Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 150421

Minutes of the NRO EC teleconference held on Tuesday April 21st 2015 at 11:00 AM UTC

Executive Council:

Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Chair
Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC Secretary
John Curran (JC) ARIN Treasurer
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Alan Barrett (AB) AFRINIC


Patrisse Deesse AFRINIC
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Leslie Nobile(LN) ARIN
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) LACNIC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Ingrid Wijte (IW) RIPE NCC
Andrew de la Haije (AH) RIPE NCC


Izumi Okutani (IO)
Nurani Nimpuno (NN)
Athina Fragkouli (AF) RIPE NCC
Craig Ng (CN) APNIC

German Valdez (GV) NRO

Draft Agenda
0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) Minutes Approval
a) February 13th 2015
b) March 24th 2015
3) IANA Stewardship Transition Status
4) ICANN CCWG Status
5) Review Action Items
6) CG input / Consultation
7) Joint RIR Stability Fund Update
8) Plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds
9) London Meeting Preparations
10)Next Teleconference

0) Welcome

AP welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 11:05 AM UTC.

1) Agenda Review

AP moved order of the agenda to discuss first IANA Stewardship Transition status and ICANN CCWG status to allow participation of the invited participants (IO, NN, AF and CG)

2) Minutes Approval

AP asked for approval of February 13th 2015 minutes.

All approved.

AP asked for approval of March 24th minutes.

All approved.

GV to update minutes information in the website accordingly.

3) IANA Stewardship Transition Status

AF stated that Service Level Agreement draft document is based on the provisions on the NTIA contract and the CRISP proposal principles. AF said that the SLA is written is such way that can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition.

ND asked in reference to auditing content in section VII, is there any thought in who is going to pay for it?

AF Not yet.

PW said that discussion would depend on the intended timeline and next steps we are expecting to take before and after the publication. PW asked if the current draft would have a rewording before publication or taking as it is.

AP answered that based on the reactions in last week ARIN meeting, there is a strong expectation we publish what we have as soon as possible. AP suggested publishing this first draft and share it with ICANN and the IANA xfer mailing list. I talked with some members of the RIPE NCC board and no concerns on publish it soon for the sake of transparency.

AB Agreed with AP and PW. AB suggested to clearly state is a draft and subject to changes.

AP said that the EC could instruct the communications group to write the message clearly stating is a first draft, inviting for comments and stating that the document is the based for negotiations with ICANN.

PW asked if the CRISP Team should review the SLA document before his publication?

AP suggested going public now.

NN agreed in publishing the draft as soon as possible. NN said that it’s important to be clear in the timeline so the community has clear expectation of the process.

IO agreed with NN. IO asked to have an official acknowledgement from the RIR on the CRISP proposal, and stating that the RIR are ready to work in the implementation.

AB suggested that the NRO EC prepare a cover letter acknowledging the CRISP proposal, responding with the SLA draft and including the timeline.

PW agreed that the NRO EC should have by now the acknowledgement of the proposal. PW suggested to provide a background and context information at the time of the publication. PW said that the NRO should be clear that the SLA is composed of the NTIA contract provision and the CRISP proposal principles. PW suggested that the document could include footnotes covering whether the clause is coming from NTIA contract provision or CRISP proposal. PW said that the announcement should clearly state that it’s a 1st draft and open for comment of the RIR communities, CRISP team, ICANN and all interested parties.

AP agreed with that.

AF confirmed that most provisions of the SLA have references to specific CRISP proposal principles or the relevant NTIA provision. AF asked who is going to be responsible of the coordination of the feedback and how we are going to reply specific questions.

CN suggested being careful in the expectations of the community and its role in providing comments. CN said that the focus of the feedback should be whether the SAL faithfully reflects the Number Community proposal.

AP agreed with CN

ND reminded that the NRO EC must follow up the elaboration of the RIR accountability matrix, consistent with John Curran’s EC email on April 17, as part of the CRISP team proposal. ND said that ARIN is willing to seek and secure a third party to perform the review.

