18 March 2008

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 080318

DRAFT Minutes

Teleconference: 18 March 2008, 11hr UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

  • Paul Wilson (PW, Chair)
  • Adiel Akplogan (AA: Secretary )
  • Ray Plzak (RP)
  • Axel Pawlik (AP)
  • Raul Echeberria (RE)

Other Attendees:

  • Natt Devis ND
  • Richard Jimerson RJ
  • Kiran Cunniah, KC Recording Secretary

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Agenda Review – Chair to lead
2. Adoption of last meeting’s minutes
3. ICANN Activities
3.1 ICANN Operation Plan
3.2 IANA Administrative Procedures
3.3 IPv4 Registry File.
3.4 ICANN Contract .
4. Global Policy Proposal.
5. Registration Services Ad Hoc Group.
6. Distribution of work among the RIRs.
7. Time and place of next face-face meeting.
8. Geneva Activities
8.1 Donors Meeting and contribution towards the IGF.
8.2 Meeting Advisory Group meetings.
8.3 ITU-T Director Lunch.
9. ECG Activity.
10. Inter-RIR Policy Development
11. Review of status of ITU Africa and Asia meeting.
12. NRO reaction to recent ITU-T SG2/3 contributions.
13. AOB
14. Adjournment.

1. Welcome and Agenda review

The Chair made a roll call and noted that all NRO EC members were present.The meeting as called to order at 11h07 UTC. The Chair welcomed all the participants.

The Chair reviewed the Agenda as amended and presented by RP to the list. The Chair asked for comments. RE proposed to add Contribution to IGF under Agenda item 8.The Chair agreed. The Chair asked for any objections to that. There were no objections and the item was added to the agenda under item 8.

2. Adoption of last meeting’s minutes

AA moved as follow:

Proposed motion:

“The EC adopts the minutes of February 21st 2008 meeting, as last presented to the EC list by the secretariat”

The Chair mentioned that he proposed an amendment which he sent to the list.

AA moved as follows:

“The EC adopts the minutes of February 21st 2008 meeting, as last presented to the EC list with the amendment”

RP seconded the motion

The chair called for comments and objections.

There were no comments or objections and the motion passed unanimously.

3. ICANN Activities

3.1. ICANN Operation Plan

Action item [0108-03]: Status: Open
Chair to coordinate review and input of the NRO to ICANN Operation Planning document

Update 18.03.2008: The Chair mentioned that the planning document was
looked into. He said that the commitment is from Jan-June 2008 and
that it is still an open action item for the time being.

3.2. IANA Administrative Procedures

Action item 0712-06 Open
PW to send to David Conrad the proposed Administrative Procedures

Update 18.03.2008: The Chair mentioned that a meeting was held in
Taipei with RP, Barbara, David and himself. He informed that David
mentioned that he would respond by email but there were no response
as at date. He said that he will take an action to remind David on this.

3.3. IPv4 Registry File

Action item 0712-05: Status: Open
PW to send a draft to the EC with the comments about The IPv4 registry
file version sent by DRC, including comments on 7 /8 and the definition
of LEGACY.”

Update 18.03.2008: The Chair mentioned that this action was overtaken by
RE in his capacity of IANA liaison and asked RE to update the EC on the
topic.

RE mentioned that he has sent a draft of the message that he intends to send to the list and he will send an updated version taking into consideration RP`s comment.

The Chair suggested having an action to follow up the correspondence with IANA. RP noted that there were some communication issues with IANA on this file and it was suggested that in order to further develop this matter, it will be better to work with single contact person there.

RP said that he had a meeting with IANA last week and requested ND to give an update as he was also present at that meeting. ND said that the meeting did not elaborate much on this issue and that it reflects the update as presented by RP above.

AA comment as presented to the mailing list: We also have to add to this correspondence clarification about who administer (manage the DNS) the legacy /8 recovered from the previous “various Registries” according to discussion we had on the mailing list.

With regards to AA comment above, the Chair was asked if he was agreeable to the way in which this was integrated in RE’s draft. The Chair mentioned that he has some concerns, which are more of a future, rather that immediate nature, in regards to those /8 that can have a high level of transactions from other region
because of the allocation that were mad from them. He said, however, that he is happy to move on it as it is decided now.

