9 February 2006

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 060209

Teleconference, 15:12 UTC

Participants

Raul Echeberria, Chair
Ray Plzak, Secretary
Paul Wilson, Treasurer
Adiel Akplogan, Member
Axel Pawlik, Member

Observers

Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary

AGENDA

1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Approval of the Minutes
4. Action Items Overcome By Events (OBE)
5. Completed Action Items
6. Executive Council
7. ASO
8. ICANN
9. Internet Governance
10. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
11. Engineering Coordination Group (ECG)
12. Any Other Business
13. Adjournment

1. Welcome

Chair called the meeting to order at 15:12 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. PW asked for a discussion on NRO Distribution Items. The Chair added it as item 10. C.  The Chair then suggested adding a discussion on the resolution of the EC reimbursing the ASO AC Chair for travel to ICANN meetings, etc. This was added as item 7. F  Reimbursement for Address Council Members.

3. Approval of the Minutes

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of November 8, 2005 as written.”

This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.

Chair noted that in the minutes of November 22, 2006, the first two items needed to be amended.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of November 22, 2005 as amended by the Chair.”

This was seconded by AP.  Chair asked RP to verify status of the 2 first items before publishing the minutes to the website.  RP agreed. The motion carried unanimously.

4. Action Items Overcome By Events (OBE)

RP explained that these topics could be closed because A. will fall under the CCG’s work plan and the timeframe for items B and C has expired. RP suggested these topics be ‘closed’.  There were no objections.

A. NRO Website.
CCG Chair to provide Requirements Definitions of the NRO Website. (NRO EC 05-70 050907) (AP)
NRO EC Chair tasked the Chair of the CCG to come up with requirements definitions of the NRO website.  CLOSED.

B. ICANN Strategic Plan. (NRO EC 05-74 050907) (RP)
Compile all of the NRO EC member’s comments regarding ICANN’s Strategic Plan. CLOSED.

C. ICANN Strategic Plan. (NRO EC 05-96 051027) (RP)
EC to take “regionalization” into consideration when commenting on ICANN’s Strategic Plan. CLOSED.

5. Completed Action Items

RP stated that this was an informational item for the EC, as a list of completed action items.

A. Guam Region Issue. (NRO EC 05-91 051027) (RP, PW)
Work together on an answer to ICANN regarding the interest expressed by some organizations from Guam regarding their belonging to a given service region. The Chair suggested that the general problem should continue to be analyzed. There were no objections. CLOSED.

B. Brisbane Meeting. (NRO EC 05-99 051108) (NRO EC)
To indicate to PW if the EC would like to go to Brisbane, stating possible dates and what activities the EC would like to be involved in while there. CLOSED.

C. ICANN/Verisign Agreements. (NRO EC 05-100 051108) (RP)
To compile comments regarding the agreements between ICANN and Verisign. CLOSED.

6. Executive Council

A. Global IPv6 Policy. Policy has been accepted by all regions but RIPE NCC. AP stated that discussion was still on-going, and that there is concern about the amount of discussion that has taken place. He remarked that the Chair of the working group, Hans Petter Holen (HPH), has been contacted on the progress the RIPE community would like to see. The Chair asked if AP felt the policy would be ready for discussion at the next RIPE meeting.  RP replied that at the ASO AC meeting, HPH mentioned it was still in progress, and the policy may have to go through another discussion period at the next RIPE meeting.  AP was in agreement with this statement.

B. NRO Incorporation. (NRO EC 05-81 051019) The Chair stated that he had sent document to the EC for review.  He explained that he had contacted legal counsel and counsel had worked on the last version of the document. The Chair asked the EC to review the new wording. The EC agreed with the new version of the document. PW stated that he did not feel the need to refer to the MOU in the document, however, he agreed with the new versions as they were.

AA joined the call at this time (15:35 UTC). The Chair asked AA if he reviewed the documents. AA stated he had reviewed the documents and agreed with the new wording as well.  The Chair called for any further comments.  The following editorial comments were made:

In 1.5:  PW, AP and RP proposed having no limits to the number of times to serve in the AC.  The Chair proposed to delete ‘… and they may be re-elected for X successive terms.” There were no objections.

In 1.6 (last paragraph): the Chair suggested “…at least four times a year, but as such other times as needed.” RP suggested it say “at least four times a year.”, and that any additional meetings are implied because it would indicate that at least four times a year they would need to meet. There were no objections

In Article 15 and 18: AP suggested replacing the word “anticipation” with “notice period” throughout the document for clarity. There were no objections.

In Article 13 AP also suggested changing ‘are willing’ deleted to “willing”. There were no objections.

The Chair tasked RP to make the necessary amendments to the document.  RP agreed. The Chair requested the document be reviewed on RIR Board’s list.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC recommends that the RIR Boards adopt the NRO Constitution and the NRO Member’s Agreement as amended.”

This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.

PW asked what the plan was for where and when the document would be signed. RP replied that after the RIR Boards agree on the document, a date and place would be set for the signing.