IO (via chat) suggested to have the review committee information fixed in the timeline and included in the announcement / cover letter.

AP agreed in including the Review Committee in the timeline and what we want to do with that.

PW said that the CRISP proposal is clear that the community would be consulted regarding the SLA. PW agreed in it’s important to clarify the community expectations on what that means. PW suggested that comments will be taken in the NRO IANA xfer mailing list and compile and digest by the NRO legal team. PW said that the NRO EC should work in the cover letter considering all discussed contributions.

AP reminded that ARIN board message in the EC mailing list agrees on going for a quick publication, open for comment to any party in the IANA xfer mailing list.

PW asked what would be the publication goal next week or two weeks

AP said that the EF should aim for the next 5 business days.

PW suggested to have it ready by the time of the I* meeting.

AP asked to have a first draft of the announcement by Friday COB and have a second review on Monday and a new final draft by next Wednesday.

NN summarized that the announcement should consider the EC acknowledgement to the CRISP proposal, a timeline of the next steps of the process, publish the SLA for comment with clear expectations of the community and when a 2nd draft would be published and the inclusion of the review committee information.

AP said it seems reasonable.

IO asked who would be taking the lead of consulting with the community. IO said that in case of the CRISP team has this additional role the charter should be updated.

AP said that the consultation could be done by the RIR. CRISP could follow up the consultation in case the RIR miss something.

PW said that the NRTO EC could ask the CRISP team on having the leading role of the consultation process. They could provide an independent review.

IO suggested that the CRISP team could verify that the comments received are in line with the principles of the proposal. IO agreed with CN in managing community expectation regarding their feedback.

AF reminded the statement from ARIN with the same recommendation that the CRISP team should collect the community feedback. AF asked the NRO EC agrees with that proposal?

NN said that the CRISP Team has a mandate stated in their charter; if there is change of the role of the team this should be transparent and communicated to the community. NN said that having clear expectations of the role of the CRISP team, the RIR and the community are paramount.

IO said that she found very useful to share this updates. IO asked to keep the updated regularly.

AP asked GV to follow up on this for coming EC meetings until the CRISP team job is done.

4) ICANN CCWG Status

IO reported that the first draft of the ICANN accountability is delayed. IO said the expected time to release the first draft for comments is next week. IO reminded that the CCWG includes two work parties. Work party one in charge in enhancing community power in ICANN and work party two focuses in improving current ICANN review mechanisms. IO reported that the work party one proposal include a very high percentage and threshold from the community in order to remove members of the ICANN Board. IO suggested the NRO EC to put special attention once the draft proposal is release for comments. IO added that there is no consensus on the implementation mechanisms between the options of membership or delegates. IO said that the collective feeling of the CCWG tend to the membership option as this would provide more power to the community.

Regarding work party two, IO reported that the group recommends improvements by overrule ICANN Board key decisions that do not match with ICANN core values and mission, the group recommend that the description of the core values and mission be added to the current AoC.

On the matter of jurisdiction, IO reported that there is some suggestions about include in the ICANN bylaws the incorporation of ICANN in the US. IO said that there is some confusion about due to a Fadi statement in the US senate. IO clarified that Fadi said the he would keep ICANN in the US but it never mentioned that this should be included in the ICANN Bylaws.

AF said that some people are concern that the affirmation of commitment are not very stable so they would prefer incorporate ICANN in the US through the bylaws. AF stated that this a political issue as a top down approach of incorporating the US in the bylaws doesn’t reflex Internet Governance and Multistakeholder best practices. AF said an option could be to add in the bylaws that the decision of ICANN incorporation would be deal in a bottom up manner.

AP said he wouldn’t mind ICANN incorporation in the bylaws as long as future membership structure allows them to change bylaws.

CN said that ICANN bylaws have effect only in the state of California. CN questioned the effectiveness of incorporate the jurisdiction into the bylaws as the change of jurisdiction would imply a great move of assets.

