Minutes of the NRO EC Face-to-Face meeting held on
Friday February 13th 2015 at 8:00 AM Singapore Time (+8 UTC)
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Chair
Oscar Robles(OR) LACNIC Secretary
John Curran (JC) ARIN Treasurer
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Patrisse Deessse (PD) AFRINIC – Remotely
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN – Remotely
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC
Remco Van Mook (RVM) RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
German Valdez (GV) NRO
1) Agenda Review
2) Minutes Approval
a) December 1st and 2nd 2014
b) January 20th 2015
3) Review ICANN Meeting
4) I* Meeting Preparation
5) Joint RIR Stability Fund
6) NRO Budget
a) 2014 Execution and NRO Formula
b) 2015 Budget
7) Review CG work plan
8) ECG Consultation Questions
9) COO Group
10) Cryptech Contribution
11) Next Meeting
AP welcomed and opened the meeting at 8:05 AM UTC +8 Singapore time.
1) Agenda Review
AP asked for any additions to the agenda.
No additions were made.
2) Minutes Approval
AP asked for approval of December 2014 minutes
Minutes were approved by all CEOs present in the meeting
Final approval of the December 2014 minutes is subject to AFRINIC approval.
AP asked to review January 2015 minutes and provide feedback in the mailing list.
3) Review ICANN Meeting
AP asked for a volunteer to summarize last developments during ICANN meeting.
JC volunteered and said that the Number Community and the IETF submitted to the ICG their proposals on time. JC said that there are discussions about the future of the IANA.org and IANA trademark. JC mentioned that he CWG has formally requested for six months extension to work in its proposal that would mean that the ICG could have something for the NTIA around September or October 2015. JC explained that during the week the NTIA has indicated in multiple occasions that the request for an extension is a routine and they should be able to process the ICG proposal once is ready. JC mentioned that some information indicates that if the process extends to 2016 might be problematic, as it’d coincide with the US election cycle. JC added that in parallel with IANA stewardship transition process there is a review of ICANN accountability lead by the CCWG. JC explained that the CCWG should have a set recommendations to improve ICANN accountability by the time of the NTIA receives the single proposal from the ICG. JC said that there is a critical path on place, as the CWG needs to have at least a snapshot of CCWG recommendations by April in order to advance in their own proposal. JC mentioned that the last part of CRISP proposal where it mentions that the Number Community could opt for alternative services instead of IANA, have raised comments and questions in other communities asking for the same, this issue has brought concerns to ICANN leadership.
AP said that discussion of the topic was important as this would be part of I* meeting
PR suggested considering the work of the CCWG and being included in the RIR plan for IANA transition.
AP reminded a conversation earlier in the week about if the EC should become more active in the discussions in the CWG and the other proposals.
PR said that the work in the accountability stream of the CCWG was slow and recommended to be more active now.
PW reminded that discussions about the next steps of the CRISP work was still pending.
AP suggested starting with that.
PW said that the point of ICANN and IANA being inseparable was not attended in the CRISP Team proposal because it was not part of the NTIA requirements. PW reminded that the transition discussions belongs to the multistakeholder community not ICANN. PW mentioned that the same topic was discussed months ago between ICANN and the IETF. PW said he had a conversation with Jari. We spoke of the need to work together in a coordinated fashion and continue the communications. PW said that the EC should synchronize, in some aspects both proposals including strategize communications in an open public approach.
JC considered that there is a misunderstanding of the Number Community proposal regarding the separation of ICANN / IANA.
JC mentioned that the proposal is not suggesting changes in the ASO MoU so they would remain part of ICANN structure and the current global policy process.
JC recommended that the EC should not use the term “separation” and make an effort to explain the differences on what the IETF is proposing which indeed is a separation, including the fact that the IETF wouldn’t have a formal relationship with ICANN if they choose so.
PW reminded about the question made in the ICANN Public Forum regarding the ICANN Board is accepting the two proposals and the answer of Steve Crocker was that “there’s nothing fundamental in them that we have a problem with, full stop”.
RVM suggested that the EC should explain the Number Community proposal and position to the ccNSO community in order to avoid further misunderstandings.
AP proposed to prepare a FAQ about the CRISP team proposal, publishing in the NRO website and promote the document extensively.
PW suggested that the CCG drafts the document and be reviewed by the CRISP Team.
RVM suggested that the CRISP Team be briefed about the misunderstandings about the Number Community proposal.
JC asked what would be the actual steps to present the information to the CWG community.
AP said that ccTLD is reachable during ICANN meetings and the CRISP team could contact CWG. AP mentioned that the production of the FAQ document was important to answer questions from different groups.
