26 October 2006

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 061026

Teleconference , 11:12 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
Susan Hamlin, Director of Member Services
Ginny Listman, Director of Engineering

Observers:

Richard Jimmerson, ARIN
German Valdez, LACNIC

AGENDA

1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Approval of the Minutes
4. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
5. Engineering Coordination Group (ECG)
6. Resource Allocation Practices Ad Hoc Group Charter
7. Executive Council
8. ASO
9. ICANN
10. Internet Governance
11. Any Other Business
12. Adjournment
Exhibit A

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:12 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments. Axel Pawlik requested adding 2 items for discussion : 1) Clarification as to why the “Call for Comments on IPv6 Multi-homing Solutions” paper is posted on the NRO website; and 2) a discussion regarding a research effort as a response to the Milton Mueller paper, “IP Addressing: The Next Frontier of Internet Governance Debate”. The Chair agreed to add the items under item 10. Internet Governance, subheading “C.”

3. Approval of the Minutes

Ray Plzak moved that:

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

This was seconded by Adiel Akplogan.  The motion carried unanimously.

4. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)

A. CCG Work Plan. (NRO EC 06-14 060228)  The Chair requested Susan Hamlin to update the EC on the following issues.

1. IP Resources Page. The Chair stated the CCG had sent a proposal regarding the page to the EC and the CCG was awaiting the EC’s approval. Susan Hamlin clarified that the actual page is now ready for the EC’s review on their website, but is not currently linked to any other sites.  The Chair called for comments. All agreed to move forward with the page. The Chair called for a motion.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC adopts the IP Resources page as presented, and directs the CCG to modify the NRO website to include it.”

This was seconded by Paul Wilson. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

2. Formal approval of IGF and Hong Kong Budgets. The Chair stated that the EC approved the budgets on their list, but the budgets need formal approval. He asked Susan Hamlin for updates on each budget. Susan stated the budget for Athens is missing shipping costs, and she did not know if they needed a table to be set up in the pavilion, and if there would be any cost for this item.

She also stated the budget for Hong Kong is missing shipping costs as well.

The Chair stated that the EC could not approve the budgets without these missing cost items. He directed the CCG to move forward based on the current budgets, and asked the CCG to update the EC when the budgets were final. Ray Plzak suggested formally approving each of the budgets as ‘Draft’.  The Chair agreed

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the draft budget for activities at the IGF Forum to be held in Athens as presented by the Communications Coordination Group.”

This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

RP moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the draft budget for activities at the ITU World Telecom 2006 to be held in Hong Kong as presented by the Communications Coordination Group.”

This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

3. Information regarding NRO activities in Athens. The Chair requested Susan Hamlin to provide an update to the EC.  Susan stated that currently the NRO will be participating in two workshops. The first one, the Participation Workshop was discussed, and it was determined that Adiel Akplogan would be the speaker/presenter on behalf of the NRO EC. The Chair stated that he would like to see Adiel’s name listed in the agenda for the workshop.  Adiel mentioned he had requested this and it should be done.

Susan continued her update stating the second workshop would be Building Policy Constraints. Discussion ensued and the Chair felt the NRO needed to attend this workshop, providing similar presentations as in the first workshop.  The Chair suggested Adiel present at the second workshop as well. Adiel agreed and there were no objections.

Susan stated that ARIN would be providing handouts in the form of fact sheets about the NRO in addition to memory flash sticks with the facts sheets on them. There would also be a one page flyer that was developed for the Hong Kong booth, but will be appropriate to hand out in Athens as well regarding how participating makes a difference and information on the Internet’s open process.

There being no further comments, the Chair thanked Susan for the information.

B. IP Addressing Webpage. (NRO EC 06-29 060531) The Chair closed this item.

5. Engineering Coordination Group (ECG).

A. Charter for the Engineering Coordination Group. (NRO EC 06-03 060209)  The Chair welcomed ECG Chair, Ginny Listman, to the call. The Chair stated that he had addressed the ECG’s concerns and no changes in Charter needed to be made and the ECG Chair agreed. The Chair then closed this item.

B. In-addr.arpa, IPv6.arpa.  A lengthy discussion ensued on the merits of the RIRs rotating the technical administration of these domains versus the IANA having technical administration of them.  Although it was the sense of the NRO EC that the function lie with IANA, the Chair stated that that the EC remain open to discussing this topic in the event that roles change in the future whereby the NRO may play a part. Ray Plzak stated that if it is important for the NRO to be the administrator in the future, then the NRO will discuss it with the IANA at such time.

C. Proposal of Creating an ERX Task Force.  The Chair asked the ECG Chair if ERX was working or if there were any issues. The ECG Chair stated that based on feedback from APNIC, they had connectivity issues w/AFRINIC; and at one point in time APNIC mistakenly put wrong delegations on JPNIC zones.  APNIC realized the error instantly, but ARIN only pulls zones and broadcasts them every four hours. This caused major problems in Japan at the time. The ECG Chair proposed an analysis to see if the ECG could improve these processes.  She proposed a task force of one representative from each RIR to explore options and present them to the ECG to  propose solutions. Paul Wilson welcomed this idea.