The Chair called for any other comments and there were none and it was suggested that RE reviews the document and sends it to IANA

3.4. ICANN Contract

Action item 0712-03: Status: Open
Ray (taken over by the new chair – PW) to draft an email to the Boards
asking for guidelines about a future Contract with ICANN, and send to
the EC for review.

Update 18.03.08:RE mentioned that he submitted a draft to the list and
it was agreed on the mailing list to send to the RIR-board list He
informed that he did send the mail but there was no response from any
board members as at date. RP suggested sending a reminder to the board
so that this topic be taken up again. He suggested targeting the ICANN
meeting in Feb next year to take the topic up to ICANN.)

4. Global Policy Proposal

All RIRs have ratified the global policy proposal regarding the allocation of AS numbers by the IANA to the RIRs. The EC must forward the proposal to the ASO AC.

The Chair informed that this action was on AA and himself. He mentioned that he did not get any response except from RP on that. RP informed that the ASO MoU has defined time frame for the ASO AC to react on the policy and suggested setting a deadline accordingly in the correspondence to be sent. The Chair mentioned that he would take action on that. The Chair asked for any other comments and there were none.

5. Registration Services Ad Hoc Group

Action item 0712-01: Status: Open
Raul to work with the Ad Hoc working group in Registration Services’
practices, to finalise the work of that group.”

Update 18.03.2008: RE mentioned that he had a conference call with
Leslie, the Chair of the Ad Hoc group (of that time), and she said that
she has already produced a report which was sent to the EC for approval.
RE said that he will look for the report and
send it again to the EC.

He said that he has now schedule another teleconference with all the group next week that he expects to have the final report on this to send to the AC in two weeks.

The Chair thanked RE for the update. He expressed concern as to the fact that the APNIC staff who participated in the ad-hoc group received the message as if they have to change the present APNIC procedures to harmonise them with the other RIRs. The Chair mentioned that this may be misleading and highlighted that the objective was to identify ways to harmonise the procedures and not proceed with changing the current procedures to standardise them. RP and AA agreed and AA mentioned that we need a report from them the Ad-hoc group before taking any actions.

The Chair asked for any other comments and there were none.

6. Distribution of work among the RIRs

Comment as sent to the mailing list At the January meeting, PR proposed that the EC distribute the work necessary to support the administrative activities of the NRO. For the most part this work is being performed by the Secretariat.

There are a few exceptions. This proposal seeks to further distribute the load, leaving the Secretariat to focus on the management of the administrative efforts. The EC asked Ray to seek comments from members on the EC list. This has been done. Documents reflecting this have been sent to the EC by a separate email.

The Chair mentioned that RP has circulated some documents in this regards. Noting that not everyone managed to review the documents, it was suggested that the members further discuss them on the mailing list and take action on this at the next meeting. All agreed.

7. Time and place of next face-face meeting

Action item 200802-01: Status Closed
AA to setup an online meeting planning tool to determine the most
appropriate venue and date for the next face to face meeting. EC Members
to advise on their availability within 2 weeks as from date.

The EC needs to finalize its decision regarding this meeting

The Chair asked AA for an update. AA informed that the online meeting planning tool has been set up but unfortunately that there was no consensus on an agreed date/s. He said that the current proposals are now either: ICANN meeting in Paris or at RIPE NCC premise in Amsterdam before or after the ICANN meeting. He also said that having the meeting in Mauritius not feasible anymore.

The participants discussed the different options. After discussion,
the following was agreed:

– The best time for gathering will be during the ICANN meeting in Paris, June
2008, Monday 23rd to Wednesday 25th.

– Secretariat is requested to look at the best conference package at the hotel hosting the ICANN event and the surrounding hotels (with request for internetconnectivity in rooms and conference rooms ­ if needed we can bring our own wireless bridge). It was suggested to see the possibility of getting a suite where on member of the EC could stay and use it for the meeting. This will bring more flexibility in the dates and allow some cost saving. RP will also check which kind of room he has at the venue, ie, if it is a suite or not.

– The exact date and time will be formulated precisely after examining the ICANN meeting agenda so that NRO EC members accommodate the ICANN meetings where their presence will be required.

Action Item 200803-01:
Secretariat to work on a conference package for the next NRO EC face to face meeting, at the ICANN meeting in Paris, June 2008

8. Geneva Activities

There have been several activities in Geneva with the IGF MAG and the ITU. Updates and reports are needed.

