MINUTES
December 2nd, 2014
Face-to-face meeting Mauritius
Executive Council:
Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC Chair
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Secretary
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC Treasurer
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
John Curran (JC) ARIN
Observers:
Gaelle Fall (GF) AFRINIC
Madhvi Gokool (MG) AFRINIC
Patrick Deesse (PD) AFRINIC
Sunday Folayan (SF) AFRINIC
Ernest Byaruhanga (EB) AFRINIC
Michael Abejuela (ND) ARIN
Craig Ng (CN) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Remco van Mook (RM) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
Draft Agenda
0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) Review Open Actions
3) CG Work Plans
a) RSCG
b) CCG
c) ECG
d) PACG
4) NRO 2014 Budget Execution
5) NRO 2015 Budget
6) NRO Distribution Formula
7) NRO EC 2015 Meetings
8) AOB
9) Adjourn
0) Welcome
AA welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 9:10 AM Mauritius Time.
1) Agenda Review
No items were added to the agenda.
2) Review Open Actions
Action Item 180214-05: AA and GV to work with the CFO to determine the indirect cost from each RIR in their support to NRO activities.
GV reported the action is in progress. GV reported he has received information from RIPE NCC.
Action Item IN PROGRESS
Action Item 180114-03: PACG to include Governing Board Structure, Budget and Activity Approval, Fee Approval and Bylaw/Operational Document Control information to the accountability and governability matrix.
Action Item: OPEN
Action Item 180114-04: PACG based on the accountability and governability matrix propose to the NRO EC those areas where could be consolidation or harmonization among the RIR.
Action Item: OPEN
3) CG Work Plans
a) RSCG
MG presented the work plan on behalf of the RSCG. MG mentioned that the work plan was aligned with NRO objectives defined in last year retreat in Montevideo.
JC on the point of data quality, JC asked the RSCG to focus in best practices for the registration services in data quality. JC considered that an important aspect of being a Regional Registry would be the quality of the data provided by the RIR.
GV confirmed that the topic was extensively discussed in the f2f meeting in London and the RSCG realizes on the importance of advancing on this matter.
MG explained that the RSCG would work in documenting the criteria used to assign country code to the records in the extended stats. MG said that the RIRs are using different interpretations to assign his field.
MG mentioned that the RSCG would coordinate with ECG the production and management of the extended global stats currently under control of Geoff Huston. MG clarified that Geoff agreed in transferring this task.
PW advised MG to correct the topic of NRO global registry for NRO extended stats.
MG requested as part of the RSCG work plan, approval for two face-to-face meeting. MG asked the RSCG to meet in conjunction with EC in their meeting in Singapore. MG said that the second meeting would be in coordination or in conjunction with ECG.
AP said he was not sure to approve a joint session in Singapore with RSCG without more details on the agenda and justification.
AP added that GV should coordinate closely with CG and pass a strong recommendation that CG f2f meeting be held in Internet related meetings where most of the members converge (RIR, IETF, IGF, etc).
Action Item 021214-01: GV to communicate to the CG on the NRO EC expectation to organize their face-to-face meeting around Internet related industry meetings were most of the CG members converge or participate.
AA said that the EC would need more time to process work plan information before grant an approval.
b) CCG
GV presented on behalf of the CCG on their work plan for 2015. GV explained that after the completion of the ASO website the CCG would focus in 2015 in enhance the NRO website. GV said that the CCG would work in updating the multimedia material. GV mentioned that the CCG is looking forward to coordinate with PACG to prepare communications on regards to IANA stewardship transition process.
GV said that like RSCG the CCG is requesting a meeting with the NRO EC in Singapore during ICANN meeting. GV mentioned that a second meeting is requested for ICANN Meeting probably to happen in Mexico to coordinate communications for the conclusion of the IANA transition process and prepare the work for the IGF-9.
PR suggested that the CCG should explore new and inventive way to engage during IGF meetings. PR said that the IGF is evolving and the RIR should review the presence in IGF.
JC agreed with PR.