The Chair stated that he too was comfortable with this proposal and asked if the ECG Chair had a deadline in mind. She stated that, from an ARIN perspective, work would be completed by the 1st quarter of 2007.  The Chair requested the analysis be completed before the next IETF in 2007. The ECG Chair agreed.

The Chair moved that:

“The NRO EC approves the creation of the ERX Task Force and directs it to report the results of the analysis of ERX  to the NRO EC fifteen (15) days prior to the first IETF meeting in 2007.”

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

D. Report of the EC/ECG meeting in St. Louis. The Chair stated that he had met with the ECG Chair in St. Louis during the ARIN meeting to give some answers to historical ECG questions from a few months ago. One issue, the Joint Whois project had been abandoned by the NRO, but not parties had agreed and the Chair stated they should re-examine the issue. Also on the issue of 6 to 4, the Chair asked the ECG Chair for a status of the version, a proposal to the EC and any recommendations. The Chair stated all issues are open and in the ECG’s hands.

Paul Wilson stated he was unaware that the project regarding Joint Whois had been abandoned and felt it was an important provision. The Chair confirmed it had been abandoned, however he called for opinions on whether to leave it as such or reopen discussion.  He stated if the EC was in favor of reopening the project, they could discuss the issue on their on list and postpone any decision until their next meeting. It was the sense of the EC that the project be reopened.

The Chair asked the ECG Chair to discuss the issue within the ECG, and submit an observation comment document to the EC in the next 20 days to let them know of the ECG’s opinion. The Chair stated he was looking for recommendations like the status of the project; technical obstacles, if any, and, any input useful to the EC’s decision. RP suggested one or more proposed courses of action, and the pros and cons of each.  All agreed.

Ray Plzak suggested holding an EC meeting during the AFRINIC meeting in Mauritius.  The Chair stated AFRINIC meeting would be acceptable but he would be participating via teleconference. The Chair then stated that the EC would need this input from ECG by 20 November 2006.  The EC members and ECG Chair were in agreement.

Ray Plzak moved that:

“The NRO EC directs the ECG to provide a study of a Joint Whois operation to be presented to the EC no later than 20 November 2006.”

This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

6. Resource Allocation Practices Ad Hoc Group Charter

The Chair would like to adopt this Charter, to include changing the timeline. (Charter attached as Exhibit A.)

Paul Wilson moved that:

“The NRO Executive Council adopts the Resource Allocation Practices Ad Hoc Group Charter, as amended.”

This was seconded by Ray Plzak. The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated this was an old issue to harmonize the allocation practices. He felt it was very important to do this, as it came up in every Registration Manager’s meeting.

Ray Plzak expressed concern as to why there was a requirement for the Ad Hoc Group to hold weekly telephonic meetings versus meeting via teleconference when necessary. Paul Wilson answered that at the time the Charter was drafted, this schedule was entered into the Charter in view of the tight timeframes established to accomplish the work. However, Paul felt the weekly teleconference schedule was no longer necessary. Ray therefore suggested a friendly amendment to strike ‘on a weekly basis’ from the Charter. Paul accepted this friendly amendment.

Ray Plzak moved that:

“The NRO Executive Council adopts the Resource Allocation Practices Ad Hoc Group Charter, as so amended.”

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

7. Executive Council

A. Global v6 Policy Proposal. (NRO EC 06-31 060531) The Chair stated this item is closed.

B. Executive Council Meeting – San Diego. (NRO EC 06-34 060828) The Chair asked for clarification on the focus of this one and a half day workshop. Ray Plzak replied that the focus was to discuss the presentation on Certification Authority, but that there were other EC agenda items from the last meeting that were put off from discussion until the meeting in San Diego. He expressed his feeling that if all EC members could not attend the San Diego meeting, it would be very hard for the off-site members to call in for long periods of time.

The Chair reviewed the previous meeting minutes and stated the items that were postponed to be discussed were issues that are being dealt with and not of any great urgency. Paul Wilson interjected that he did not feel the need to discuss any topics other than Certification Authority.

It was agreed the workshop take place on Monday, 6 November 2006.  Axel Pawlik suggested keeping the conference space regardless of the possibility of the workshop ending early, because other issues may arise that would call for the use of the meeting space. All agreed.

The Chair then closed this item.

8. ASO

A. ASO AC Document Review Committee. (NRO EC 06-13 060228)  Ray Plzak stated that the ASO AC needs an answer on this issue as soon as possible. Paul Wilson stated he would draft the Board Member Selection Procedure in time to present it to the EC in San Diego on 6 November.

B. Reimbursement for Address Council Members. (NRO EC 06-08 060209). The Chair requested Paul Wilson prepare a draft text and send in the next few days. Paul agreed to do so.