8.1. Donors Meeting and contribution towards the IGF.

The Chair suggested that RE leads this item.

RE mentioned that he has sent a report in relation to the Donors meeting with the ITU and gave the following update:

– The meeting was around the document submitted by the UN in relation to fund raising for IGF secretariat.

– Some other governments have expressed interest to increase their contribution.

– The estimated budget presented in the document is around USD 1M. RE mentioned that it may be a good for us to increase our contribution this year to an amount around USD 30,000.

RP mentioned that the issue of contributions was also raised in the sense that individual persons could not contribute using the UN mechanism as their contribution was too small in relation to the processing fees.

RE mentioned that the NRO EC should take a decision on the NRO contribution towards IGF and the monitoring thereafter. The Chair asked RE if he would like the EC to take a decision now and RE said that if the NRO EC confirms that it will provide a contribution in 2008, it will be good to take a decision.

RE moved as follows:

“The NRO EC decided to contribute USD30K towards the IGF secretariat for         the year 2008”.

RP seconded the motion.

The Chair called for comments and objections. There were none. The Chair called for a vote. All voted in favour and the motion passed unanimously.

8.2. Meeting Advisory Group meetings

The Chair proposed that AA leads this item.

AA gave the following update:

-The Advisory Group focused on the following issues:

– Renewal of the Advisory Group members: Part of the duties of the Advisory Group for this year was to provide a mechanism for the renewal of the MAG. The proposal to rotate 1/3 of the members within each stakeholder group each year was considered and adopted. There were some concern raised as to the 50% proportion attributed to the Government sector but it was decided that this balance will be maintained.

– Format of the meeting: It was noted that many workshops were held in parallel to the main session and that it difficult for participants to attend all the sessions. The meeting structure and scheduling was discussed so as to optimize the presence of the participants.

– Organisation of the upcoming meeting in Hyderabad meeting programme: The MAG will hold another meeting in May 08 to further discuss the upcoming IGF meeting programme. It was noted that the 4 main themes that were carried from Athens will not be the same this year and the emphasis will be more focused specific issues that are related to collaboration.  There was also discussion about the report of the workshop organiser and the thematic around the best practice forums.

AA asked RE if he would like to make some further updates. RE added that the followings:

– The Critical Internet will again be on the agenda as Managing the internet with a focus on the international, national or local management of internet resources.

– For the rotation of the NRO representatives, the same names of the EC members as proposed two years ago should be proposed to the IGF secretariat again.

RP suggested having a motion in support of the proposed names to be submitted for the renewal of the members.

The Chair thanked AA and RE for the update.

RP moved:

`The EC agrees that the names of the 5 CEOs be submitted as candidate of the NRO to serve in the MAG.”

RE seconded the motion.

The Chair called for comments and objections. There were none and the motion passed unanimously.

Action Item #200803-01
The Secretariat to submit the names of EC members to the secretariat of the IGF and report back.

8.3. ITU-T Director Lunch

At this meeting it was suggested that the NRO and the ITU  conduct a joint event regarding IPv6. The EC needs to take action.

RE gave the following update:

– The meeting was about reviewing the NRO and ITU-T collaboration. It was agreed that the NRO and ITU-T should maintain a good collaboration level. The NRO representatives should ensure the ITU-T Director that the NRO will continue to closely follow and contribute to relevant study groups. At the meeting it was also suggested to reactivate the liaison agreement that was signed before with ITU. – The idea of having a follow up awareness meeting between NRO and ITU. Representative was also agreed.

AP mentioned that it is important to have a correct understanding of the role of the ITU before engaging into any formal agreement to have joint meetings.

The participants discussed the possible date and time to hold the meetings and the target group with whom to hold the meeting. After discussion the following proposals were agreed on:

– Have some awareness sessions and discuss issues related to internet resources in general.

– AP to contact the ITU-T director to identify who will be the Target audience of such sessions.

– Possible dates could be during the ICANN meeting in Paris, June 2008.

The Chair asked for comments and there were none.

9. ECG Activityl

Update needed regarding the ECG Activity Plan for 2008. All earlier action items pertaining to ECG activity need to be closed.

The Chair suggested that RP leads this item. RP mentioned that all action items pertaining to the ECG needs to be closed and incorporated in the ECG Activity plan. AA informed that all action items were closed and not mentioned in the Agenda he has circulated earlier.

