Participants
Axel Pawlik (AP) – RIPE NCC
Raul Echeberria (RE) – LACNIC
Ray Plzak (RP) – ARIN
Paul Wilson (PW) – APNIC
Observer and note taker German Valdez (GV) – LACNIC
At 11:15 UTC the Chair convened the meeting.
AGENDA
1. Agenda bashing
2. Approval of last minutes
3. Open actions
4. Communication with CCG and ECG
5. ICANN – Budget Advisory Group
6. Liaisons (GAC/ITU/IETF)
7. Conflict of interests
8. Meeting Procedures
9. Allocation Practices
10. Response to WGIG report
11. Activities in PrepCom III
12. Participation in ISOC Pavilion in WSIS
13. IANA / ICANN agreement
14. NRO incorporation documents
15. Deprecation of ip6.int
16. AOB
AP Open the teleconference at 11:05 UTC
1) Agenda bashing
RP proposed moving item 8 to number 3. This was agreed. The next topics change numbers
5) Communication with CCG and ECG
6) ICANN – Budget Advisory Group
7) Liaisons (GAC/ITU/IETF)
8) Conflict of interests
2) Approval of last minutes
RP mentioned that he did not understand Action Item NRO EC 05-54 050721 of the draft minutes from last meeting.
AP suggested striking this action point; this motion was approved and the actions renumbered.
Having made this correction, there being no further observations, the minutes from the last teleconference were approved.
3) Meeting procedure
RP: Made an observation that there is duplication between open action items and agenda items. RP proposed add to the agenda only new things. Open action items will show up in every agenda as old business and can be discussed before discussing new business.
This was agreed.
RP: Today we can strike from the agenda those matters that we discuss under the open actions item.
This was agreed. Consequently, agenda items 8 (conflicts of interest), 12 (Participation in ISOC Pavilion in WSIS), 15 (Deprecation of ip6.int) were stricken from the agenda.
4) Open actions
GV proceeded to read the list of open actions.
Final status of open action is attached at the end of these minutes.
Comments of actions which are part of topics of the original agenda are included in this section. Comments on actions which produce new actions after reviewing are also included.
NRO EC 05-49 050721
ALL: General discussion that has to result in a position statement from the NRO to the ICANN board in relation to these conflicts of interests; this statement must cover more than just the members from our particular interest group but also members from other interest groups.
RP: There was considerable discussion on this matter at the ICANN meeting in Luxemburg; I think once we get our own houses in order in terms of our relationships with each other it probably be consistent to make a statement to the ICANN board regarding conflict of interest. We need to assign someone to do this.
AP volunteered.
STATUS CLOSED AND REPLACED BY
NEW ACTION
NRO EC 05-56 050809.
AP. Follow up the RIR conflict of interest posture and prepare a consistent statement to the ICANN Board regarding to this topic
NRO EC 05-52 050721
AP To send a note to the ambassador Khan thanking him for the opportunity to participate in the meeting this week and saying one more time that the NRO is very interested in participating in everything and that we hope to work closely with him, etc.
AP will send the message after RE provides him with the e-mail address.
STATUS OPEN
NEW ACTION
NRO EC 05-57 050809
RE Send Ambassador Khan email address to AP
NRO EC 05-53 050721
AP To add to the thank you note to Ambassador Khan a request for a tentative schedule of the meetings of the subcommittees during Prepcom III.
AP: This action is somewhat overtaken now because the schedule is known. I will ask which subcommittee meetings will be open to the public and which will not.
STATUS OVERTAKEN
NEW ACTION
NRO EC 05-58 050809
AP. Ask Ambassador which subcommittee meetings will be open to the public and which will not during Prepcom III.
NRO EC 05-54 050721
PW To find out about the deadline for presenting our contribution and about other contributions and contents.
PW: Stated that the deadline is mid-September. The NRO EC can provide its own document, I’ve got to sign the agreement and the payment can be made anytime within 30 days, APNIC can do this. The question is whether to have the CCG work on this or should we work on it ourselves?