The EC decided the deadline for the Board’s actions on the document should be completed by Monday April 3, 2006. RP recommended the Chair send the message to the Boards. The Chair agreed he would do so after RP made the amendments agreed upon above.

C. IANA Contract. (NRO EC 05-102 051122)  RP stated that this document has not been reviewed by legal counsel and that it was for the EC to review first. Then, it would be sent to legal counsel.

AP requested an edit to Section 5., deleting “of this price”. RP stated he would make the change.  There were no objections.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC accepts the IANA Contract as amended, and forwards it to the NRO legal team to review and return no later than Noon UTC 28 February 2006.”

This was seconded by PW. The motion carried unanimously.  The Chair stated he will send the amended document to the NRO legal team.

D. Operation of Coordination Groups. RP explained that he had made one change, based on a comment he had received on the document, which was to change the coordination group drafting the Charter to the EC drafting the Charter. He further explained that adopting the plan, not the Charter itself, at this time would create a framework for establishing all future coordination groups.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC adopts the Plan for the Operation of Coordination Groups.”

This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously. RP stated he would send the Charter for the two coordination groups to the EC list for review.

E. Operation of Ad hoc Groups. RP stated that comments made by PW were incorporated into the document and restated the responsibility for drafting the Charter for the Adhoc group also lies with the EC. He stated he named it “ad hoc” because there should not be a formal coordination group for issues such as finances or policies due to possible anti-trust issues.  There were no objections.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC adopts the plan for the operation of Ad hoc Groups.”

This was seconded by PW. The motion carried unanimously.

The Chair stated he will inform the groups of the respective plans of operation.

F. Management of “Various Registries” Address Space. (05-72 050907) RP explained that this is a document by which the RIRS can allocate or assign address space from the IANA registry which is called ‘various registries” which came about through the ERX process. It would be distributed as evenly and closely as possible to a /16 among the five RIRs. Whoever would be responsible for the /8 would also be responsible for the DNS.  Two of the /16’s are held as IANA reserve,  but there is an RFC which states these can be used for allocation by an RIR and are no longer required to be in reserve. IANA needs to be made aware of this. He further stated that David Conrad, at IANA, has staff cleaning up the file for v4 address space, and that this management of various registries will be part of that project.

The Chair asked about 196/8. RP stated that 196/8 is listed as “various registries”, and that AFRINIC has been using it. Therefore, it was not considered as part of address space to be distributed.

PW stated he needed more time to consider this issue. The Chair felt that a resolution should be postponed until the next meeting. There were no objections.

G. Meeting Schedule.  The Chair stated the schedule was sent to the EC’s list. RP let the EC know this was an attempt to effectively plan the EC’s time. He stated the meetings would be on the 1st Tuesday of every other month, but that it didn’t preclude the EC from either canceling a meeting or from having meetings face to face if individual schedules allowed, outside of this regularly scheduled meeting plan.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC adopts the Meeting Schedule of the Executive Council as presented.”

This was seconded by AA. The motion carried unanimously. The Chair asked RP to send procedures for calling a meeting so that it may be discussed at the EC’s next meeting. He also requested a complete list of all the EC’s planned meeting attendance for 2006, so that they may plan their face to face meetings. RP stated he would handle these tasks for the Chair.

H. Harmonizing IPv4 Allocation Practices. RP stated this was an informational item for the EC’s information regarding consumption of v4 address space and the practices used by the RIRs for allocation and assignment of said space.  The differences between the RIR’s practices relates to the rate of consumption. RP suggested an action be created to be considered at the next EC meeting.

PW agreed with the document, but did not agree that the justification was sufficiently explained and may need to be developed into a proposal to go before the policy forums of the RIRs being affected. RP suggested tasking the registration managers of each RIR as an ad hoc group with crafting a proposal.

The Chair stated that the EC can make this recommendation, but that they do not have a role in deciding anything.

The Chair also stated that the total amount of address space consumed totally by the RIRs should be addressed; and, the need to emphasize the firmness of the solution of the IP addresses among the five regions will be improved. He stated that while total consumption of IP addresses will not be changed significantly, there would be more fairness to the distribution of the IP addresses.

RP recommend the EC task the ad hoc group of registration managers of each RIR to look into these issues and the document.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC recommends that all five RIRs harmonize their IPv4 allocation practices.”

PW seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

RP stated that a document needed to be sent to the ad hoc group of registration managers stating that the EC wants the RIRs to harmonize their practices and to provide specific guidance to them.  He stated that an EC volunteer was needed to draft the document.  PW volunteered to draft the document for the RIR registration managers, and then report back to the EC on what course of action will be taken. There were no objections.

At this time (16:45 UTC) the Chair requested this meeting be adjourned at 17:15 UTC, and that the items not discussed would be discussed at the next meeting. There were no objections.

7. ASO

A.  ASO AC New Members Welcoming Procedure. (Re: NRO EC 05-101 051108) PW stated that he had made some edits to the document and briefed the EC on those edits. RP stated he agreed with the edits and if everyone else agreed, this document will go back to the ASO AC as the document they should follow. There were no objections to the document as written.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC approves ASO AC New Members Welcoming Procedure as amended.”

