
c. Country based allocations
PW said he’d sent along something about two separate contingency plans. He said that that in his opinion they have a bit more work to do before we can make any proposal and that he’d like to know the attitude of the NRO EC to that possibility at this time.
AA had to leave at this time.
PW said that at this point developing some negotiating positions was vital to get through this situation.
RE said that he’s open to discuss this issue or other measures, but that in the LACNIC region it would not be possible to move forward in this issue until May. He said that they will be meeting with governments in Curaçao and plan to analyze and discuss exactly what the governments of the LACNIC region expect. He said that after that meeting they would be able to work on this. He concluded by saying that he sees PW’s point, he understands PW’s motivations, and agrees that they have to do something, but proposed postponing this discussion until the Brussels retreat.
JC said that he was fine with talking about the two strategic items in Brussels.
At this point it was established that the meeting had been longer than expected and several members had to leave.
AP supported the decision to discuss these two items in Brussels and perhaps on the mailing list before. All agreed.
12. AOB
PW asked if, regarding Brussels, it was possible to have confirmation as to which NRO components are meeting there, to which AP replied that he would talk as soon as possible to all the registration services managers and the CG chairs, on the list, asking them to inform us about their plans.
PW asked whether they were going to leave it up to the individual components to decide whether they want to meet in Brussels, to which AP replied that he’d like to see the groups’ plans and possible agendas in order for the EC to decide whether it supports those meetings
JC asked which components would be invited to do this, to which PW replied the ECG and registration services managers, which he was under the impression they had discussed earlier as the next possible meetings. AP agreed.
13. Adjournment
Hearing no further business, the chair adjourned the meeting at 13:11 UTC.
Last modified on 02/12/2010