9. ICANN

A. ICANN Contract. (NRO EC 06-35 060828) Ray Plzak suggested this item be closed and open a new action item at a later time as a result of the contract negotiations. The Chair agreed and closed the item.

B. ICANN Pledge Card. (NRO EC 06-36 060828) The Chair stated he would like to have this item closed before the EC meeting in Mauritius. He stated he would encourage LACNIC’s CFO to help Paul Wilson with anything he needs. The Chair stated there was no further action at this time.

C. ICANN Affirmation of Responsibilities.  The Chair thanked Paul for the proposal on this issue, and felt that the RIR Boards needed to discuss the document individually. He stated it was on the agenda for LACNIC’s Board for its meeting today. He stated they will either approve of it, or provide amendments to the document. The Chair stated he preferred the RIR Boards discuss the topic on their respective lists. He further stated that LACNIC would like the EC to be the liaison and consolidate the RIR Board’s comments. All agreed. Ray Plzak stated he would send the document to the ARIN Board for discussion at their Board meeting later today.

10. Internet Governance

A. ITU.

1) NRO Participation in the ITU Plenipotentiary. (NRO EC 06-17 060418)  Discussion points: letter to ITU-T regarding participation in Plenipot and other ITU activities by non-governmental parties.  The Chair stated he had not had time to address these issues, but would address them in the next 24 hours.

2) Discussion of Comments to the ITU regarding Resolution 102. (NRO EC 06-37 060828) The Chair requested Paul Wilson take the lead on this issue. Paul agreed.

3) Letter to ITU-T regarding ITU Liaison. (NRO EC 06-24 060418)  At the last meeting, 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 and that he would take the lead to work on this as well.

B. IGF.

Discussion of Participation in the IGF.  This item was discussed with the CCG report earlier.

11. Any Other Business

A.  Call for Comments on IPv6 Multi-homing Solutions document on the NRO website. Axel Pawlik stated that RIPE looked at the document, and there was confusion as to why it is posted on the NRO website versus being posted to each individual RIR’s website. He asked if the NRO was the appropriate point of contact for this type of document.

Ray Plzak explained the thought behind the posting was that the RIR’s websites would be linked to it, but it is not an NRO project, and the EC could certainly change where the document resided. Discussion ensued on the where documents on issues requiring global community comment should reside. Axel and Ray both stated they were open minded to any decision. Both gentlemen also suggested tasking the CCG to do look into this issue, and provide a report to the EC before their next meeting in Mauritius – by 20 November.

Ray Plzak moved that:

“The NRO EC tasks the CCG to identify a procedure for calling for comments for technical papers, and provide a report to the EC no later than 20 November 2006.”

This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

B. Milton Mueller paper, “IP Addressing: The Next Frontier of Internet Governance Debate”.  Axel stated that he read the document and discussion ensued.  The EC agreed to look a this issue in further detail.

12. Adjournment

The Chair moved to adjourn at 12:51 UTC. This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.

Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

NRO Ad Hoc group on
Resource Allocation Practices
Group Charter
Version 1.3, 26 October 2006

1 Purpose

The NRO Ad Hoc group on Resource Allocation Practices (“the RAP Group”) is established for the following purposes:

  1. To conduct a comparative review of allocation practices which influence address space consumption by any RIR;
  2. To identify areas of significant difference between and among RIRs;
  3. To identify means of harmonising areas of difference, whether by internal administrative measures, or by open policy processes;
  4. To recommend steps to achieve the maximum consistency between RIR allocation practices.

Additional tasks may be assigned to the group by the NRO EC.

2 Timeframe

The RAP Group will complete its work by 15 January 2007.  The lifetime of the group may be extended by the NRO EC if further work is assigned to it.

3 Membership

The RAP Group will be comprised of the Registration Services Manager (or equivalent) from each RIR.  The group will determine whether other participants or observers will be admitted.

4 The Chair

The Chair of the RAP Group will be elected at the first meeting of the group.

5 Authority

5.1 Decisions

The RAP Group will decide its working methods and schedule of meetings.  It will make no decisions regarding specific changes to allocation practices, however it may make recommendations as to specific changes which are regarded as feasible.

Any decisions of the group will be made by consensus.

5.2 Resources

The RAP group may require the following resources:

  1. time required by staff assigned to the group and its tasks
  2. communications resources for online and telephone meetings

6 Operating Rules

6.1 Type of meetings

The RAP group will meet by telephone conference.

6.2 Participation

All designated members of the RAP Group will participate in every formal meeting of the group.

6.3 Reporting

Reports will be submitted to the NRO EC as follows:

  1. A workplan including details of participants, meetings and resources required.

    Deadline: 15 November 2006

  1. A comparative review of allocation practices which influence address space consumption by any RIR, and identification of areas of significant difference between and among RIRs. (from 1 a) and b) above.)

    Deadline: 15 December 2006

  1. A report of specific identified means to harmonise areas of difference, and recommended steps to achieve the maximum consistency between RIR allocation practices. (from 1 c) and d) above)

    Deadline: 15 January 2006

Comments are closed.