Teleconference , 22:18 UTC
Executive Council Attendees:
Raul Echeberria, Chair
Adiel Akplogan, Member
Axel Pawlik, Member
Ray Plzak, Secretary
Paul Wilson, Treasurer
Other Attendees:
Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary
Observers:
Richard Jimmerson, ARIN
AGENDA
1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Approval of the Minutes
4. Executive Council
5. ASO
6. ICANN
7. Internet Governance
8. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
9. Any Other Business
10. Adjournment
1. Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 22:18 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair called for any comments on the Agenda. There were no comments.
3. Approval of the Minutes
The Chair moved that:
“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of the May 11, 2006 NRO EC meeting as presented.”
“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of the May 31, 2006 NRO EC meeting as presented.”
“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of the July 12, 2006 NRO EC meeting as presented.”
The motions were seconded by Ray Plzak. The motions carried unanimously. The Chair requested the word ‘”Draft” be removed from these minutes on the NRO website and the SEC acknowledged it would be done.
4. Executive Council
A. Charter for the Engineering Coordination Group (NRO EC 06-03 060209).
The Chair stated that this Charter was approved and is in place. He stated that the ECG Chair was awaiting answers to the questions posted to the EC concerning the Charter. The Chair stated he is committed to responding and discussing the issue with the ECG
The Chair stated he would send questions and comments to the rest of the EC to refresh them with the issue, and will communicate to the ECG Chair that the Charter is in place, and that the EC will address the ECG’s concern very soon.
B. Charter for the NRO Legal Team. (NRO EC 06-26 060511) Ray Plzak suggested closing this item. It was the sense of the EC that there was no need for a Charter. The Chair stated the item was closed.
C. Management of “Various Registries” Address Space. (05-72 050907) The Chair stated that there were no new updates at this time, and suggested the EC discuss this item in San Diego in November at their face to face meeting.
D. EC Meeting Schedule. (NRO EC 06-04 060209) RP stated he provided this to the EC. The Chair stated the item was closed.
E. Harmonizing IPv4 Allocation Practices. (NRO EC 06-05 060209) The Chair stated that there were no new updates at this time, and suggested the EC discuss this item in San Diego, in November, at their face to face meeting.
F. Routing Certification. (NRO EC 06-19 060418) The Chair stated that there were no new updates at this time, and suggested the EC discuss this item in San Diego in November at their face to face meeting.
G. NTIA Hearings. (NRO EC 06-32 060712) Ray Plzak provided a brief update stating that the NRO was the only entity that felt the Memorandum should end. All others felt the need for it to continue. The Chair stated the item was closed.
H. Global v6 Policy Proposal (NRO EC 06-31 060531) The Chair stated that the ASO AC had forwarded the report to the ICANN Board. He stated that, to date, there have been no objections to the proposal from ICANN. The Chair stated the process is progressing and moving forward.
I. Peter Dengate-Thrush Contribution. (NRO EC 06-33 060712) It was the sense of the EC that this item be closed. The Chair closed the item.
J. CA Meeting – San Diego. The EC discussed holding a 1/12 to 2-day meeting in San Diego in November. All were in agreement. The Chair stated the EC will discuss the matter further on their mailing list.
5. ASO
A. ASO AC Document Review Committee. (NRO EC 06-13 060228) Ray Plzak stated that he and Paul Wilson need to draft the ICANN Board Member Selection Procedure, and the NRO NC Chair Selection Procedure. He stated they will be drafting the documents shortly.
B. Reimbursement for Address Council Members. (NRO EC 06-08 060209) The Chair stated he felt the EC should draft a procedure on how the NRO EC will reimburse travel to ASO AC members. He stated the EC would continue to share the expense for the ASO AC Chair to travel to various meetings; but posed the question of whether or not each RIR should cover the expense of their regional Council members, or if the expenses should be shared by all. Axel Pawlik stated he liked preferred each RIR cover the expense of their regional Council Members. Ray Plzak concurred stating ARIN was already doing just that. Adiel Akplogan stated AFRINIC also had been paying for its Council member’s travel expenses.
The Chair stated the procedure needs to be documented as a travel policy and tasked Paul Wilson to draft the document to be considered by the EC at their next meeting. Paul agreed.
6. ICANN
A. ICANN Contribution. Paul Wilson stated that he was not able to get the figures together in time for this meeting. He stated that most of the EC was in favor of making another pledge, but Axel Pawlik was against it, and that no cash would be distributed. Axel explained that until a contract defining the contribution was signed by the NRO and ICANN, he did not feel comfortable contributing the money at this time. He strongly felt a contract needed to be in place.
B. ICANN Pledge Card. Paul explained that the pledge card would detail all debts payable to ICANN from the NRO. He explained that he needed assistance from the other RIR’s financial teams and that he would be contacting them to work out the details of the pledge card. Ray Plzak requested Paul provide an update at the EC’s next meeting.
Paul then asked about further payments to ICANN whether they remain on hold due to RIPE’s decision not to contribute, or consider a payment without RIPE’s portion. Ray Plzak suggested possibly contributing 50% per year until all issues have been resolved. The Chair felt that the EC should act in good faith.
