Teleconference November 25, 2010, 11:00 UTC
Executive Council Attendees:
- RIPE NCC: Axel Pawlik (AP, Chairman)
- LACNIC: Raul Echeberria (RE, Secretary)
- ARIN: John Curran (JC, Treasurer)
- APNIC: Paul Wilson (PW)
- AFRINIC: Adiel Akplogan (AA)
- Nate Davis (ND) (ARIN)
- Arturo Servín (LACNIC)
- Pablo Hinojosa (APNIC)
- Andrei Robachevsky (AR) (RIPE)
- Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
- Previous Minutes
- Review Action Items
- Report from ECG
- Report from CCG
- Message re delayed certification start
- Status of in-addr.arpa transfer
- Report from RSM
- Use of “new” stats file format
- Address stock reporting
- Incorporation, issues from CFO meeting
- Budget 2011 status
- UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation
- ASO Review, Status
- ASO presence at ICANN Cartagena
- I* retreat February Preparations
- Pre-meeting on 2 Feb
- Post-meeting NRO retreat on 5 Feb
1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:10 UTC.
The draft agenda was approved.
2. Previous Minutes
It was decided to take the approval of the previous minutes to the mailing list.
New action item 111125-01: All to approve or suggest modifications to the minutes of the previous meeting on the mailing list.
3. Review Action Items
Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property. LACNIC has not sent the information yet. OPEN
Action item 100720-01: ARIN to send a summary of each RIR’s report on their formal statements regarding being property/non property. Pending preceding action item. OPEN
Action 100427-4: After AP sends out the corresponding job description, each organization to provide the EC an estimate for adding such an FTE to their respective organizations. OPEN
Action item 20100525-06: AP to put together a straw man for the NRO EC and get it to the ECG before Brussels. (Re: Contingency plans). OPEN
Action item 2010-R2-1: The NRO EC have agreed to share information prior to the next retreat about financial stability. OPEN
Action item 2010-R2-6: PR to work with the CCG in elaborating this list of IPv6 key messages for sharing with partners.
AP commented that PR sent a report saying this action item is ongoing, but nothing has been shared yet.RE noted that this is a very important point.
AP said he believes the CCG is working on this and probably has a list of points. He offered to inquire about this action item. OPEN
New action item 111125-02: AP to find out the state of the material prepared by the CCG (Re. Action Item 2010-R2-6 − The CCG to prepare IPv6 key messages)
Action item 2010-R2-20: All the RIRs to review the IP address property spreadsheet and decide if changes need to be made to their materials. Pending Actions Items 2010-R07 and 100720-01. OPEN
Action item 100720-03: JC to take a first pass at addressing this question (the risks faced by RIRs particularly as they affect ICANN’s ability to accomplish its mission), writing several paragraphs assessing the risks and send it to RE for a first look and then to the NRO EC. DONE
Action item 100922-03: The CCG will work on an NRO RPKI factsheet and presentation and an NRO RPKI Paper. OPEN
Action item 101026-01: LN to redraft the message for the NRO so AP can resend the message to the IANA with the current list of resources (distribution of various registries address blocks among the RIRs). DONE
Action item 101026-02: RE to prepare a message for the public (Re. distribution of various registries address blocks among the RIRs). OPEN
Action item 101026-03: AP to reply to ICANN saying that the NRO agrees to their approach and that we would be willing to go but that if that is not possible then we will provide them with our talk sheet. (Re. UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation). DONE
Action item 101026-04: AP and AA to draft a letter to Touré requesting a meeting to discuss the possibility of cooperating and collaborating on a reciprocity basis. OPEN
Action item 101026-05: AP to work with HPH regarding the ASO presence at ICANN meetings. DONE
Action item 101026-06: RE to prepare a draft for submitting comments to the IGF regarding the MAG. DONE
AP added that he had submitted it and Markus has acknowledged that and it should be published by now.
