27 April 2010

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 100427

Minutes

Teleconference 27 April 2010, 11:00 UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

  • RIPE NCC:Axel Pawlik (AP, Chairman)
  • LACNIC:Raul Echeberria (RE, Secretary)
  • ARIN:John Curran (JC, Treasurer)
  • AFRINIC: Adiel Akplogan (AA, Member)
  • APNIC: Paul Wilson (PW, Member) (from 11:40 UTC)

Observers:

  • ARIN: Nate Davis (ND)
  • LACNIC: Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • RIPE: Andrei Robachevski (AR)

Agenda

  • 1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
  • 2. Previous Minutes
  • 3. Review Action Items
  • 4. Update from the CCG / PCG
  • 5. Update from the ECG
  • 6. IETF / IAB
  • 7. ICANN / IANA
    • a. ASO Review ToR
    • b. Reply to Beckstrom letter
    • c. RE to report on ICP2 analysis
  • 8. ITU
    • a. CSTD Meeting presence
    • b. WTCD presence
  • 9. AOB
  • 10. Adjournment

1. Welcome Apologies, Agenda Bashing

The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:10 UTC.

2. Previous Minutes

RE proposed approving the minutes and suggested that everyone check the minutes during the next couple of days before publishing them on the website.

The minutes were approved.

3. Review Action Items

Action 200907-05: AA will look at Terms of Reference as well as a process model for the ASO review, and propose them to the NRO EC.

AA said he’d sent a document to the EC and that this action item is CLOSED. He added that a new action item should be opened.

AA said he believed PW had commented on the last version he’d sent, adding that one thing the EC might want to refine is the link between the ASO and the NRO, as this needs to be clarified in the documents.

AA fully agreed and added that we need to clarify this in the documents, to maintain consistency saying the review of the ASO.

Action 100427-1: All to review the document sent by AA once again, after incorporating PW’s comments, and send comments to the EC list within a week

Action item: 200906-04: NRO to start the preparation of the incorporation process with

immediate effect.

AP asked whether everyone had the final documents.

RE said he had sent the final documents to the EC and had only received one comment, from AP, with the suggestion to change the conformation of the review committee. RE said that this was a very simple change and that it had been done (to say that this committee will be formed by the treasurers of all the RIRs). He said that he was not sure whether the document had been circulated again with this change but that the documents have been ready for a long time. RE offered to send out the documents once again.

AA asked whether the review committee would be formed by the treasurers of all the boards, to which RE replied that it would be made up by the treasurers of the Boards of the RIRs, as proposed by AP. He noted that AP’s proposal made sense because, if the review committee were formed by staff members, it would mean that they would be controlling themselves.

AA suggested that they ask the boards to appoint somebody for this purpose because, for example, AFRINIC has a financial committee but no treasurer. PW also agreed with those changes − that it should be someone appointed from each board.

Action 100427-2: RE to send the final version of the incorporation documents with the minor changes that were suggested.

RE added that in any case he wanted the EC to know that the documents were ready. He commented that during the previous EC meeting there had been a long discussion on the issue of incorporation and that they had concluded that it would be good to prepare a list of pros and cons regarding incorporation, but that they hadn’t created any action item on that, adding that perhaps they should do so now.

AP and PW agreed.

RE said that during the previous meeting the chair had asked each member of the EC to send what they considered to be their reasons or justifications for moving forward with the incorporation.

Action 100427-3: Each to send their reasons or justifications for moving forward with the incorporation to the list.

Action item: 200906-17: CCG to work on an awareness campaign for ASN 2 byte exhaustion.

Paul Rendek was not on the call so this action item was not discussed.

Action Item 2010-R01: AP – RPKI implementation: Prepare Statement of Work, Budget, Timeline for the next 24 months.

AP said the person that is in charge internally had sent a document to AFRINIC but hadn’t received any comments yet and would be sending it to ARIN next. AP said he’d like to see the complete work so that we can discuss it here on the list.

Action Item 2010-R04 (including ex 2010-R04): AP & PR – Obtain information on the NRO “employing” an FTE.

AP said that last time he had told the EC that for them it would probably be around 60,000 Euros and said he’d be interested in finding out how expensive it would be for the other RIRs so that they could compare.

PW asked whether they had a job description, to which AP replied that it would be easy for him to provide one.

Action 100427-4: After AP sends out the corresponding job description, each organization to provide the EC an estimate for adding such an FTE to their respective organizations.

Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property.

AP said he would do this later that afternoon. PW said he had not yet done it.

Action Item 2010-R08: JC – Written material and written PowerPoint slide deck on c29 briefing to be given to NRO.

JC said this item is still open, that he just got back the revised ppt deck but did not like what he saw so it was updated. He said he now has the handout and the ppt and asked whether he should give them to the CCG so that they can work on them.

JC proposed sending those to the CCG and saying “this is what we’re using for our outreach on c29 to governments” and asking them to try to make an NRO version of this.

Action Item 2010-R09: NRO − Talk to the community & ICANN. The NRO is aware of some proposals in this direction and the NRO is not against. There is a process in place and those that propose this kind of initiatives have to follow that process.

It will be mentioned in future talks with ICANN

Action Item 2010-R10: LACNIC – Produce the first draft letter of support to ICANN and distribute to the NRO for feedback and approval.

RE said he hadn’t done this but promised to do it very soon. He added that the action in general would be completed in Brussels, and that he’d complete this particular item this week because it will be good to have a discussion with the board before proceeding

Action Item 2010-R11: PR – Review the PCG & CCG, explore the possibility of both groups merging together.

PR was not present. AP said PR was working on this but the action item remains open.

Action item 201003-01: JC to work in budgeting process to being used in the NRO in the future.

JC said that he and Bob Stratton are working on that. He added that it is a fairly long term action which will probably be completed by June.

Action item 201003-02: AP to task the Registration Services Manager to work together in the implementation of the new statistics model.

AP apologized for not having done this yet and said had would start working on this.

Action item 201003-03: RE to read and analyze the ICP2 and report to the EC.

AP noted that this is on the agenda for later on, to which RE apologized for having failed to complete this task.

NEW ACTIONS

Action item: 201004-01: AP – Contact coordination groups’ chairs and ask for their planning regarding their meetings.

AP observed that the idea behind this was to see whether other groups such as the ECG or the registration services managers could get together with the EC at their retreat in Brussels. He said he’d asked them all and received feedback from the ECG saying that they have no intention of meeting in or around Brussels. AP added that when he had further feedback from the other groups he’d let the EC know.

Action item: 201004-02: JC to communicate with the ICANN / IANA group regarding the SLA for DNS services.

JC said that the action has been done, that the IANA team is now proceeding with getting internal sign-offs. He added that they’re now in the final preparations for doing the cut-over, as soon as they get the green light from ICANN management that it’s OK they’re willing to live with it, that they just wanted to make sure that Rod and the operating officer knew that there was an SLA.

4. Update from the CCG / PCG

AP said he’d talked to Paul Rendek and that he had apologized for not being able to attend the meeting. AP added that PR would send the update in written form.

5. Update from the ECG

AR said that he would provide a very quick update as the ECG had not met since the previous EC meeting.

He said that RPKI is planning for phase 2 and that they’ve created a plan with five intermediate milestones starting from May 15 and ending on November 15, the main goal of which is to minimize the risk of not arriving on time. He said that when they had discussed the phase 2 deployment plan it was clear that there were very few points that needed to be coordinated, as all that was necessary was to be ready by January 1st. AR said that he believes this five milestone plan is very important to manage the risks. He said that the ECG had received input (status update) from LACNIC and RIPE and were waiting for the other RIRs.

He mentioned that they had also planned for phase 3, which is also under ECG consideration. The plan currently includes 6 checkpoints and is more complex because it requires some interrupt testing and involves more coordination. This plan is necessary to answer the question the EC asked last time: “when will you be ready to come up with clear milestones and commitments so the CCG can work on a communication plan?” AR said they are still aiming at 15 May, but they need everyone to provide estimates for phase 3. As a point of reference, he said that the preliminary estimate for phase 3 for RIPE NCC is 6-9 months, adding that in his opinion this suggests that the timeline currently on the table is pretty aggressive.

AR said that another thing they are discussing is RPKI and asked if those present remembered the part of his presentation at the retreat which showed a possible model of RPKI, different models that would achieve the same goals. He added that the first draft is ready and is under the ECG coordination. He said that this is a very important document to support the model that they are choosing and to make their story stronger.

AR concluded by saying that they would have a teleconference call the following day where they would discuss these items and also hopefully sign-off on the activity plan, which he would be happy to submit to the NRO EC.