AF said it’s a political discussion that affects also RIR community. AF said that US political sanctions could affect ICANN functions.

ND explained the concept of hierarchical documents. ND said that in the US, bylaws are subject to the Articles of Incorporation that are translated to local laws and the governing area.

HG proposed that the RIR legal team look for intermediate solution. HG suggested considering arbitration as an alternative for the resolution of disputes.

AP thanked IO, AF, NN and CN for joining the meeting and the information provided.

IO, AF, NN and CN left the teleconference at 12:07 PM UTC

AP asked for any additions to the agenda.

No items were added.

5) Review Action Items

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.

AP said the point would be discussed as part of the agenda.


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.

GV reported that the action 150213-02 is completed, so this action is a reminder for the EC to use the material from now on.

AP suggested closing this action.

PW asked if someone have use the material.

GV said he would send a direct link to the materials.


Action Item 150324-01: AP to ask CRISP Team a proposal for the composition of the Review Committee. The proposal might consider broader consultation with the Number Community.


Status: CLOSED

Action Item 150324-02: AP to ask CRISP Team for a proposal for the RIR accountability review. The proposal might consider broader consultation with the Number Community.


Status: CLOSED

Action Item 150324-03: AP to review the aspects of GPDP process review as per the CRISP Proposal and comeback to the EC list with topics of discussions.

AP reviewed the CRISP proposal but no reference to GPDP. AP suggested clarifying this offline.

Status: CLOSED


Action Item 150213-07: PACG to recommend the NRO EC a channel for the contribution to IGF.

PR reported that he suggested in the PACG list to keep the contribution to UNDESA by 100K and commit 20K through ISOC fund. PR suggested to find put through Cathy brown how the money would be distributed.

AP agreed with the outcome so far.
GV asked how to proceed from now.

AP suggested to wait for other contributions in the PACG list and requested PR to submit a formal recommendation in the NRO EC list.


New Action Item 150421-01: AP talk to ISOC and find out how their IGF contributions will be used.

Action Item 141018-03: PACG to include Governing Board Structure, Budget and Activity Approval, Fee Approval and Bylaw/Operational Document Control information to the RIR Governance Matrix.

PR said that AF was working with their colleagues in other RIR to have the matrix completed by the end of this month.

PW asked if this was considered still part of phase one, previous to the harmonization analysis.

PR confirmed it was still phase one as it was decided to complete all this information before moving to the harmonization analysis.


Action Item 141018-04: PACG based on the RIR Governance Matrix propose to the NRO EC those areas where could be consolidation or harmonization among the RIR.

It was discussed in the previous action item.

Status: OPEN.


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.


Status: CLOSED.


Action Item 150213-06: CFO to document how they calculate the registration services only amount.

Status Open


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.

Status: Open

Action Item 140218-05: AA and GV to work with the CFO to determine the indirect cost from each RIR in their support to NRO activities.

Status: Open

6) CG input / Consultation


NH reported CCG is working in coordination with GV in NRO website updates related to CRISP work and updates in the IPv6 content. NH added that the CCG is looking for a coordinated media exposure once ARIN reach IPv4 depletion. NH mentioned that the CCG is working with ICANN with information for their policy newsletter. NH asked for reconfirmation of the CCG meeting in ICANN 53.

PW suggested that the RIR work with ARIN to define the exhaustion point and coordinate the media activities based on the agreed event.

NH agreed with PW.

ND agreed with PW that exhaustion point could be difficult to identify for people outside ARIN community. ND said that ARIN would cooperate with CCG on this matter.


LN reported that the RSCG met in ARIN meeting last week and a meeting report was in elaboration. LN said that the RSCG would prepare a recommendation to the NRO EC regarding the ASN registry in IANA so this could go back to pre ERX stage as currently the granularity of the registry is creating some issues. LN said that the RSCG would consult with Geoff Huston before formulating the specific recommendation to the NRO EC. LN added that the RSCG is in communication with IANA to add another column to the IANA registry with a link to RIR rdap services.