Action item 101026-07: The Secretariat to make available all documents to be discussed at or referred to at EC meetings available in advance of EC meetings. DONE
Action item 101026-08: The Secretariat to send the current list of members of the RIR Board mailing list so we can clean it up. DONE
4. Report from ECG
AP said that the report was sent to the list. Noting that Andrei was not on the call, he asked whether anyone wanted to discuss ECG-related issues.
JC said they have all the agreements in place and timeline agreed between the RIRs and ICANN as well as all the steps involved in the in-addr.arpa transition. He said that that includes each of them running servers to handle some section of the load for in-addr.arpa. He added that so far the timeline is a technical deployment timeline and that there are no roadblocks in terms of paper work, no roadblocks in terms of technical issues, but that it’s just a question of each of their engineering staffs and ICANN staff doing the actual transition (which will take place between now and some time in the second quarter of 2011).
JC commented that at present that’s the guidance that has been given to the ECG: they’ll work diligently on getting that agreement signed but are currently on a course in parallel with the implementation.
5. Report from CCG
AP noted that PR was not present on the call.
a. Message re delayed certification start
It was discussed the particularities of each RIR in their implementation of the hosted model and the relation with the following phases (up-down protocol)
While most of the goals for the current phase will be achieved on 1st January, it was agreed that all the RIRs will be in production services in the first half of 2011.
6. Report from RSM
AP said Leslie had not sent a report because he had not asked for one.
a. Use of “new” stats file format
AP said that he believes that RIPE NCC and APNIC are ready to go ahead with this and asked the others what was their situation.
No replies were heard and AP said he would ask Leslie to go through the colleagues and get a statement.
b. Address stock reporting
AP asked for comments on this and whether anyone had started doing it.
RE confirmed that LACNIC had started doing it in order to increase transparency. He suggests all the RIRs do the same.
It was commented that other RIRs are working in similar initiatives.
Andrei joined the meeting at this time.
7. RSM proposals
a. Reservations, cessation
AP commented that he would like all to agree that they would not make any more reservations as from January 1st. Because PW had in the previous meeting expressed some thoughts on this, AP asked PW whether he was now OK with the idea now.
AP summarized the discussion by saying that everyone agreed to stop reservations in general starting January 1st, but will clarify the paragraph in Leslie’s paper that is not sufficiently clear.
New action item 111125-03: AP to contact Leslie about the paragraph in the RSM recommendations on reservations/cessation that says “reservations may continue for other purposes” so that it may be perfectly clarified.
New action item 111125-04: PW to write up his interpretation of the reservations agreement and then circulate that via email for its consideration in order to check whether everyone is in agreement.
a. Incorporation, issues from CFO meeting
AP said that the CFO had met some time ago and come up with a list of clarifications and possible changes they would like to see. Everyone said they were aware of this and AP said he would work on this.
b. Budget 2011 status
JC reported the following: that there is a draft NRO budget, that presumes the current operating model (no dedicated staffing even if incorporated). He said that if the NRO were to be incorporated there would be more expenses and asked if they would like him to budget for that. Two budgets?
AP said that preparing two budgets − one with and without incorporation − would be the most reasonable thing to do.
JC asked if there is assumption that there will be any staff paid for by the NRO (not NRO staff but perhaps staff employed by an RIR for convenience sake but who would be NRO funded) and if so, how many are there and what is there budget.
AP said that that information was not available yet and suggested that JC send what he has available along with all of his questions. It was agreed that the decision had been to have no more than one virtual headcount in the NRO.
9. UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation
AP said that he had received an invitation with a request to notify whether we wanted a speaking slot. He added that he was a little bit confused about why he had received that invitation and proposed that first of all we communicate with ICANN and tell them that we would like to speak ourselves and second to reply to this invitation he received and say “yes, we would like to speak”.
JC raised the question of who would be speaking. AP and RE said they would not be able to make it. JC said that he would do it.
