12 July 2006

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 060712

Teleconference , 12:07 UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

Raul Echeberria, Chair
Ray Plzak, Secretary
Paul Wilson, Treasurer

Other Attendees:

Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary

Observers:

Ann Lord, APNIC
Susan Hamlin, ARIN
Richard Jimmerson, ARIN
German Valdez, LACNIC
Paul Rendeck, RIPE

Absent:

Axel Pawlik
Adiel Akplogan

AGENDA

1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. NTIA Call for Comments
4. NRO Activities in Athens
5. Post Marrakech Report
6. ITU Liaison
7. Any Other Business
8. Adjourn

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:07 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair recognized the absence of Axel Pawlik, and requested Paul Rendeck to participate, with no voting rights, on behalf of RIPE NCC.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments.  The Chair added a discussion on IP allocation practices to be added under any other business.

3. NTIA Call for Comments

The Chair noted the deadline for comments was Friday, July 7, but stated that Ray Plzak had coordinated for a delayed submittal.

Ray Plzak moved that:

“The NRO Executive Council forward to the U.S. Department of Commerce NTIA (DoC NTIA), the NRO’s comments pertaining to the DoC NTIA’s Notice of Intent regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Department of Commerce.”

This was seconded by Paul Wilson. Ray stated he would send the document to Fiona Alexander at the DoC this morning, July 12, 2006.  The motion carried unanimously.

Ray Plzak stated that the NTIA Hearings are to be held on July 26, 2006 and that he is a member of panel at the Hearings. He stated that he could speak on behalf of ARIN, or on behalf of NRO, or on behalf of both entities. He requested to speak on behalf of both entities. All agreed. The Chair advised that when speaking on behalf of the NRO, that Ray please follow the comments document submitted by the NRO. Ray stated that was his intention.

4. NRO Activities in Athens

Discussion ensued regarding the NRO’s participation with ISOC at the IGF. Chair stated that the NRO will not be holding a workshop with regard IP address management, but that other organizations who are participating may be holding workshops on the topic. The Chair asked Paul Wilson for any comments. Paul stated he thought the NRO had decided not to join an ISOC pavilion, but to hold a separate event outside the IGF venue.

The chair stated that ARIN was working on procuring and organizing a room for a workshop outside of the venue and if other organizations are holding activities similar to the NRO, they would be invited to participate with the NRO. Paul Wilson then stated that he saw no issue with a workshop regarding capacity building.

Paul Rendeck agreed with the NRO’s position regarding not holding a workshop on Internet governance or Internet resources. He also agreed with Paul Wilson on holding a workshop regarding capacity building. He stated that if the issues of Internet governance, or Internet resources could not be avoided in holding a workshop with ISOC, RIPE NCC would not participate with ISOC.

Susan Hamlin stated that last e-mail from ISOC entitled the workshop “Increasing participation in Internet governance organizations and mechanisms.  ISOC, ICANN, RIR/NRO, NomiNet and ccNSO would be participants discussing the importance of participating in Internet governance issues addressing Internet Resource Management.”

The Chair asked Susan to provide an updated version from ISOC for the RIRs to review. Susan agreed. The Chair then stated that the EC would reply to Susan within the week with their answer, and said that the NRO would not rent any space to hold any workshops until they decide on this matter.

5. Post Marrakech Report

The Chair asked Ray Plzak to provide a report on the ICANN meeting in Marrekesh. Ray stated there were discussions in hallways regarding the proposed IPv6 policy. He stated that Sebastian Bellagamba, the Chair of ASO AC, was approached by David Conrad with a request to make a change in the policy regarding changing the allocation of a /12 to a /16. The ASO AC Chair said he could not make changes to the policy, and any changes would need to be done through the policy process per the ASO MOU.

Ray stated there was a GAC meeting on the Tuesday during the ICANN meeting, in which the NRO presented a slide on the global v6 policy. The presentation stated that the IPv6 proposal conserved address space with less fragmentation on a /12 than a /16 based on 2 studies, and addressed other aspects including that the policy was beneficial to smaller IRRs and developing countries. The policy is agnostic when it came to market size, and that the criteria were subjective and measurable. Ray stated this was well received by the GAC.  Ray further commented that on the Thursday morning of the ICANN meeting, Sebastian Bellagamba presented similar information to the ICANN Board, and received no adverse comments.

Ray stated that during presentation to the GAC and the ICANN Board, a schedule was presented indicating that on July 5, 2006 the ASO AC would forward the IPv6 policy to the ICANN Board by July 6th or 7th.  Ray reported that this did not occur because one region did not provide their report on time to the ASO AC, despite months of lead time. This report, showing the comments received in their region, is in accordance with the procedures of the ASO AC and is required of each RIR.

Ray further stated he anticipated the IPv6 global policy proposal to be forwarded to the ICANN Board by the ASO AC by 14 July.

Ray reported also that AFRINIC signed the Joinder to the ASO MOU.

The Chair thanked Ray for his report.

Ray asked the Chair for a discussion regarding the circumstances involving Peter Dengate-Thrush. Discussion ensued with regard to contributing to the foundation that Mrs. Dengate-Thrush in which involved. Paul Wilson stated he would be happy to agree to the contribution, providing the foundation did not have only a local scope. He felt the NRO’s contribution should be made to something that has stakeholders from other regions as well and not only the APNIC region.

It was the sense of the NRO that, in the interim, a letter of condolences should be sent to Peter, and the NRO will decide how to send a contribution. Paul Wilson stated he would draft the letter. All agreed.

6. ITU Liaison

The Chair reported that the NRO received a letter from ITU-T. Paul expressed that he had no idea that the cost to contribute to attending the meeting would be $10,000 USD.  He felt this was an exorbitant amount of money and if the NRO is invited, they need to know the cost.  The Chair stated that the letter from the ITU-T raised an issue of whether the NRO needed to be incorporated in order for the liaison relationship to be established. The NRO also needs to address the ITU-T on this matter.

The Chair stated the NRO would draft a letter to the ITU-T asking if being legally incorporated has a bearing on the relationship, and what is the cost to participate.  The Chair tasked Paul to draft the letter. All agreed.

7. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. The Chair stated that LACNIC has posted a call for public comments for stakeholders to make contribution for participation in the community. LACNIC is planning to have an opening of their new facilities this year to be organized immediately after the ICANN Meeting in Sao Paulo. He invited all of the NRO EC to attend if they could do so and stated that formal invitations would be sent out later in the year.

8. Adjourn

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 13:03 UTC.  The Chair asked for objections. There were no objections. The motion carried unanimously.

Comments are closed.