Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 060418

Teleconference , 12:11 UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

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

Other Attendees:

Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary
Stephen M. Ryan, ARIN Counsel


1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Approval of the Minutes
4. Executive Council
5. ASO
7. Internet Governance
8. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
9. Any Other Business
10. Adjournment
A. Exhibit A

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:11 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted. Ray Plzak asked if there were any observers on the call. There were no observers.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

Ray Plzak moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of the February 28, 2006 NRO EC meeting as presented.”

This was seconded by Axel Pawlik.  The motion carried unanimously.

4. Executive Council

A. NRO Incorporation. (NRO EC 05-81 051019)  Ray explained that the Chair sent the document to the RIR Board’s list. Since posted, members of RIPE NCC Board have objected to the incorporation. Axel explained they have expressed disagreement with the document. Although they do not object to the incorporation, they are questioning if it’s necessary to incorporate the NRO at this time.

The Chair stated there is nothing more to discuss on this item, as it is on the RIR Board’s agendas. He stated he will remind them that the deadline for having a position regarding the incorporation document was April 3, 2006, and that the EC has heard only from the RIPE NCC Board. Axel agreed with this action.

Ray Plzak asked if each Board should take formal action. The Chair responded that each Board needs to express their thoughts regarding the document, and that LACNIC will do this next Thursday.

There being no further action on the part of the EC, the Chair closed this action item. All Agreed.

B. IANA Contract. (NRO EC 05-102 051122)  The Chair sent the version of the contract, as elaborated by legal counsel, to the EC and comments had been received from Ray Plzak. The Chair stated the EC needs to decide what revisions need to be made on the contract, and that they need to submit it to the RIR Boards for consideration. The Chair proposed meeting for 30 to 45 minutes in Istanbul to go over the contract in order to submit a clean version to the RIR Boards. It was decided that if any EC members could not make the meeting in person, teleconferencing would be available.

Ray Plzak asked if anyone had comments on the comments he had sent regarding the contract. The Chair stated that some of Ray’s comments were more difficult to address than others, but had no problem with the corrections that Ray suggested.

It was noted that Axel Pawlik would coordinate the EC meeting, warning that it may need to be early in the morning. The EC agreed with a morning meeting.

C. Charter for the Communication Coordination Group. (NRO EC 06-02 060209) The Chair stated he received a comment from Susan Hamlin on the Charter regarding a typographical error, and that it had been resolved. There were no further comments.

D. Charter for the Engineering Coordination Group. (NRO EC 06-03 060209)  The Chair stated he received a comment from Ginny Listman, and will send it to the EC’s list for review.

E. Management of “Various Registries” Address Space. (05-72 050907) Ray Plzak stated he will send the status of all current address space with the distribution of a /24 to /9 (the largest aggregation for each /8 to the EC’s list.  The Chair stated that this item remains open until the EC has the data, and will then discuss the topic further.

F. EC Meeting Schedule. (NRO EC 06-04 060209)

A. Procedures for Calling a Meeting. RP will send the procedures to the list before the next EC meeting. Chair stated that a set of simple procedures will be satisfactory.

B. EC Planned Meeting Attendance for 2006. RP sent the matrix of attendance to the Chair for deciding where the EC will have a face to face meeting. This item has been closed.

G. Harmonizing IPv4 Allocation Practices. (NRO EC 06-05 060209) The Chair proposed to take two actions:

1. Adopt a twelve-month allocation period.
2. Analyze the harmony of IPv4 practices, and draft a report according to the Charter of the group.

Ray Plzak stated that he has been doing a statistical analysis of RIRs allocation activities. The Chair asked if the analysis suggests specific tests for resolution. Ray replied that, depending on the outcome of the effort, it could be that it makes no difference what the period of time is, thus, no action would be needed,  or it could be a an issue leading to decide what to harmonize on.

The Chair called for other’s opinions. Paul Wilson stated he was interested in the results of Ray’s analysis because it could be an issue that needs to be addressed, and it was important to know what the facts are. He thanked Ray for his efforts.

Ray stated that he could provide preliminary information by the end of the week, and there would be questions that needed to be addressed before the EC could move forward.

Adiel Akplogan joined the call at this time (12:44 UTC).

H. Routing Certification. Ray Plzak stated there were two items: 1) Axel had proposed a meeting in Istanbul; and, 2) the EC needs to discuss what is going on in each region.

Axel stated he wanted to meet in order to discuss where this should go and to coordinate with each other. Ray suggested discussing this item at the meeting in Istanbul and all agreed.  It was confirmed that Adiel would be unable to attend in person, but would be available to via teleconference.