This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.

B. ASO AC ICANN Board Selection Procedures. RP commented that some comments were made earlier by PW regarding further review of the procedure. RP stated he had also received a change from the AC to remove the general assembly from the document. RP agreed with PW that the document needed to be edited. He explained that the following motion meant that the process will remain in effect for this year, but the procedure will be revised in the future.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC having reviewed the legacy Procedure for the Selection ICANN Board Members, directs the ASO AC to conduct the selection for ICANN Board Members for the year 2006 using the legacy Procedure as presented. The NRO EC informs the ASO AC that it will provide guidance for the revision of the Procedure for the Selection of ICANN Board Members.”

This was seconded by AA. The motion carried unanimously.

C. Procedure for the Selection of ASO AC Chair. RP stated he didn’t believe the EC ever approved this procedure and that it needed to be done, but also that review and possible revisions to the procedure needed to be made.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC, having reviewed the ASO AC Chair Selection Procedure, advises the ASO AC that it will provide guidance for the revision of the Procedure for the Selection of the ASO AC Chair.”

This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.

D. ASO AC Operating Procedures. RP stated that the ASO AC needs procedures in which to conduct their business. PW had made edits previously, and there were no objections to the edits made.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the ASO AC Operating Procedures as amended.”

This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.

E.  RIR Observers at ASO AC Meetings. RP reported that at the last ASO AC teleconference, there was concern expressed over the fact that not all of the RIRs were represented by their observers at ASO AC’s meetings. It was felt the presence of observers from each RIR was an important part of the meetings.  This was noted by the EC.

F. Reimbursement for Address Council Members. RP recommended that the Treasurer draft a process and present it to the EC.  He stated that the previous Treasurer had done this last year but with no formal resolution to the issue, and that he could send PW these documents as a guide to draft a revised document for review.  PW agreed. The Chair stated that the Chair of the ASO AC will attend the ICANN meeting in Wellington and the RIRs will split the cost. There were no objections.

8. ICANN

A. GAC Meeting. The Chair stated that the NRO is planning to participate in the GAC meeting at the ICANN meeting in Wellington, NZ, but no action has yet been taken. He proposed he contact the Chair of GAC including the CEO of the respective region to coordinate this effort. PW mentioned that he did e-mail the Chair of the GAC a few months ago, but had not received a response. RP stated that the EC has made presentations at several GAC meetings, and at the last meeting a format was created to the presentation to include: status of numbers; summary of all policy proposals in all the regions, etc.  He felt this was an effective presentation, showing all of the work the RIRs were producing. PW asked who should make the presentation. It was agreed that the Chair of the EC, or in his absence the CEO of the RIR in the locale of the ICANN meeting, should be the presenter.

The Chair stated that he would send communication to the Chair of the GAC on the following two points: 1) the EC would offer to continue to participate; and, 2) propose to meet with the relevant people of the GAC to continue discussions concerning regional GAC meetings.

B. NRO Finance. (NRO EC 05-83 051019) RP stated that a message had been sent to ICANN stating the NRO has agreed that the amount for ICANN’s fiscal year ‘06 should be $823,000 USD.

At this point, the Chair proposed discussing item 9. B, below, and requested that the rest of the items be discussed at the EC’s next regularly scheduled meeting. There were no objections.

C. ASO Status Report at ICANN Meetings. (05-76 051019) Tabled until the next EC meeting.

D. Review of the ASO. RP to lead discussion.

E. RIR COI Posture. (NRO EC 05-56 050809) Chair to lead.
Follow up on the RIR Conflict of Interest posture, and prepare a consistent statement to the ICANN Board regarding this topic.

9. Internet Governance

A. ITU. Tabled until the next EC meeting.

1) NRO Procedures for Communicating with the ITU. (NRO EC 05-95 051027)
2) Letter to the ITU regarding NRO participation in the ITU Plenipotentiary.
(NRO EC 05-98 051108)
3) ITU Liaison.

B. Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Chair stated that he had drafted a document, and proposed sending it to the EC, via e-mail, to review in order to present it at the meeting in Geneva.

AA requested the EC consider supporting the IGF activities regarding connectivity at the venue, etc. which was informally requested of him by Marcus Kumur. The Chair stated he must receive the request from the individual formally in a proposal, and that any requests of this kind in the future be handled likewise. All agreed.

10. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)

Tabled until the next EC meeting.

A. CCG Work Plan.
B. ASO Website.
C. NRO Distribution Items

11. Engineering Coordination Group (ECG)

Tabled until the next EC meeting.

A. NRO Server Placement. (NRO EC 04-78 041203)
B. List of Actions Items from the ECG Chair. (NRO EC 05-46 050609)
C. Define Backup/Recovery Plan Requirements. (NRO EC 05-69 050907)

12. Any Other Business

Tabled until the next EC meeting.

13. Adjournment

The Chair moved to adjourn at 17:22 UTC.   There were no objections.

Comments are closed.