C. IANA Contract. (NRO EC 05-102 051122) Discussion ensued with Paul Wilson asking if anything had been heard on the contract. The Chair stated he had had dialogue with Bart Boswinkel in August, and a few e-mail exchanges, but that he had not yet heard from ICANN staff. Paul then agreed with Axel’s previous statement regarding having a signed contract in place before making a contribution to ICANN.
D. RIR COI Posture. (NRO EC 05-56 050809) The Chair stated this not needed, and that the item was closed. All were in agreement.
7. Internet Governance
A. ITU.
1) NRO Participation in the ITU Plenipotentiary. (NRO EC 06-17 060418) The Chair stated that he was not clear on what to do because he was not in agreement with paying the large sum of money required to participate. Ray Plzak suggested two points: 1) since the NRO now has a liaison arrangement with the ITU. It can directly submit papers to the ITU; and, 2) individual RIRs should submit papers to the governments of their respective regions as information for their use at the ITU Plenipotentiary. He stated that Resolution 102 will not be discussed until the second or third week of the plenipotentiary and suggested contacting their respective governments to see if they can be added to the delegation list. Paul Wilson agreed with these ideas. Ray also stated that the EC needed to make direct comments on Resolution 102 and the Zao Paper.
The Chair tasked himself and Paul Wilson to prepare comments regarding Resolution 102. Adiel Akplogan then pointed out that if the EC is going to comment and send documents to the ITU the EC must go through the proper ITU channels. The Chair stated that they would work to decide whether to send the documents or find a way to participate and present the documents at the meeting after careful review of the liaison agreement between the NRO and ITU. Paul Wilson also suggested submitting documents to the ITU and asking the EC’s respective governments to make reference to the document and then contact the EC if necessary.
The Chair then reviewed the matter of how to participate and asked which EC member would be able to attend the meeting if possible. It was the sense of the EC according to their schedules that Axel Pawlik, Adiel Akplogan, and Ray Plzak could attend if needed, subject to availability. Ray stated that the agenda for the Plenipotentiary needed to be reviewed.
2) Letter to ITU-T regarding ITU Liaison. (NRO EC 06-24 060418). Ray Plzak asked if the EC are required to name one person or handle it through a delegation. The Chair stated that they needed to examine the document for clarification.
3) Korean IPv6 Paper. (NRO EC 06-20 060418) There being no action needed, the Chair stated the item was closed.
4) ITU Telecom World 2006. (NRO EC 06-21 060418) The Chair stated that information on the cost of a booth had been given to the EC, but it is an estimate, and not a final amount. Ray Plzak stated that he and Paul Wilson will be attending this meeting.
B. IGF.
1) Representative for IGF Advisory Group. (NRO EC 06-23 060418) The Chair stated that 74 proposals had been submitted, and that during the week of September 4, a group will meet in Geneva to analyze the proposals to determine which workshops will be held at the IGF Forum.
2) NRO Contribution to IGF SEC. (NRO EC 06-27 060511) It was the sense of the NRO EC that this item be closed. The Chair stated this item was closed.
3) IGF Forum Athens. (NRO EC 06-28 060511) Discussion ensued on the Capacity Workshop and whether or not to participate as the NRO, or as representative of each RIR. It was the sense of the EC that they participate as NRO in this proposal.
8. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
A. CCG Work Plan. (NRO EC 06-14 060228) The Chair stated this Work plan had been approved.
B. ASO Website. (NRO EC 06-11 060228) The Chair stated that he had received a proposal for the new website from the CCG. Ray Plzak pointed out that the proposal received was in regard to the NRO website, but the ASO website still needed to be drafted, and allow for a page for the Address Council’s ‘Numbers Council’. The Chair suggested this topic be discussed on the EC’s list. All agreed.
C. IP Addressing Webpage. (NRO EC 06-29 060531) The Chair stated they are awaiting a proposal from the CCG on this issue.
9. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business. Ray Plzak alerted everyone that traveling through the UK is very bad at this time, as he was in Scotland at the time of this meeting, and traveled through London.
Richard Jimmerson stated that last week on a CCG call, Athens and activities for Hong Kong were discussed and it was acknowledged that only last week was a call for Exhibitors for the IGF Forum in Athens published for the first time. He reported that the CCG feels since the announcement has been released so late, there are such tight restrictions on exhibiting, and a small amount of availability, they are not interested in participating in a booth and want to focus on workshops. He stated the CCG would like to know how the EC felt about the matter.
Paul Wilson asked what the restrictions were. Richard explained that they are releasing availability of exhibition space, but that one cannot design or build their own booths due to the lateness in the organization of this effort. He stated that there are limited stands available. He asked if the EC wanted the CCG to pursue one of these stands. It was the sense of the EC that the CCG not pursue an exhibition space. The EC felt literature could be provided.
Richard stated that the CCG would concentrate then on workshops only. Adiel Akplogan stated that if there is a booth for Internet Governance, then the EC should have representation at that booth to discuss the topic.
The Chair requested Richard copy him when Richard sends the CCG’s plans to ISOC. Richard agreed.
10. Adjourn
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 23:40 UTC, stating that the EC would discuss when to hold their next meeting on their list. The meeting adjourned with no objections.
Last modified on 02/09/2020