PR said that based on the CCG report of the last IGF in Turkey there was problems for the participants to access the RIRs as it was not clear the NRO role and its relationship with the RIR
PW said that the CCG could work in prepare and present information better to avoid such confusions.
EM mentioned that the CCG would need input from the PACG and EC to develop such task.
GF considered that there were no problem to access the RIR but considered that messages could improve.
JC said that the use of the five RIR logos could help instead of only the NRO could help.
AM agreed with JC and reminded the resolutions of the EC retreat in Montevideo last year on the rebranding of the NRO.
JC said that the NRO should be use as a tool for efficient coordination for the RIR. JC said that direction and accountability come from the region.
PW suggested reviewing the NRO strategic plan during the NRO meeting in Singapore.
EM said that if the NRO EC currently doesn’t have an agreement to communicate what we are it’d be hard for the CCG work on that.
GF suggested making better communications efforts in explaining the definition and scope of the NRO.
PR agreed with EM that the RIR staff needs more clarity from the EC.
GV reminded what was discussed in the last face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles that the NRO was just a coordination body for the RIR. GV said that the NRO should keep it simple and improve communications on the role and scope of the NRO.
JC said that customers of the NRO are not the same than the customers of the RIR except in few exceptions of community interested in the global stats and joint Internet governance discussion. JC mentioned that the NRO website could be a joint RIR website to avoid confusions.
AP said that he believe that the NRO activities are valid and the retreat in Montevideo was a valid exercise. AP considered there is a problem of perception that it should be addressed with proper communication.
PW considered that there was no point to keep discussing the topic. PW asked that if there’s the need to change anything from the current agreements of the NRO a concrete proposal should be submitted.
JC mentioned that the CEO should give clear idea to their staff on when to use the NRO and when the 5 RIR and why, there is no guidelines.
AA suggested that the CCG work on the guidelines of when to use the NRO and when to use the RIR in the external communications and be added to the work plan.
GV said he’s taking the advise of the CCG to work in more innovative ways to engage in the IGF meetings.
c) ECG
GV reported that Neriah was sick and sent his apologies for not being present in the meeting to present the ECG work plan. GV mentioned he was not in the capacity to present the ECG work plan however he asked the EC to review the work plan sent to the EC mailing list.
d) PACG
GV said that PACG was still pending to submit their work plan.
AA asked GV to compile work plans and detect interactions between the CG.
Action Item 021214-02: GV to compile CG work plans and detect interactions between the CG.
4) NRO 2014 Budget Execution.
GV presented the budget execution of 2014. GV explained that the forecast value of Q4 has been discussed and reviewed by the CFO. GV said that given the current trend and expected expenses in Q4 the expected execution of the budget would end at 90% of the allocated resources.
GV highlighted that the ASO AC travel support was 25% above of the original budget. GV explained that this item is under control and manage directly by each RIR.
JC asked if a way to avoid a similar situation for next year it’d be to establish a cap and any amount above the cap be out the NRO distribution formula. JC said that cap could be the total of the limit advised for each RIR.
JC said it’d be important to know the Chair for 2015 in order to make the calculation.
JC asked GV to consult the scenario of establishing a regional cap to ASO Travel expenses to the CFOs.
JC based on the number in the budget, JC asked GV if traveled less in 2014.
GV said that was able to efficient his travels by combining meetings in a single trip.
5) NRO 2015 Budget
GV presented the NRO 2015 budget. GV clarified that based on EC input he’s including at the moment one face-to-face meeting for each CG. GV reminded the EC that some CGs are requesting two face-to-face meeting for 2015. GV confirmed that the 2015 budget was discussed and reviewed by the CFO in their meeting in Montevideo.
GV said that in some cases for example the ASO AC Travel support the allocation of resources were adjusted based on the execution on 2014.
GV reminded that ICANN meetings in 2015 would follow a similar geographical distribution of the 2014 meetings so the budget should be similar.
JC suggested changing the approach of the ASO AC Travel discussed previously in the execution of the 2014 budget. JC suggested that for the 2016 budget each RIR would take care of their ASO representatives to ICANN meetings. JC suggested that only the ASO AC Chair travel support be considered in the NRO budget.
