Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 100817


Teleconference 17th August 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)


  • APNIC: Germán Valdez (GV)
  • ARIN: Nate Davis (ND)
  • RIPE NCC: Paul Rendek (PR)
  • LACNIC: Hartmut Glaser (HG)


  1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
  2. Previous Minutes
    1. 25 May
    2. 20 July
  3. Review Action Items
  4. Report from ECG
  5. Report from CCG
  6. RS related
    1. Decision to use shelved /8s from 1 Jan
    2. Consistency of reserving address space
    3. Exchanging info on regional resource stocks
    4. Protecting the registry information
  7. ASO
    1. Kicking off ASO Review, Status
    2. AC proposal for f2f meeting
  8. ITU
    1. ITU-IPv6 Group
    2. Plenipot
  9. AOB
  10. Adjournment

1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing

The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:05 UTC.
Apologies from Andrei.

The agenda was not modified.

2. Previous Minutes

Motion to approve 25 May 2010 minutes by RE, seconded by PW. None opposed and the motion carried.

Regarding the 20 July 2010, PW mentioned that there’s a few references to Paul which refer to Paul Rendek, RE said that he would clarify those references before publishing the minutes. Motion to approve the minutes by JC, seconded by RE. None opposed and the motion carried.

3. Review Action Items

Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property. LACNIC has not sent the information yet.

Action item 100720-01: ARIN to send a summary of each RIR’s report on their formal statements regarding being property/non property. Pending preceding action item.

Action 20100427-3: Each to send their reasons or justifications for moving forward with the incorporation to the list.

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 20100525-05: JC to try to draft a message that describes the scope of the initial data escrow project.

Action item 20100525-06: AP to put together a straw man for the NRO EC and get it to the ECG before Brussels. (Re: Contingency plans).

Action item 20100525-08: Once the letter is finalized on the EC mailing list, AP to send a letter to the RIR Boards list for their information. (Letter of support Re:IANA). The letter was sent to Rod, but not to the RIR Boards list.

Action item 20100525-11: AP to inquire about NRO membership in the ITU in its current, not incorporated form.

Action item 2010-R2-1: The NRO EC have agreed to share information prior to the next retreat about financial stability.

Action item 2010-R2-5: RE to prepare a document to discuss in the EC about the role of the AC for further discussion with the ASO Chair and vice chairs.

JC offered to take on this item and prepare a draft for the NRO EC list. He said that, in short, the ASO should hold an open meeting during ICANN where it reviews the status of policies in all the regions as well as global policies that are going on in all the regions and that we use that as a vehicle for inviting the board, the GAC and anyone else who’s interested to come and find out what’s going on in the AC.

PR asked JC to include Susan in the loop as she’s responsible for our presence at ICANN, she’s running that on behalf of the CCG, and this is part of what the EC asked from the CCG: to pump up the RIRs and the ASO in ICANN meetings.

Action item 2010-R2-6: PR to work with the CCG in elaborating this list of IPv6 key messages.

PR said the CCG is constantly looking at the messaging for v6.

PR said the CCG will do that, and added that there will also be an “IPv6 around the World” document which could be distributed. All agreed.

Action item 100720-03: PR and the CCG to work on a proposal to be sent to ICANN regarding the communication of policy development. RE to work with PR on this (Combined with Action Item 2010-R2-5). CLOSED

RE noted that this action has many points in common with Action Item 2010-R2-5 and asked whether they should keep both actions or just one.

JC said that basically two steps were involved: 1) JC to present a written proposal to the NRO EC; 2) whatever the course of action is agreed on, there’s an outstanding Doug Brent message which we need to respond to.

All agreed and decided to combine both action items and assign them to JC (keep Action Item 2010-R2-5 and close Action item 100720-03).

Action item 2010-R2-13: AR to work with the ECG to split phase 3 (of the RPKI working plan) into two phases. The ECG will revise the RPKI project timeline with internal and external dates and submit this to the NRO EC for their upcoming EC meeting. The plan will be then to given to IANA. Andrei was not present to provide an update.