New action item 111125-05: AP to reply to the UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation, indicating that JC would be the person speaking.
10. ASO Review, Status
AA said he still has to complete that and will do it soon.
11. ASO presence at ICANN Cartagena
AP said ARIN has been working with the AC on finalizing this and asked whether JC had anything to report.
JC confirmed that they have been working with the AC. JC added that perhaps he hadn’t been clear about this but that he thinks it’s important to understand that there’s five distinct RIRs and that they all have community involvement. He noted that of course he understands the budget issues involved and that perhaps if the regions can’t send a representative the NRO could provide some support.
AP agreed with JC’s assessment and would also be happy in sharing the cost as the NRO if needed.
RE wanted to confirm if he had understood correctly: the NRO will start to cover not only the ASO AC Chair’s expenses as always but also those of four other AC members to participate in every ICANN meeting.
JC replied that indeed that was his proposal.
RE said they should agree what kind of travel expenses the NRO would support (first class air travel, per diem, etc.). JC agreed.
PW expressed his reservations about this. As a general principle it might be worth considering whether the NRO wants to have five members at every meeting or whether it would be a better idea to be represented by the chair (elected by the group and probably well experienced and qualified to present a report).
AP said he understood PW’s problem. He added that at least for the first time he would like to have five distinct presentations.
AP concluded by saying that they will have to go through the experience and then decide what to do for the next meetings.
PW added that he’s also concerned about the budget implications of sending not one but five AC members to each ICANN meeting.
JC said they need to decide whether it is a shared NRO expense or an expense for the region that sends the person. ARIN is fine with either option but a decision is required.
RE suggested sending the chair and one more member from the region where the ICANN meeting is being held, as this would reduce the costs. RE proposed that the AC send 2 or 3 people to each ICANN meeting, rotating regions so everyone can participate and the RIRs spend less money.
JC said that they should tell the ASO AC that they are very interested in seeing how this first time goes and based on that perhaps the format will be modified to achieve the most cost effective and efficient participation.
All agreed that they should revisit this issue after the Cartagena meeting.
JC asked whether the expense for this meeting would be shared by the NRO or borne by the RIR, to which RE replied that in the future, if they agree to send less people, it would be fair to share the expenses.
AA said that for the future, if expenses are to be shared, the travel policy should be agreed as well.
For simplicity’s sake, JC suggested absorbing the costs for this meeting individually as RIRs and then, after this meeting, they can decide how the AC will decide who to send, the travel policy, and the agreement that it is a shared expense.
All agreed with JC’s suggestion.
12. I* retreat February Preparations
- Pre–‐meeting on 2 Feb
- Post–‐meeting NRO retreat on 5 Feb
Because the I* meeting is on 3-4 February, AP proposed having a half-day of full day meeting on February 2 and a regular NRO retreat day on 5 February.
RE said they need one day and a half for the NRO, all agreed.
After discussing several options, the following was decided: to meet on the afternoon of 2 February, continue the meeting on the afternoon of 4 February and finish on the morning of 5 February.
JC raised the following AOB: reverse servers mutual understanding document, mutual responsibilities.
JC said there had been comments, that PW had done a great job marking that up, that JC had filled in some pieces, that they had got clarification from Geoff Houston. JC said that unless anyone objected he was going to try to take this document, insert Geoff’s reference, add the signature page to the front, send it out to the NRO EC for review and then work to get it executed by ICANN. JC said he just wanted the go ahead and have an action item on this.
New action item 111125-06: JC to take the reverse servers mutual understanding document, insert Geoff Houston’s clarification and send it to the NRO EC for review.
PW proposed returning to the action item that involves writing to the ITU. He added that he thought it would be better at this stage to send a message of congratulations to the new ITU head and leave it at that.
AP said that that would be fine with him as well, adding that this action item is also loosely related to the NRO becoming a sector member.
There being nothing more to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 UTC.
Last modified on 28/01/2011