JC suggested the preparation of a slide deck in addition to the FAQ to be used in presentations with other group’s teleconferences and meetings in order to prevent more misunderstandings.
AP proposed to have an action on all CEO to liaise with the regional ccTLD organizations and similar groups and organize presentations once the material is ready.
New Action Item 150213-01: AP to contact CRISP Team and brief them about the misinterpretations raised in ICANN community regarding the Number Community proposal and ask their cooperation with CCG in the elaboration of slide deck and FAQ document explaining proposal.
New Action Item 150213-02: CCG in coordination and with the approval of the CRISP Team to prepare a slide deck and FAQ document explaining the Number Community proposal.
New Action Item 150213-03: NRO-EC subject to the completion of action item 150213-02 to use the materials produced by the CCG and liaise with their regional ccTLD organizations to explain and clarify any questions regarding Number Community proposal.
4) I* Meeting
JC said that the EC should clarify the fact they are not proposing changes in the ASO structure so there is no separability issues. JC said that it was a matter of protecting the integrity of the RIR community.
PW said that it needs to be clearly stated that the IANA transition process depends on the Multistakeholder community not ICANN; hence they are subject not an advocate of the proposals.
AP asked if there were other items to prepare for the I* meeting
PW suggested that NETMundial initiative could be another topic to discuss.
PR asked if the EC had enough information on the last developments of the initiative and if it was transparent enough for them.
JC reviewed the proposed I* agenda and suggested to ask IANA or ISOC to provide an update of NETmundial.
AP asked if there were any preference for the I* two days meetings dates.
JC said that no preference as long as the meeting is confirmed well in advance.
After reviewing I* agenda topics and the relation of IANA transition process with IGF continuity discussions in the UN JC stated that if the IANA process fails before the discussions in the UN, it could have an negative impact in the IGF.
PW said that with the 6 months extension from CWG, the ICG would be submitting a single proposal by the end of 2015, way after wsis+10 discussions in the UN.
JC said it’d be still good to have the CWG proposal and the CCWG input to the ICG before the UN meeting on wsis+10. JC added that the electoral cycle in US could affect negatively the discussion of the proposal in Congress. JC said it’d be interesting to hear Fadi and Cathy’s opinions on this matter.
AP asked to move to the next point.
PW suggested discussing the next steps on SLA drafting. PW suggested putting some work in the recitals, the commitments part of the contract to set the scene.
New Action Item 150213-04: PW to draft a set of recitals to be considered in the SLA document.
5) Joint RIR Stability Fund
JC said he was ready to present to ARIN board the idea of the Joint RIR stability fund.
AP asked OR if he was ok with the proposal.
AP asked to the EC to check with their Boards and report back to the NRO EC.
New Action Item 150213-05: NRO EC to consult with their Boards regarding the creation of the Joint RIR stability fund and confirm their position on the proposal.
5) NRO Budget
2014 Budget Execution and NRO Formula.
GV presented the execution of NRO Budget 2014. GV confirmed that the numbers have been provided by the CFOs. GV clarified that RIPE NCC is checking a difference of 12.5K between their numbers and the information in the NRO budget execution report.
GV pointed out that the secretariat administrative cost were below of the 2014 projections as he was able to combine trips to different meetings and because the devaluation of 20 cents AUD against the USD during the last quarter of 2014.
GV reminded that the NRO distribution formula is based on each RIR self-declared registration revenues only information. GV reported that according to the totals submitted by the CFO the distribution for 2014 expenses would be AFRINIC 5.71%, APNIC 26.36%, ARIN 27.25%, LACNIC 8.97% and RIPE NCC 31.70%. GV said that percentages remained very similar to those calculated in 2014.
ND asked if the explanation of what is considered registration services on each RIR is documented.
JC suggested having this information documented so it could be consistently applied every year. JC said that this could be useful in case of the change of one of the CFO.
ND asked if there was any discussion on the different RIR travel policy applied to the ASO AC members.
GV reminded that during Mauritius meeting the EC agreed to keep the ASO AC members travel support as part of the NRO budget in 2015 but for 2016, these should be supported by each RIR. GV said that only the travel of the ASO AC chair would remain as part of the NRO budget.
OR asked if there was any information on each RIR percentage difference in each year when compare against itself and if there were any resolution to limit this.
GV said that there were no calculation on those percentages but it could be obtained with the current information and there were no agreements in limiting this type of increase.
JC suggested including in the RIR budget file the description of how each RIR calculate the registration services only amount.
AP said that it was good to see the control in the budget and asked about the task of calculating the indirect costs.
GV mentioned that some RIR still are pending to submit the information.
New Action Item 150213-06: CFO to document how they calculate the registration services only amount.