It was noted that the NRO EC has sent the comments to the ECG on their activity plan but there was no response as at date. RE suggested having face to face meeting with the ECG to have a more efficient follow up. RP mentioned that at the moment, there is a need for an update to the Activity plan itself as requested by the EC and AA mentioned that we need to give a deadline to the ECG for that.

The Chair asked for comments. There were no comments.

10. Inter-RIR Policy Development

Ray introduced this proposal at the January meeting. Further discussion and action is needed.

The Chair suggested that RP leads this action item.

RP mentioned that at there were precedents where the term Global policy lead to some confusions as to the understanding of the term. He used the example of the IPv6 policy in 2002 to illustrate this. He mentioned further that as we move forward, policies and discussions between the RIRs will get more complicated. In this context, he suggested using the term “Inter-RIR” to be used instead of “Global”. He further stated that for such activity to be conducted by the NRO, some changes are needed in the NRO MoU to allow inter-RIR policy development, as the actual MoU does not have a provision for it.

AA mentioned that he was not part of the negotiation of the NRO MoU and asked for some clarifications as to the impact of what RP is suggesting on the ASO MoU. RP clarified and said there is no impact. There were some discussions on the issue and after discussion it was agreed that RE and RP will work together
on a proposal and send to the NRO EC for review. The Chair thanked RE and RP for their contributions.

11. Review of status of ITU Africa and Asia meeting.

The Chair mentioned that the objective of this agenda item is to review the status of the upcoming 2008 ITU events. He suggested that AA leads this action item.

ITU Africa 2008
—————

AA gave the following updates:

– For the booth design, AFRINIC has started working with OPEX, the company officially appointed by ITU for the exhibition management.

– A first draft of the booth design was circulated to the CCG in January 2008.

– There was an interesting financial proposal to have the same booth used for ITU Asia 2008  event in APNIC region. At the moment, APNIC team and AFRINIC are discussing the best ways to redesign to make it efficiently reusable by APNIC.

– APNIC has proposed to make some changes to the original design and this is being worked on with the design company.

– The giveaways are also being worked on.

– ICANN and ISOC expressed interest to be present at the ITU Africa 2008, and AA informed them that the booth objective it to be more regional focused rather than global.

– RIPE NCC agreed to provide assistance on the ITU Africa event.

– The other African technical community such as AfTLD, AFNOG etc will also be represented

– A mailing list comprising of RIPE NCC, AFRINIC and APNIC was created to coordinate the ITU Africa event.

The Chair thanked AA for the update. He asked if AFRINIC will need some assistance in terms of staffing and RP mentioned that ARIN can provide staff if required.

AA mentioned that the booth will be quite small and that for the moment we do have the required staff. He mentioned that they are looking into the staffing organisation with RIPE NCC also. He said, he would welcome any assistance if so required and thanked the Chair and RP for their support.

ITU Asia meeting
—————-

The Chair mentioned that there is no particular update for the moment except that APNIC will be using the same booth as AFRINIC for the ITU Africa event based on the mutual cost benefits.

12. NRO reaction to recent ITU-T SG2/3 contributions.

In relation to the ITU-T SG2/3 contributions, it was suggested that the NRO EC drafts a short text in reply to the documents sent by the ITU. RP and RE volunteered to work on this.

AP also mentioned that he is under impression that this issue should be moved to the SG3 instead of SG2 where it is being raised now. However,  it was agreed that we cannot add that to our response as this is an Internal ITU structure, but this could be commented by an NRO representative who is attending the face
to face meeting where this issue will be discussed.

RE informed that during the CITEL meeting in Washington last week, the Brazilian delegation has circulated a document to propose that a new study group be created to accommodate internet governance issues at a global level.  He further said that he is under the impression that this proposal was not communicated to
all parties concerned yet. The new study group for instance will develop a more direct relationship with the GAC and the IGF.

The Chair asked for comments. There were no comments.

13. AOB

The Chair asked for AOB.

With regards to the Geneva meeting, RE mentioned that it will be good if the NRO EC members can work on the document pertaining to the Global Cooperation with ITU. RP volunteered.

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

14. Adjournment.

The Chair called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. RP moved as follows:

`The NRO EC moves to adjourn the meeting at 12h37 UTC.`

AP seconded the motion.

The Chair called for objections and there were none.
The Chair thanked the participants for their presence.

Comments are closed.