RP: Based on our past experience with this kind of papers, I believe it’s quicker to do this by ourselves.
STATUS CLOSED
NEW ACTION
NRO EC 05-59 050809
PW. To start working on a paper for the WSIS publication.
NRO EC 05-55 050721. RP
To talk to Lynn St Amour and ask her about what the participation (in an Internet pavilion during WSIS in Tunisia) would entail and how we can participate in a meaningful manner.
RP: will engage in a conversation with Lynn, but it won’t be possible to do this sooner than a week and a half from now.
PW: Regarding the material that we will have at the exhibition, I think posters and brochures only go so far. Perhaps something multimedia would be more in keeping with the style of the event.
RP: Agrees with PW, actually there is people working on a couple of proposed items that will be presented to the CCG in the near future, and multimedia is definitely the way to go. Someone needs to write the CCG a tasking note so we could have some multimedia material. I’m willing to do this.
STATUS ONGOING
NEW ACTION
NRO EC 05-60 050809
RP. To write a tasking note for the CCG regarding the preparation of multimedia material.
NRO EC 05-44 050609. AP
To prepare a document, taking in consideration the agreements made in Mar del Plata, regarding the solicitude of designation of GAC Liaison to RIR and shares the document to the EC List.
AP: Actually the document was sent to the GAC chair and secretariat some time ago, in June and yesterday I sent a reminder but I have heard nothing back yet.
RE: We agreed in Mar del Plata with Thomas de Haan and others from the GAC to create a list in order to develop together the liaison agreement. Maybe this is the way to move: to create a list with from the GAC. Perhaps we can ask Thomas how to move ahead, as it was his proposal
RP: I suggest that AP, in his note to Sharyl, could inquire whether they still want us to move forward with this list, and bring up the fact that there are two people who have not been firmly identified to be liaison members.
STATUS CLOSED
NEW ACTION
NRO EC 05-61 050809
AP.Write a note to Sharyl to request a response to the document sent to the GAC Chair and Secretariat regarding the designation of liaisons.
NRO EC 05-47 050609. AP
To send a message to RIR Engineering chair team to coordinate a plan for deprecation of ip6.int
AP: I have a plan and I received a mail from Frederico yesterday asking for advice on this.
RP:. The question we have is when do we stop putting addresses into that domain, and not even that is a matter of policy because the provision is that we have to provide reverse mapping and we do that in the ip6.arpa domain. It’s really about following whatever schedule the administrator of the ip6.int domain establishes.
PW: Geoff Huston created a draft. This draft said that the RIRs would determine the timing of the deprecation or when the service would be discontinued. As far as I know it’s on track to go to RFC any day now.
RP: I suggest that we let the RFC fly and when it gets published we can take that under advisement and when we communicate back to the IETF we will need some kind of procedure for this. This is a political decision.
AP: In conclusion, we won’t take any action until we’ve seen the text of the published RFC.
STATUS CLOSED
5) Communication with CCG and ECG
RP: I re-circulated the document that Paul and I drafted a year ago, but it’s never really been discussed.
AP: propose that we read the paper and discuss this at the next meeting.
This was agreed. It was also agreed that if anyone has any comments they can be sent to the list.
6) ICANN – Budget Advisory Group
RE: We should continue discussing our position regarding our contribution to the ICANN budget should be.
RP: I need to send a document which is the other proposed contract.
7) Liaisons (GAC/ITU/IETF)
RP: The ARIN board believes it’s important to open up some means of communication so that we routinely provide the ITU with information about policy discussions that are occurring in the different regions and encourage the ITU to participate in theses discussions.
PW: Could you please explain the distinction between your idea and a formal liaison?
RE: The LACNIC board has not discussed it yet.
NRO EC 05-62 050809
RP. To explain his proposal regarding opening a means of communication with the ITU.