GV asked about the ASO Travel Policy, if this would remain as the criteria to be used by the RIR.
AA confirmed that the ASO travel policy would remain.
On this matter The NRO EC resolved
– Maintain the distribution criteria for 2015 budget.
– Starting in 2016 remove from NRO budget the ASO Travel support so each RIR would provision the support in their own budget.
– In 2016 budget include only the ASO AC Chair travel in the NRO budget.
– ASO travel policy would remain as the criteria to support ASO representatives to ICANN meetings.
GV said that there was an increment in travel considering his selection to IGF MAG meetings. The adjustment responds to two trips to Europe for MAG meeting. GV added that cost in communication also is higher than 2014 having the selection of ICANN Board and CRISP Team activities.
PW asked if the NRO EC should formally approve the support to IGF MAG meetings. PW advised to review the adjustment in travel, as the amount seems not be enough for trips from Australia to Europe.
JC moved to support GV travel to the MAG.
AP seconded. AP stated for the record that he was not happy in the way the MAG appointment happened, as it was not internal discussion on the appointment to the MAG.
GV mentioned that he sent his intention to nominate through the ITAC nomination committee directly to the RIR CEO. GV said that ITAC send 6 names and the UN people only picked up Lynn St Amour and his name. GV acknowledged that the RIR lost one representative from the RIR group and discussion was held in the NRO EC to appoint a MAG representative.
PR asked GV what organization was going to represent in the MAG.
GV said that the appointment was made through the technical community. GV said that that affiliation was important but participation in the MAG was expected and normally made in personal capacity.
EM agreed that participation is based on personal capacity and that any intervention on behalf of the RIR should be consulted first.
API said that GV position in the MAG should be considered as an asset.
JC considered that provisions should be taken for MAG meetings participation.
AA continued the discussion on the budget. AA advised that the ECG meeting in January should be reflected in the budget.
GV reminded that first ICANN meeting in 2015 is very early in the year. He said that in some cases travel costs would be done in Q4 2014. GV stated that this would increase even more the execution of ASO AC Travel support.
JC understood the situation and expected that expense be recorded accurately even tough the numbers in ASO AC travel would increase.
6) NRO Distribution Formula
GV reported that the based on the projection of registration services revenue sent by each the CFO the distribution formula for 2014 would be around the following percentages for each RIR, AFRINIC 5.9%, APNIC 27.05%, ARIN 28.51%, LACNIC 9.3% and RIPE NCC 29.25%.
GV said that based on the 2013 percentages all percentages remained very similar with APNIC having the biggest variation with -2.05%.
EM asked if there is a similar analysis with the 2014 distribution formula applied to the 2015 budget.
GV confirmed that in the 2015 budget there is table with the expected distribution based on 2014 distribution values.
GV said that final numbers would be provided by the CFO once the year is concluded.
AA invited the EC to review the work plans and budget information for the next teleconference.
7) NRO EC 2015 Meetings
GV reminded that there is a Teleconference schedule on December 16th.
GV assumed that the EC would keep the same criteria for meeting dates, being the third Tuesday of each month.
AA asked GV to share the teleconference schedule for 2015 at the beginning of the year.
Action Item 021214-03: GV to update NRO EC 2015 teleconference meetings calendar and distribute the information to the list.
AP asked GV the mechanism of organizing EC meetings.
GV said he would follow ASO AC meeting preparation mechanisms.
Action Item 021214-04: GV to draft NRO EC meetings procedures.
PW suggested to meet on Saturday February 14th 2015 in Singapore after ICANN meeting.
8) AOB
AA thanked the NRO EC for their support for the last 10 years as AFRINIC CEO.
PW recognized AA as an absolute leader among the NRO EC. PW highlighted that AA have dealt with the challenges of having a diverse community and that in many ways it’s been a job different than other RIR CEOs. PW said that AA was an inspiration for the RIR.
The participants of the meeting welcomed PW comments by a round of applauses.
AA thanked the group.
9) Adjourn
AA adjourned the meeting at 13:00 Mauritius time.
Last modified on 19/08/2015