Action item 2010-R2-15: AR to work with the ECG to monitor the progresses on domain names signing.

Action item 2010-R2-17: The CCG to revisit the CCG charter to ensure that PCG activities are covered in the charter.

PR said that when the CCG had their meeting in Montevideo they took a quick look at that but haven’t done any modifications yet. He added that the CCG is aware of this action and will be wrapping it up.

Action item 2010-R2-18: JC to draft the letter/MoU regarding the limit of 2 IPv4 /8s and 2 16 bits ASN blocks per request to IANA and send it to the EC.

The letter/MoU regarding the limit of 2 IPv4 /8s and 2 16 bits ASN blocks per request to IANA that JC sent to the list will be discussed later during this meeting.

Action item 2010-R2-19: ARIN to distribute the IP address property spreadsheet to the NRO EC.

Action item 2010-R2-20: All the RIRs to review the IP address property spreadsheet and decide if changes need to be made to their materials.

Action item 100720-03: JC to take a first pass at addressing his question (the risks faced by RIRs particularly as they affect ICANN’s ability to accomplish its mission), writing several paragraphs assessing the risks and send it to RE for a first look and then to the NRO EC.

Action item 100720-04: AP to ask the RSMs if they have a recommendation regarding the reservation of address space. Overtaken by events.

Action Item 100720-05: Secretariat to check events and pick a spot possibly in early February.

4. Report from ECG

AP said that the report has been sent and that although Andrei is not here today he had sent another email this morning from Andrei requesting feedback from the EC.

JC suggested walking through each point included in Andrei’s email and all agreed.

1) Activity plan 2010. The ECG seek approval.

  • Per document “ECG Program Plan 2010.pdf”, e-mail sent June 25

All agreed with this item and formally approved the 2010 activity plan.

2) RPKI rollout plan. The ECG seek feedback regarding the public release dates and approval.

  • Per document “RPKI Implementation Plan-5.pdf” and e-mail sent July 16
  • Another thing that is unclear is when, who and how to involve IANA.

All agreed with this item and the rollout plan was approved.

3) RPKI global view and transfers. The ECG seek approval.

  • Per document “RPKI global view.pdf”, e-mail sent June 25

AP agreed, PW agreed, JC agreed, AA agreed.
RE said he would check that.

4) Content of the phase 2 Resource Trust Anchors (RTAs). The ECG seek approval of the proposed alternative, e-mail sent June 25.

PW said he needs to defer on this point and will come back later as it is a fairly complicated issue. All agreed.

5) Roles and responsibilities of the secondary DNS operators for and The ECG submitted the proposed document to the EC (25 June). It is not clear whether this is on the EC plate of whether any further action is required from the ECG?

JC said he doesn’t have that document. AA said he would resend that email to the list.

6) Data Escrow and Disaster Recovery.

RE noted that there is an action on JC in this sense.
AP asked if there were any other ECG related issues, to which RE replied that Andrei had asked for guidance on two more points: regarding ERX and RPKI.

RE said that Andrei had first asked when an RIR returns address space that is in a minority space returns it to the holding minority RIR, which RIR is able to allocate that block to future other RIRs. Andrei suspected that the answer was the minority holder RIR, and that RE had replied he was correct, that if a portion of addresses had previously been allocated to one RIR if the addresses are returned they remain with the same RIR (except if the global policy is approved). All agreed.

RE said the second question raised by Andrei involved the same situation, except the address space is a previously transfer part of a /8 held by another RIR and that he had not understood the question.

PW said that these questions require diagrams, as they’re quite specific cases that are hopefully theoretical and will be overtaken by events. JC agreed that it would be nice to have diagrams, a ppt presentation that will allow us to better answer these questions. All agreed.

5. Report from CCG

AP said that PR had sent a reports and asked if there were any questions. None were heard.

