MINUTES
March 25th, 2014
Face to face meeting Singapore 1:00 PM Singapore Time
Executive Council Attendees:
Chairman: Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC
Secretary: Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC
Member: John Curran (JC) ARIN
Member: Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Apologies
Treasurer: Raul Echeberria (RE) LACNIC
Observers:
Anne Rachel Inne (ARI) AFRINIC
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Cathy Handley (CH) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
0) Welcome
AA Opened the meeting at 1:10 PM Singapore time
1) Agenda Review
AA asked if there were any addition to the draft agenda circulated to the meeting.
PR suggested adding a topic to the agenda in regards to the strategic relation with ICANN and post ICANN 49 communications.
AA agreed adding the topics as part of the AOB.
2) ICANN 49 NRO Activities
a. Meeting with ICANN Board
i. Roadmap for ICANN Consultation Process
AA suggested to discuss with ICANN Board their expectations and views of the consultation process in order to have better clarity. AA said the information could be used in the post ICANN49 communications to be discussed later.
JC considered that the ICANN Board might ask us what the process should be.
AA mentioned that ICANN has been asked to organize the consultation process but they published a roadmap that is very ICANN center and they need to update the roadmap to include other points of input.
AP said that the RIR community should be clearly included in the consultation roadmap.
PW mentioned we should put in record what the RIR expectations of the consultation process are.
JC reminded that ICANN is receiving comments about the consultation process until April 7th. JC suggested to ask ICANN Board how are they are planning to develop the process and if they considering other organizations to coordinate with.
AA concluded that during the session with ICANN board the NRO EC should look for clarity from ICANN about the preparation of the consultation process so the RIR could prepare better for the process. AA added that the EC should express their views and expectation of the consultation process and how the RIR community input will be incorporated.
ii. Form of Agreement(s) between ICANN-RIR now and September 2015
AA said the NRO EC should clarify the service level agreement that we have right now with ICANN.
JC recommended proceeding with a MoU or agreement with ICANN for IANA services for IP numbers.
AA said that maybe a way to introduce the topic is by linking it to the exchange letter of 2007 that included services related content.
PW recommended bringing to the ICANN board the expectation that as part of the roadmap of the IANA consultation process both parties should review that all the necessary aspects in the relationship are well defined.
AA suggested letting ICANN know that the NRO wants to review the relationship with them. AA added that the process could run in parallel and we can adjust if necessary.
PW said that even though we still don’t know the final results of the consultation process the RIR could propose a set of ideas endorsed by the RIR communities about the entities that should operate the IP services, at least converge in some expectations that can be put into the process.
AA concluded that the NRO should present to the ICANN Board our views and expectations of reviewing the agreements with ICANN as part of the consultation process roadmap.
iii. Status of IP Address Transfer Market
AA mentioned that Ray Plzak talk to him about the lack of knowledge in the ICANN Board regarding the situation of IP address transfer market.
JC volunteered to provide a brief of the IP address transfer market to the ICANN Board.
b. Meeting with ICANN GSE and Regional VPs
PW suggested comparing notes on what every RIR is doing in their respective regions in collaboration with ICANN.
PW mentioned that the ICANN AP regional hub is setting up very quickly and APNIC has been in close communication with them. PW reported that Champika is now working in ICANN in training and outreach activities as part of John Crain area. PW added that ICANN AP regional hub and APNIC have been coordinating meeting activities like having ICANN forum and regional meetings as part of APNIC meetings, this would help that people, that otherwise don’t attend APNIC meetings, could participate like GAC representatives.
AA reminded that in the last meeting with ICANN GSE and VP group in Buenos Aires a mailing list was created in order to coordinate activities among us.
PR mentioned that the best relationship they have regionally with in ICANN is in the Arab world . PR said that ICANN is sponsoring MENOG and ENOG and using RIPE NCC mailing list to promote some of their regional activities.
PR suggested that the RIR should work closer with ICANN PR engine to avoid miscommunication regarding Internet Numbers. PR added that the RIR should also work closer with ICANN in their governmental dealings.
AA suggested to discuss those aspects at higher levels in ICANN, to Fadi directly or closer advisors.
PW suggested being careful on giving the wrong impression that ICANN and the RIR are not getting well or not working together.
AA mentioned that other constituencies would want to have access as well to ICANN PR engine so the NRO should be careful on how to present this.
ARI said that the point is to coordinate better with ICANN in public communication especially in the coming months in order to avoid give different information or positions.
PW proposed to raise this in the meeting with the Board.
AP mentioned that is logical to approach ICANN to request a better level of coordination.
AA agreed to raise this to the Board.
3) NETmundial Updates
AM mentioned that the majority of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) was in ICANN and planning to kick off the drafting of the outcome document during the week. AM said the final outcome will be divided in principles currently containing 13 points and the roadmap. AM added that the EMC was divided in 2 teams to work in each of the areas, the principals and the roadmap in preparation of the conference in April.
JC asked AM if the EMC would produce a single document.
AM answered that the EMC would produce 2 documents.
JC asked AM if the EMC would work to converge the principles or have common principles and outliers.
AM answered that the EMC hasn’t considered this yet.
JC asked if the Steering Committee have discussed how /1net is going to participate of the conference.
PH considered that /1net is a truly Multistakeholder platform with a wide audience. PH added that the he was optimistic that in the long run /1net would eventually fulfill his original purpose.
JC appreciated PH feedback. JC mentioned that after NETmundial conference /1net mailing should have a clear purpose and set of rules for participation.
AA said that the Steering Committee is having a meeting on Friday and they would discuss setting clarity in the way forward of /1net.
4) IGF NRO Workshops
ARI mentioned that in the last PACG meeting in Dubai the PACG agreed to propose a workshop under the Critical Internet Resources track now that is back in the program. ARI said that after the NTIA announcement the PACG is thinking in organize one workshop to show the RIR to the community, what we are and do, our accountability mechanisms, policy process, corporate governance and ways on how the community can participate.
ARI said that the workshop related to CIR would be related to IPv6, something around IPv6 for decision makers. ARI added that the PACG would try to collocate RIR staff in most of the RIR content related workshops.
PR raised the importance to prepare the correct messages for all RIR staff participating in IGF workshops.
PR mentioned that during WTDC, the PACG would try to meet to map out what are we doing in regard to PR, communications and engagement in all international meetings including ICANN and IGF.
JC pointed out that by the time of the IGF meeting in Turkey the consultation process would be in place. JC asked who is taking the lead of the workshops related to the consultation and recommended that the NRO should engage and coordinate with ICANN.
AA mentioned that based on what happened in IGF in Bali people would expect that IGF in Turkey could be a place for the consultation process.
PR mentioned that RIPE NCC could be in the position to send up to 10 people from their community. PR said that the final number would depend in the workshops topics.
AA concluded that the NRO should propose at least one workshop, monitor and secure RIR staff in relevant workshops and consult with ICANN their strategy regarding the consultation during the IGF and prepare for that.
5) EC Teleconference format
AA considered that the discussions in the last teleconference regarding these topics are definitive.
AA closed the meeting at 3:00 PM Singapore time moving the topics of strategic relations with ICANN and post ICANN 49 communications for a new NRO EC meeting to be determined later during ICANN meeting in Singapore.
Last modified on 14/07/2014