I.  Registration Services (RS) Manager’s List of Meeting Topics. (Exhibit A attached) The Chair stated that the RS Managers stated the desire to hold a face to face meeting, proposing during the upcoming LACNIC meeting in Guatemala next month, but the Chair stated it could be held anywhere. Ray stated that he had sent the list of topics the managers wanted to discuss to the EC list and stated the EC needed to agree if these topics needed to be worked on. He also asked if the EC felt it necessary for the managers to meet face to face to address the topics.

The EC agreed that there could be an RS Managers meeting during the LACNIC meeting. The Chair stated that further comments be sent to the EC’s list within the next 2 weeks.

5. ASO

A. ASO AC Document Review Committee. (NRO EC 06-13 060228)  At the last meeting it was established that Paul Wilson would be the primary shepherd for the ASO AC ICANN Board Selection Procedures; and, Ray Plzak would be the primary shepherd for the Procedure for the Selection of ASO AC Chair.  There was no update at this time. Ray stated that the Board’s procedure needed work and that he needs to discuss the document with Paul. Ray suggested revising the document and re-submitting it to the ASO AC in a few months for the procedure to be in place by September or October.  All agreed.

B. Reimbursement for Address Council Members. (NRO EC 06-08 060209) Ray Plzak stated he needs to send prior documents from previous years to the Treasurer to assist him in developing an updated document. He explained that he is working on this document.

At 13: 16 UTC, in the interest of time, the Chair requested item 6 A, B and C be discussed on the EC’s list. PW stated that he had sent an e-mail to the EC on item 6 A and had no issue with discussing the rest via e-mail.


A. Report on GNSO Review. (06-15 041806) PW and RP were interviewed by Oliver Pearce re: the GNSO Review. Item to be discussed on EC’s list.

B. RIR COI Posture. (NRO EC 05-56 050809) The Chair and AP will work together to follow up on the RIR Conflict of Interest posture, and prepare a consistent statement to the ICANN Board regarding this topic.  Item to be discussed on the EC’s list.

C. Treasurer’s Report. PW had a meeting with Kurt Pritz at the ICANN meeting in Wellington. Item to be discussed on the EC’s list.

7. Internet Governance


1) Letter to the ITU regarding NRO participation in the ITU Plenipotentiary. (NRO EC 05-98 051108) The Chair stated that this letter has been postponed until ITU Liaison (# 2, below) had been discussed.

2) ITU Liaison. (06-16 060209) The Chair stated that the proposal is done and called for comments. Adiel Akplogan stated he was in favor of moving forward.

The Chair proposed moving forward with an established liaison with the ITU, and combine this action with a letter stating that an established liaison is just one of the steps the NRO EC is taking. The NRO expects to have more participation in different ITU processes, specifically, having more participation in Plenipotentiary process. He stated if the EC agrees, he would forward this information tomorrow. All agreed.  The Chair stated he would send the letter to the EC before sending it to ITU-T SEC tomorrow.

3) Korean IPv6 Paper. The Chair asked if there was any action the EC should take regarding this issue. Discussion ensued. It was the sense of the EC that a cover letter be drafted to the representative governments, with copies of papers written by constituents on the subject.

4) Hong Kong ITU Meeting.  Ray Plzak stated that this meeting is being held at the same time the ICANN meeting is happening in Sao Paulo later this year.  He felt that this ITU meeting would be a good venue to set up an NRO information booth and also noted the discussion of the Zhao paper could take place at this meeting.

The Chair stated that someone could be sent to this meeting, and would speak with Richard Hill.

B. Internet Governance Forum (IGF). (NRO EC 06-10 060209) The Chair stated there was no update at this time.

C. Funding for IGF SEC.  The Chair stated that he spoke with Marcus Kummer in Wellington during the ICANN meeting and discussed the EC’s willingness to contribute, but that the EC wanted to wait for others to contribute before committing.

D. NRO Representative for IGF Advisory Group. The Chair stated that tomorrow was the last day for submitting names for nomination. He will submit the names of the RIR CEOs as nominees to the Advisory group to Marcus Kummer.

8. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)

A. ASO Website. (NRO EC 06-11 060228) Ray Plzak stated that Louis Lee, ARIN-region ASO AC member, is to meet with him on this matter. He expects to discuss the topic with Louis to move it forward, and now that there is a CCG, they can be requested to work on it.

9. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.  The Chair stated a meeting is scheduled for Monday evening in Istanbul between the ASO AC and the NRO EC to discuss the relationship between the NRO EC and the ASO AC, but he cannot make this meeting. Ray Plzak suggested rescheduling the meeting for later in the week. All agreed.

10. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 13:44 UTC.   Ray Plzak moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by AA.  The Chair thanked Ray for his work on the agenda. The motion carried unanimously.


Registration Services Manager’s
Meeting Topics

From: “Leslie Nobile” <
To: “‘Raul Echeberria'” <
Subject: RE: RS Manager’s meetings
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:55:51 -0400

No, I’m sorry, I didn’t.  Istanbul is coming up so fast now that I don’t think it is actually feasible for us to hold a formal RS Manager’s meeting there.

I would like to be able to meet in Guatemala City in May since there are several issues that we would like to work on together and this might be our only chance until the next APNIC meeting in September.  Here are several items that we feel should be discussed in a face to face meeting in the near future:

  • The joint stats presentation and how we can improve it to effectively show the community information that is both useful and interesting.
  • Bogon Filtering and issues that our customers have with space that we have issued to them.
  • Blacklisting and anti-spam organizations; how do we effectively interact with them and use them as a resource for obtaining information.  Does this put us at risk?
  • Coordination on the implementation of global policies within our respective regions.
  • Developing a sound inter-RIR transfer process – we have one we are currently using but it may need some modifications.

—–Original Message-resentation—-
From: Raul Echeberria []
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 6:21 PM
To: Leslie Nobile
Subject: Re: RS Manager’s meetings


You didn’t say that it is important (or that you are planning) to meet in Istanbul.


At 07:13 p.m. 10/04/2006, Leslie Nobile wrote:

Hello Raul-

As requested, I am submitting to you a description of some of the work items that the Registration Services Managers discuss on an on-going basis as well as special projects or issues that we have undertaken in the past or would like to undertake in the future.
Because our departments are effectively the core service of the RIRs and the main interface with each of our communities, we feel that it is important for Registration Services Managers to be able to continue to exchange ideas and information and would like the opportunity to do so in face to face meetings on a more frequent basis.

We use the RS Manager’s list to discuss many different things, to coordinate on common issues, to exchange ideas and in general, to offer assistance and advice.  This list is very active and quite effective, but does not take the place of face to face meetings where we can fully engage in discussion and planning.

Below is a list of some the things we typically discuss on list and coordinate on:

  • IPv6 policy and requests: ­ we discuss requests that are out of the ordinary, how we are all applying the policy, what questions we might ask to get additional information.
  • Consistency of the request evaluation process across the RIRs.
  • Management and staffing issues ­employee training, retention, motivation, internal consistency, quality assurance.
  • ERX and legacy space particularly as they relate to transfers between RIRs.
  • Policy interpretation and implementation ­ we exchange ideas and we ask for opinions and input from each other.
  • We discuss the new projects that we have undertaken in our respective departments.
  • Statistics and joint statistics.
  • We assist each other in finding customer information particularly with the ERX space or ex-ARIN customers (LACNIC and AFRINIC).
  • We discuss legal issues as they relate to registration issues (organization verification and what types of documents we all will accept…).
  • Hijacking issues and hijacked space.
  • Requests from members that we have in common.

We have held several face to face meetings in the past, however, we have never all attended an RS Manager’s meeting as there is always at least one of us missing.  However, we have found our face to face meetings to be extremely useful to us in that we have really been able to dig deeper in person and to brainstorm and find solutions to common problems and issues.

Below is a list of some of the topics and/or projects that we have discussed in past face to face meetings as well as future agenda topics that we would like to discuss.  In addition, we would also discuss some of the topics above in our face to face meetings.

*FYI:­ we do have meeting notes available for each of these meetings.

  • Harmonizing maximum allocation periods across the RIRs (sent to EC).
  • How to implement 32 bit AS numbers ­ what changes would we need to implement?
  • The joint stats presentation and how we can improve it to effectively show the community information that is both useful and interesting.
  • Hijacking and new cases we see (we coordinated on and effectively developed and implemented anti-hijacking procedures within each of our departments as a result of our past meetings).
  • Legal issues ­ how we each do our organization verification.
  • How to deal with known spammers that may be lying to us.
  • Allocating space to private networks.
  • Legacy space listed as “various registries”.
  • IPv6 reservations: ­ how long do we keep them and how long should before we remove them?
  • Bogon Filtering and issues that our customers have with space that we have issued to them.
  • Blacklisting and anti-spam organizations­ how do we effectively interact with them and use them as a resource for obtaining information. Does this put us at risk?
  • Coordination on the implementation of global policies within our respective regions.
  • Developing a sound Inter RIR transfer process.

Last modified on 02/09/2020