PR added a few updates:

  • One thing that we didn’t include in the CCG update is certification (RPKI). Don’t think that the CCG is avoiding this issue, but it’s a tough subject for the CCG so we’re counting on close cooperation with the ECG for discussing the plans for communications around certification.
  • Another thing that will come in the EC’s direction is that the CCG has completed the 5% press release. We’re expecting that it will have to be sent out somewhere around October, so PR will send that press release to the EC today or tomorrow.
  • The other thing is the IGF: the CCG has also got a draft release on what we’ll be sending out regarding the IGF from the NRO.

6. RS related

a. Decision to use shelved /8s from 1 Jan

AP said they should make this decision sooner than later. JC asked whether the RSMs have discussed this or is this coming to us for first assessment, to which PW said they have discussed it and come to a conclusion.

RE asked whether by that PW meant that he would like them to start using those addresses on January 1st, to which PW replied that it’s what the RSMs are proposing.

RE said changes should not be introduced at this point. He clarified that it would not change anything for LACNIC as LACNIC does not expect to go back to the IANA pool for v4 addresses before the end of the central pool, for LACNIC it is the same to start using those addresses today or next year. He added that in his opinion, in terms of equity, we should maintain the criteria that we have applied until now, but that it has more implications for others he’s willing to go along with what the others decide.

RE said he sees no merit for changing anything at this point (we don’t declare that space now, we should continue doing the same). AA agreed with this point of view.

b. Consistency of reserving address space

It was noted that there’s an open action item on AP regarding this.

c. Exchanging info on regional resource stocks

RE proposed periodically (maybe monthly or quarterly) exchanging information regarding the stock of IP addresses that each RIR has in order to have greater transparency at this stage and added that they should start working on predictions about the future. He said that all should work not necessarily together but in parallel, more or less at the same time, on two points: 1) start exchanging information about IP address stocks: 2) start working on predictions about how many addresses each RIR has, how we think those addresses will be spent and so on.

AA asked whether this would be handled under the NRO, e.g., as a regular publication about the state of addresses in each RIR, something official that the NRO is going to publish, or whether it is simply about sharing information among the EC.

RE replied that the first point is an NRO matter, simply exchanging information. Regarding the second point (predictions), RE said that the EC can later decide to publish something as the NRO but that in the mean time at least it’s necessary to know how the other RIRs are working to be able to answer questions with an aligned speech, for example at the IGF.

AA said he was asking because AFRINIC is planning to send a correspondence to regulators in their region with information like the one mentioned by RE, explaining the IPv4 situation in Africa. He asked RE whether that was the type of information he’d like them to exchange.

PW noted that whenever they talk about compiling RIR statistics for comparative purposes it will require considerable work on cooperation regarding definitions, data collection, categorization systems and so forth. PW said in his opinion swapping data informally is a good idea, but as an exercise for the RSMs they should be asked to carefully define what data they are compiling and exchanging and take responsibility for ensuring that the numbers are comparable, that they shouldn’t be launching into publication without being sure that the data is good. JC fully agreed with PW’s opinion.

New action item 100817-02: RE to take the lead on starting the exchange of information about IP address stocks in each registry.

d. Protecting the registry information

AP said that he’s heard discussions (in very early stages) about risks that would potentially expose the core registry information due to some mishap to the RIR, the RIPE NCC in this case. He asked whether the others have done anything or are thinking about organizationally protecting the data from potential litigation.

PW and RE said that they are not doing anything on this topic but it is an interesting point.

e. MoU on the two /8s and two 16-bit ASN blocks

AP said that he had added this as it seemed to be a good time to discuss the points brought up by PW.

JC said he thinks that any mechanism that gets a MoU for agreement suffices, whether it’s a less legal one or one that is reorganized to have more in the agreement section. He then asked PW whether he’d like to edit the MoU.

PW said that he would not have time for at least a couple of weeks, but would see what he can do before next week. JC thanked PW and said that after that he would take the edit cleanup pass.