6) 2015 Budget.
GV said that the first draft of the 2015 budget was prepared in conjunction with the CFO in their annual meeting in October. GV mentioned that 2015 budget numbers are aligned with the actual expenses of 2014 and considering two CG meetings per year.
GV pointed out that the 2015 budget is including the 100K contribution to the IGF, 10K support for speakers and 10K for social event for the IGF. GV suggested that the EC confirm if those expensed would remain in 2015.
GV mentioned that for ASO dinners he is suggesting to keep 12K. GV said that the amount should be enough to keep the ASO dinner simple and informal.
AP and PR agreed in the value of the ASO dinner and keep the format simple and informal.
GV said that based on 2014 travel expenses he adjusted it to include one face-to-face MAG meeting.
GV mentioned that the CFO suggested keeping 25K for contingencies.
PW asked if the budget 2015 has been shared with the CFO.
GV confirmed this.
PR suggested considering some provisions for consultancy projects.
OR asked how the ICANN contribution is calculated.
GV said that it’s a fixed amount of $823,000 USD
RMV mentioned a question from an organization from India about the RIR contribution to ICANN each year.
AP said that the information is public since 1999 and it could be referred to NRO and RIR reports.
GV said that communications expenses in 2015 could be bigger, as the secretariat will organize interview calls with ICANN Board candidates and the new support to the CRISP team.
AP suggested continuing the support to the IGF.
GV asked which of the different channels the NRO should select for the IGF contribution.
JC said he need a statement how to intend to channel it so can be reported to ARIN Board.
PR said that the NRO should review the strategy regarding the IGF now that we are getting a juncture for the 10 plus years of the IGF.
JC said that he was looking for confirmation on how the NRO would spend the money as depending the channel could be political implications.
PR agreed that it requires some analysis.
GV mentioned that depending the channel the NRO could send a statement.
AP said that the NRO should have information from the channel on what they are planning to do with the contribution.
EM suggested that the PACG take a look on the alternatives and raise a suggestion to the NRO EC
JC suggested changing the contribution to IGF to 105K. JC said that a reduction to a direct UNDESA contribution might create a bad precedent.
AP agreed with JC and EM’s suggestions.
New Action Item 150213-07: PACG to recommend the NRO EC a channel for the contribution to IGF.
JC asked to add to AOB the financial support for IETF.
AP suggested having the discussion now as we are talking about financial support.
JC briefed the EC about the existence of the Open Internet Endowment (OIE) trust that is managed by ISOC. JC mentioned that currently the trust has the scope to support not only the IETF but also any other Internet Initiative. JC said that the ARIN Board was considering make a contribution as long as the money can be used to support the IETF. JC said that other RIR could consider this trust if their requirements are met.
PW said that APNIC has reduced the contribution to ISOC as they now support directly the IETF meeting when is located in APNIC region.
PR confirmed that RIPE NCC also support financially and with staff to the IETF meeting when the event is located in Europe.
AP asked what was the feeling of approving the budget for 2015, including the 5K increases for the IGF support.
PW moved to approve
AP accepted the motion but stated that final resolution would depend on AFRINIC approval.
7) Review CG work plan
JC said that he read the work plan it was ok with the content.
PR suggested the CCG to think more out of the box for example the NRO presence in the IGF.
PW said that the CCG should have more strategic input including values, mission and vision from EC to produce something that responds to that.
JC said that the EC should establish the objectives before the CCG put creativity in the work they need to implement.
AP confirmed that he had talked to CCG chair to delimit some work. AP reminded the new set of activities assigned to them regarding the production of material to explain the proposal of the CRISP Team. AP suggested that the EC spend half a day maybe in the next face-to-face meeting to discuss more about the strategic aspects of the NRO.
RVM agreed and suggested the EC resolve these recurrent questions.
JC suggested making a comparison of all RIR strategic plans and all intersections could be considered as part of the NRO strategic plan.
OR said that the input to the CG should be at the level of specific objectives.
AP agreed and asked all CEO to share the strategic plans in the EC list, assembled them and see what we have. AP suggested to be added to the next teleconference.
CCG work plan approved pending AFRINIC confirmation.
New Action Item 150213-08 All CEO to share in the EC mailing list their strategic plans.
New Action Item 150213-09 GV and COO to present a compiled document with intersections of strategic activities among the 5 RIR as the basis of a NRO strategic document.
PW asked if the budget is considering meetings and plans of the CG
GV confirmed the budget reflects the CG work plans.
JC said that ARIN would eventually focus more in registry quality than allocations. JC considered that the work plan was fine.
RSCG work plan approved pending AFRINIC confirmation
AP considered worthwhile their two days meeting request, based on the results of the last Montevideo Meeting.