AP: What about the IETF liaison?
RP: We also discussed that and there’s the question of whether we want to have a liaison with the IETF. I believe the board would be favorably disposed to a liaison, but before making a proposal to the IETF regarding a liaison we should ask them whether they are in fact interested in such a proposal.
NRO EC 05-63 050809
AP. To contact the IETF chairs with the question of whether or not a continued liaison between NRO and IETF is seen as a benefit to the IETF.
9) Allocation practices
RP: Just a reminder that this issue is on the agenda for the meeting between the service registration managers in Hanoi. We have to consider how we are going to more closely align our practices while at the same time we don’t have a collusion of processes and procedures that are outside the policy arena
RE: What we can do at EC level is to express our willingness to apply the same criteria and practices.
AP: I think it’s a good idea to get together and compare notes on how things are being done. It’s interesting to know the differences among the difference regions
RP: it’s important that we sit down and discuss this, and the people that know what those practices are need to make sure that they construct a matrix so that it’s understandable, which is why we were all invited to this meeting.
After discussing possible dates for this meeting and member availability, the date of Thursday September 8Th during the afternoon was proposed.
10) Response to WGIG report
RE: There’s a deadline for comments (August 15). We should decide whether we want to submit comments.
RP: I believe I did say something to the effect that we were favorably reflected in it.
RE: I think we can make some comments. From my point of view the most important outcome of this process, not only the WGIG report, is the consolidation of the Geneva principles and we have the opportunity of implementing those principles in every organization involved in Internet governance.
RP: Perhaps RE should draft a proposed comment to the WGIG report since he has a strong opinion that comments should be presented.
RE: From my point of view the other key issue in the WGIG report is the position in the sense that no single government should exercise any oversight on any internet matter. Are we in agreement on this?
RP: I don’t think that anyone would object the idea that no one government should be dominating the Internet. So, once RE prepares a draft of his proposed comments he can send it back to us for comments.
NRO EC 05-64 050809
RE. To prepare a draft for comments to WGIG report and send it to NRO EC list for comments.
11) Activities in PrepCom III
RP: What we really need to know is when the open sessions are, know the schedule. Internet governance is on the agenda almost every day. I’m willing to stay in Europe for two weeks, maybe spending some time at the NCC offices.
PW: Personally I’m not keen on spending two weeks in Geneva, We could exchange e-mails on our travel plans so we can figure out who’s going to be doing what and when.
RP: Regarding the workshop, there’s not enough time to have the CCG go through the workshop, but I do think we do need to get going with the workshop, as it’s scheduled for Tuesday. I can take on the task of putting together something for the proposed workshop.
NRO EC 05-65 050809
RP. To put together something for the proposed workshop during PrepCom III.
13) IANA / ICANN agreement
AP: I think that Ray is going to talk to his lawyer and come back to us about this, right?
RP: I’ll do that.
14) NRO incorporation documents
AP: I believe the lawyers are working on the articles of the bylaws.
RP: Yes, I’ve got a scheduled discussion with my lawyer today, we’d like to go ahead and host the signing ceremony at the ARIN meeting in Los Angeles.
PW: Our lawyer has also given us some advice which I haven’t yet had time to consider in detailt. But I think that the approach we should take is to make a checklist based on the NRO MoU and see that everything is covered either in the NRO constitution or the membership agreement.
RP: We have to make sure that the two basic law systems that are in operation here come to an agreement in discussion of terms.
RE: We should to divide this discussion and consider on the one hand the political issues and on the other the technical, legal issues; then we can assess those issues during our next meeting and leave the legal issues to the lawyers.
AP: Let’s see what the next version of the documents says.
RE: Is the last set of documents that were prepared by our lawyers satisfactory in terms of structure or do you think that is something else necessary?
PW: I think it makes sense to have the constitution and the membership agreement. As far as I can see the structure is OK, our lawyers haven’t raised any issues, but we need to review the content and see if we are in agreement, if we’ve covered all the bases.