New action item 100817-03: PW to do a first edit of the MoU on the two /8s and two 16-bit ASN blocks. JC to do the cleanup pass on the edit.

7. ASO

a. Kicking off ASO Review, Status

AA said he was waiting for AP, as AP was supposed to communicate with Ray and Olof, but has had no feed back yet. He said that from his side the terms of reference are ready and they just need to publish it. He added that they had a discussion the last time about who would prepare it, whether opening the call for proposals publicly or hiring somebody to do this.

AP said he’s sent their version to Olof and Ray, that Ray had said he’d comment on it but has not done so yet. AP added that he would be gently in favor or starting the process in order to get it over with soon and also gently in favor of opening a request for proposals.

AP expressed his concern regarding perceived openness and transparency and added that publishing something and inviting different parties to talk to us is a good thing.

PW mentioned that the selection process had not yet been discussed and would probably be the next question. AA replied that the call for proposals contains some criteria for evaluating the applications. AA added that they can later decide how they want the proposals to be evaluated but suggested that the EC and somebody from the ASO AC should form a committee. AA said that he would draft a process and send it to the list.

b. AC proposal for f2f meeting

AP said that apparently the ASO AC seems to be planning another f2f meeting this year and evaluating the possibility of the RIPE meeting in Rome. He added that in general he would be mildly in favor of that and that he’d be willing to host a meeting should it be required.

RE recalled that a couple of years ago the EC decided to support one f2f meeting per year. AP recalled the same.

RE said they communicated that decision to the ASO chair and doesn’t understand why there should be two f2f meetings (it has not been budgeted). He added that after the Brussels meeting he sees no need of having a second f2f meeting this year. PW agreed.

HG observed that the possibility of having another f2f meeting is still under discussion in the ASO AC, that the AC has not yet reached full consensus on the idea, which is still a proposal from some members that has not been approved and no formal request has been presented so far.

New Action item 100817-04: JC to send a note to Louie Lee reminding him that it had been agreed that the ASO AC would have one f2f meeting per year, but that, exceptionally, if the ASO AC has a strong, properly prepared agenda, the EC would be willing to consider a second f2f meeting.

8. ITU

a. ITU-IPv6 Group

RE said he’d included this agenda item just to have a summary of what the correspondence groups have been doing and how they will prepare for the next meeting, not from the point of view of the delegation (this has already been discussed) but what do we expect for the next meeting.

JC said he intends to be in Geneva as he’s registered for that meeting. He said he hopes that they can go with the strategy they have agreed upon (keeping it a low key event), but that if anything substantial comes up and gets argued he’d like to participate.

It was stated that Cathy from ARIN will be there and that AA will be running the delegation and in the room. PR said that Chris Buckridge from RIPE NCC will be there to write any copy that may be needed.

b. Plenipot

RE said that they should start discussing who will be there, when, etc.

PW asked RE whether he though they should adopt the same approach to Plenipot as they did to the IPv6 group (to have a small group of representatives), to which RE replied that in his opinion it is a good approach, as even sending a small group will be expensive. RE noted that the meeting is 3 weeks long so it’s difficult to know when different issues will be discussed. RE supported the approach of sending a small group and that there are people in other RIRs that are more experience than those in LACNIC.

PW suggested that as it is in LACNIC’s region perhaps LACNIC could take responsibility for staffing. RE replied that they could do that.

After discussing various travel plans, JC concluded by saying that ARIN will have one person present for the entire meeting and that Cathy and Susan will be there for the last two weeks.

PW said he’s not sure whether APNIC will have someone there. AP said that RIPE will do some preparatory work with the governments but probably won’t send anyone.

RE said that LACNIC can send someone, but for one week and not three.

AA said AFRINIC will definitely have somebody there.

9. AOB

No further business was proposed for discussion.

10. Adjournment

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was formally adjourned at 12.45 UTC.

Last modified on 02/12/2010