JC mentioned he was fine with the work plan and their proposed meetings.
PW agreed. PW suggested working more in the visibility of the outcomes of the ECG.
AP suggested that the ECG could deliver a quarterly report that could be added to the EC meetings records.
JC agreed that the ECG is doing relevant work besides the implementation of services to our customers. JC said the ECG is working collectively in the definition of standards and protocols in the IETF and should be a recognizable work. JC added that the work to be recognized should be good, accepted and complete.
JC suggested that the CCG should coordinate with the ECG in those projects that could be added to the NRO reports in meetings like ICANN.
New Action Item 150213-10 GV to communicate to the CCG to bear in mind the opportunities to promote the outcomes of completed ECG projects and include them in NRO reports.
AP mentioned, he was agreed to respond positively to the questions sent by the ECG.
JC considered that both items represent substantial work but the community expectation is that the RIR should be doing it.
JC informed that this year ARIN would have an engineering surge.
ECG work plan approved pending AFRINIC confirmation.
PR confirmed the PACG still has not submitted their plan but they would do it briefly.
GV mentioned that should be easy to develop one, as it could be a subset of the RIPE NCC one.
8) ECG Consultation Questions
AP suggested deferring the discussion of the ECG question until everybody reads them.
9 ) COO Group
GV reported a coordination call with all RIR COO on Monday to clarify aspects of their involvement in the preparations of the EC meetings and the support to the CEOs. GV said that based on the discussions with the COO they agreed on not becoming an extra layer of NRO activities coordination, reviews CG plans, set the meeting agenda or prepare decisions on behalf of the NRO EC. The COO understand that they can support to implement the NRO EC decisions, ensure all actions are assigned to the right persons, to assist CG in completing their tasks and pick actions items that crosses areas like the risk management matrix.
GV said that he would complete the NRO EC meetings procedures with the feedback received from the COO.
ND said that the idea is to keep a light structure for supporting the CEOs and meet in advance when is necessary.
10) Cryptech Contribution
PW reported that APNIC received a supporting request from Cryptech and asked if this was in the interest of the NRO to support the initiative.
AP confirmed that RIPE NCC has made a contribution. AP said RIPE NCC understands this doesn’t bring immediate benefit to the organization but it’s good for the whole Internet.
JC mentioned that ARIN Board would evaluate the support. JC added that at this stage would easier to make the contributions individually.
EM said that it was still important to be informed about your decisions.
AP suggested evaluating the support to Cryptech individually.
AP thanked everybody for the discussion and invite the EC to reconvene in the same meeting room in two hours time after the I*
Meeting resumed at 13:15 UTC +8 Singapore Time.
JC reported about the meeting with I*:
– I* CEO meeting would be around the 1st week of May in London
– The RIR stressed the fact that IANA transition is managed and driven by the Multistakeholder community and any unilateral actions from ICANN would have serious implications.
– Eventually all converged that it’s a communication issue, we need to be clear on it.
– RIR agreed it was important to document and explain the IETF and RIR proposals where we should be clearly stating why we are representatives of the Multistakeholder community, why we are the appropriate party to be able to do the IANA contracting and why we are protected from capture. IETF agreed to do theirs.
11) Next Meeting
JC suggested that for the next meeting all could agree in an end time so travel arrangement could be made accordingly to the extend of the EC meeting.
All agreed to cancel the next EC Teleconference originally scheduled for February 17th 2015 and rescheduled the March teleconference to be held on Tuesday March 24th 2015.
All agreed to hold the next face-to-face meeting in Friday May 1st 2015 in London independently of the I* meeting happens or not.
PR asked Athina to map out the modus operands of the group to facilitate the integration of Jorge Villa and the general coordination of the Group.
JC stated that the NRO, as the organization that fulfills the ASO function, owns at the end the appointments of people that are considered to be the best option to complete the job.
JC recognized that the CCWG made remarkable progress in the last 72 hours. JC mentioned that he had talked with people involved in the CCWG that felt the ASO should come up with a proposal in the form of a discussion document to help the process to move on. JC mentioned that some mechanisms should be considered in order to protect the community in extreme cases when for example the Board goes rogue in global policy decisions. JC asked if the NRO EC supported the development of a straw-man proposal. If that is the case JC volunteered to draft it.
The NRO agreed to develop a paper explaining the RIR community governance and accountability mechanisms to the community and addressing concerns about capture.
New Action Item 150213-11 JC to prepare a paper explaining the RIR community governance and accountability mechanisms to the community and addressing concerns about capture.
There were no AOB
AP adjourn the meeting at 14:00 UTC +8 Singapore Time
Last modified on 27/04/2015