AP asked whether there were any questions, at which time JC said that in order to get everyone aligned on architecture it was necessary to agree on how to chain the certificates and how to handle transfers. JC asked whether this was still an open question or whether the ECG had any recommendation on how that should be done.

AR replied that the document he was referring to discusses the RPKI global view on transfers −how to handle inter-area transfers− and that this document is still under consideration. He added that he believes the ECG is converging towards one particular model, but that they are still not ready to release this document to the NRO EC.

6. IETF / IAB

No points were raised for discussion.

7. ICANN / IANA

a. ASO Review ToR

AP noted that the ASO review had already been discussed.

b. Reply to Beckstrom letter

AP said that Rod Beckstrom has sent him a letter asking for advice and that Paul had replied to that letter with some detail, adding that he tended to agree with the approach.

AA said that he agreed with Paul’s comment but that they should request a meeting with Rod and other ICANN staff to discuss this type of matters.

AP said he would do that even before sending the request. He commented that he had had a meeting with Rod and said they’d like to meet with him, perhaps this could be a good moment to take this up and request a meeting in Brussels. PW agreed.

PW said that in his opinion it would still be helpful to send him a reply and to put some points on record before the Brussels meeting, and offered to send this to AP by the end of the week. AP agreed and thanked PW, saying that he could complete the action during the weekend, before going to Prague.

PW said he’d work on this and get back to the EC.

c. RE to report on ICP2 analysis

RE said that this would be done as soon as possible.

8. ITU

a. CSTD Meeting presence

AP said he had an invitation to the CSTD meeting and would personally attend (during the LACNIC meeting). He added that he would like to have someone else there (Paul Rendek or their liaison officer, Roland), as he agrees it’s an important meeting and they should be there.

RE clarified that it is not an ITU meeting but a UN meeting. He said that he would appreciate it if AP could send someone and that, if possible, he would like that person to participate formally on behalf or the NRO instead of on behalf of RIPE NCC. RE said that if that person made a presentation or any public interventions, the person could mention that he is participating on behalf of the NRO, and that the expenses of that trip could be covered by the NRO instead of RIPE NCC.

AP said that he didn’t know exactly who the person would be, but that it would be done.

b. WTCD presence

AP said that PW had sent an email earlier, and asked PW whether he had anything to comment.

PW replied that the email was really for their information, as he had not had a look at the side meetings that were referenced there. He added that he’d been hearing all over the place that this is an important meeting to attend, and that he believes the CCG PCG is planning to coordinate some RIR attendance there. He asked whether that was correct, to which the answer was that he was indeed correct.

PW said that he has nothing in particular to talk about yet, that perhaps they needed to define what they should be doing there. He added that he plans to be there for the second week and that a total of three members of APNIC staff −including himself− would be there some or all of the time.

AP said that it might be good to share the list of names of the staff members who will attend this meeting.

RE observed that nobody from LACNIC would be going; AA said that AFRINIC would not be sending anyone either.

Action 100427-5: All of us −except LACNIC and AFRINIC− to send a list of the people they are sending to the WTCD meeting.

RE had two questions not exactly related to the ITU but to the broader scope of this item. The first question was whether the workshop proposal was finally submitted on time to the IGF Secretariat, to which HG replied all the workshops are on the website. The second question was whether they had finally submitted the NRO report about enhanced cooperation to UNDESA, to which AP replied that they had.

9. AOB

AP went around the table asking whether there was any other business to discuss.

AP said that he personally had no other business to discuss.

JC said that if they’re going to be meeting in Brussels he’d like to be able to book travel and for that he would need to know the earliest and last meetings they’re going to have in Brussels.

RE reminded the EC that there will also be an AC meeting on Tuesday and that they are planning a meeting with ICANN staff and GAC and there will not be anything else until Friday and Saturday.

JC asked whether the EC meeting would be limited to Friday and Saturday and therefore they could book their return flights for Sunday.

AP said that as far as they’d discussed it’s just Friday and Saturday, but added that he’s still waiting for feedback from CCG and the Registration Services Managers and that as soon as he has any information he would communicate it to the EC.

PW asked whether the observers would be invited to the Brussels retreat, to which RE replied that it is mainly a staff retreat but that in his view observers are very welcome.

PW agreed and no objections were heard.

10. Adjournment

There being no further to discuss, AP adjourned the meeting at 12.05 UTC

Comments are closed.