16) AOB
a) Milton Mueller Document
PW: I have no problem preparing a response to this proposal.
NRO EC 05-66 050809
PW To prepare a response to Milton Mueller’s proposal in collaboration with Geoff, and try to have a draft as soon as possible.
b) Provide information regarding global policy discussion
RP: I suggest we formalize this and get it into some procedure. We should sketch out something for a response to Axel on this matter. If we undertake this we should institutionalize it and have a routine whereby we update and post to our website, it would also fall into how we communicate policies to other interested bodies.
RE: I think they are two different things. One thing is what you are proposing, we can consider that although in my opinion the policy comparison matrix is enough for now. The other thing is to answer specific questions.
AP: We can have a look at what Ray proposes.
RP: If we do it ourselves at least we can have the information internally available. We could also use this information for the GAC. This data will have a number of uses, we need to have something on our website.
AP: I propose discussing this on the list.
This proposal was agreed.
c) Next meeting
After discussing members’ availability, it was decided that the next NRO EC meeting will be held early in the morning of September 8 in Hanoi.
RP mentioned that Adiel Akplogan was not present and that previously it had been decided to consult those not present before moving forward with the actions. It was agreed that this will be done when the minutes are complete.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 13:00 UTC.
NEW ACTION LIST
NRO EC 05-56 050809
AP. Follow up the RIR conflict of interest posture and prepare a consistent statement to the ICANN Board regarding to this topic
NRO EC 05-57 050809
RE Send Ambassador Khan email address to AP
NRO EC 05-58 050809
AP. Ask Ambassador Khan which subcommittee meetings will be open to the public and which will not during Prepcom III.
NRO EC 05-59 050809
PW. To start working on a paper for the WSIS publication.
NRO EC 05-60 050809
RP. To write a tasking note for the CCG regarding the preparation of multimedia material for the NRO’s participation in the Internet Pavillion during the Summit in Tunis.
NRO EC 05-61 050809
AP.Write a note to Sharyl to request a response to the document sent to the GAC Chair and Secretariat regarding the designation of liaisons.
NRO EC 05-62 050809
RP. To explain his proposal regarding opening a means of communication with the ITU.
NRO EC 05-63 050809
AP. To contact the IETF chairs with the question of whether or not a continued liaison between NRO and IETF is seen as a benefit to the IETF.
NRO EC 05-64 050809
RE. To prepare a draft for comments to WGIG report and send it to NRO EC list for comments.
NRO EC 05-65 050809
RP. To put together something for the proposed workshop during PrepCom III.
NRO EC 05-66 050809
PW To prepare a response to Milton Mueller’s proposal in collaboration with Geoff and try to have a draft as soon as possible.
PREVIOUS OPEN ACTIONS
NRO EC 05-50 050721
RP. Coordinate with Richard and Federico to work on a backup and recovery plan to use in case of a catastrophic RIR failure.
NRO EC 05-51 050721
RP. To coordinate with ASO AC Chair a procedure for collaborative work between ASO AC and NRO and report back to the EC.
NRO EC 05-52 050721
AP To send a note to the ambassador Khan thanking him for the opportunity to participate in the meeting this week and saying one more time that the NRO is very interested in participating in everything and that we hope to work closely with him, etc.
NRO EC 05-55 050721
RP. To talk to Lynn and ask her about what the participation would entail and how we can participate in a meaningful manner.
NRO EC 05-46 050609
RP. To request a list of actions items to the ECG Chair
NRO-EC 05-22 050315:
RP To prepare one last version of a document of contract services with our comments on this and send it to the EC.
NRO-EC 04-78, 041203:
RP to draft plan regarding NRO server placement.
NRO-EC 04-46, 040616:
RP to draft request to delegate in-addr.arpa to the NRO. need to look at ipv6.arpa and v6.int, too.
Last modified on 09/08/2005