PR reported that the PACG work plan has been circulated and the PACG list and he would send the plan to the EC as soon as it’s agreed among the PACG. PR added that the PACG would like to meet two times this year, the first meeting in Buenos Aires before ICANN meeting and the second meeting around ARIN meeting in Montreal as the meeting come in good time for coordination for the coming IGF, WSIS review in NY and the end of the IANA transition process.

Executive Secretary

GV reported that the ASO AC just concluded the interview phase. GV said that the ASO Interview Community (IC) performed telephone interview to candidates still in the run for the seat 9 of ICANN Board. GV mentioned that the IC met yesterday to prepare a report to the rest of the ASO AC that would meet tomorrow to deliberate on the results of the Interview. GV added that by procedure the ASO would discuss online one week and then start the voting process. GV estimated that the selection of the candidate would end in around 2 weeks time.

GV confirmed that Alan Barrett and Mark Elkins information have been updated in the NRO and ASO websites respectively.

7) Joint RIR Stability Fund Update

AP asked for updates in the RIR.

ND mentioned that ARIN would be making a pledge for the contribution with no liability or effect in the balance sheets.

AP confirmed that RIPE approach would the same than ARIN.

PW asked about the common statement to be used publicly for this initiative. PW asked also about the distribution of the contribution in case the fund is used.

AB said that AFRINIC Board’s support the initiative and they are planning to make a soft commitment from AFRINIC reserves.

AP reminded that he sent a new text on the common statement including background information. AP asked the EC to provide comments to the text. AP said that initial discussion tend not to use NRO distribution formula in the use of the fund but and ad hoc approach.

OR confirmed that LACNIC board approved LACNIC participation in the board as long as contributions are voluntary.

AP confirmed that contributions to the fund would remain voluntary.

8) Plan for the use of new gTLD auction proceeds

AP reminded he forwarded to the NRO EC list an invitation to a chapter-drafting group for the new CCWG. AP said he discussed the issue with the ASO and considered this new working group was out of the scope of the ASO. AP confirmed that the ASO AC chair agrees with this. AP asked if the NRO EC should appoint a representative.

PW agreed in appoint a representative of the NRO who can report back.

AB and ND agreed it’s out of scope of the ASO

AP suggested continuing the discussion in the mailing list.

9) London Meeting Preparations

AP asked GV to update about the timing of the EC meeting.

GV confirmed that the EC meeting would meet on Saturday May 2nd in the same the hotel where the I* meeting will take place. GV said that the meeting room is reserved from 8:00 to 18:00 and remote participation would be available.

AP said he just send the draft agenda of the I* meeting.

ND asked what the agenda would look like at the current stage.

AP asked GV if there was an agenda.

GV confirmed that the agenda for the face-to-face meeting was similar to the agenda for this meeting.

PW suggested meeting with IETF representatives about common needs on the IANA transition. PW pointed out that the I* agenda includes an item about a report on the world number.

AP said that he would take the lead in the report on the RIR. AP suggested to meet the IETF representatives before the I* meeting. AP asked GV to coordinate the meeting.

10) Next Teleconference

The NRO EC agreed to hold the next teleconference on May 26th 2015 11:00 AM UTC.

AP pointed out that the scheduled teleconference of the NRO EC on June 16th clashes with a retreat with his board. AP advised he wouldn’t be available for that date.

11) AOB

AP mentioned that Adiel Akplogan is looking forward to discuss with the NRO EC on the technical engagement program. AP said that the meeting with Adiel could be during next ICANN meeting or it could be invited to an EC teleconference.

AP noted the comment in the chat about the lack of support from ICANN to Jorge Villa to participate in the accountability CCWG due to US sanctions. AP suggested supporting Jorge with NRO funds and maybe complaining to ICANN on the matter.

PW agreed.

12) Adjourn

AP adjourned the meeting at 13:05 UTC

New Actions Items

New Action Item 150421-01: AP talk to ISOC and find out how their IGF contributions will be used.

Last modified on 19/08/2015