Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 100720


Teleconference 20 July 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)


1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
2. Previous Minutes
3. Review Action Items
4. Kicking off ASO Review
5. Leo’s mail regarding risks
6. Participation in ITU-IPv6 September meeting.
7. Finalizing the list of address holds and related IANA concerns
8. AOB
a. Timing next NRO EC retreat
9. Adjournment

1. Welcome Apologies, Agenda Bashing

The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:10 UTC. The agenda was reviewed and item 8 was added.

Apologies from Andrei and Paul Rendek.

2. Previous Minutes

RE observed that the minutes of the May 25 meeting have not been approved yet, and that the minutes of the retreat need not be approved because it was not an official EC meeting. It was agreed that the retreat was a workshop, not a meeting.
It was decided to approve the 25 May meeting minutes on the list no later than this week. The Chair also asked the EC to informally go through the notes from the retreat and see if they have any comments.

3. Review Action Items

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

AP said that the documentation had been sent to both LACNIC and ARIN and that they’re waiting for comments on that. He asked whether the they should keep this item on the NRO EC action list or deal with it separately.


Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property. (was still open for LACNIC and AFRINIC)

AP said that AA already sent the inforation to the list.
RE asked whether the intention was to have a joint NRO statement, to which JC replied that the intention is that we all have consistent statements. JC said that there’s no need for an NRO statement but that he’d just like have a summary of places where we might have wording differences and then decide whether we want to change those differences or not.

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

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

JC said that the next step would be for him to send a draft message to everyone asking the coordination groups to prepare work plans for 2011.

Action 20100427-1: 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. (ASO terms of reference). DONE.

Action 20100427-2: RE to send the final version of the incorporation documents with the minor changes that were suggested. DONE.

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

The Chair thanked PW for sending his email earlier and asked all to join him in doing so.

RE said that he would add some reasons.

PW suggested adding any topical issues we’re actually considering at the moment which would require incorporation, e.g. we’ve discussed ITU membership and this might provide a specific reason to incorporate.

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.

This action item is OPEN. AP said he has not done this yet but will do it as soon as possible.

Action item 100525-01: All to read the report from PR and respond to it. (campaign about ASN-2 bytes exhaustion). DONE.

Action item 20100525-02: All to confirm or not our commitment to the RPKI roadmap for phase 2. DONE.

Action item 20100525-03: All to read the RPKI Global View document and respond to the ECG on how to proceed. DONE.

Action item 20100525-04: All to read the Reverse Servers Responsibility document and provide comments and feedback to the ECG. DONE.

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

This action item is OPEN. JC said he’d do it this week.

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).

AP said he had not done this but that it might have been overtaken by events. He said he would find out.

Action item 20100525-07: AP to write a message to the ASO AC chair saying that the NRO EC has looked at the global PDP the NRO has not handed the policy over yet to the ASO AC formally yet and that we don’t expect to do so in the current state of discussions. They can of course discuss it as concerned members of the community, but not as the ASO AC formally. DONE (at the Brussels AC meeting).

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)

This action item is OPEN.

Action item 20100525-09: AP to draft a letter of response based on PW’s paragraphs and circulate it to the list for discussion before sending it. (Re: letter from R.Beckstrom). DONE.

Action item 20100525-10: JC to write a position paper or a white paper on the above and bring it to Brussels. (Re: Transfer and related issues). DONE.

JC said that PR had asked on the mailing list for the current state of this, so he proceeded to provide the following update:

After a brief discussion, all agreed that they should go ahead with the IAB route and try to get it happening this week and it was determined that Action Item 2010-R2-3 and Action item 2010-R2-4 could now be completed.

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

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

Action item 2010-R2-2:  Axel to send comments to DoC based on the text already agreed in the list. DONE

Action item 2010-R2-3: John to draft  a letter to Olaff  asking IAB to indicate ICANN to proceed with the transfer. DONE

Action item 2010-R2-4: Axel to send a letter to Olaff  asking IAB to indicate ICANN to proceed with the transfer. DONE

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.

This action item is OPEN.

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

RE clarified that this refers to what we agreed with Rod, that we would send him some key messages about IPv6. RE added that during the meeting PR had said that most of the key messages are already in the materials that have already been developed.

PR agreed and said that when the CCG had worked together in Montevideo they had looked at all their messaging and he had brought the point home that we need to make sure that our IPv6 messages are there. He said that Megan is doing this and that he would be sending them to AP so that he can review and forward them to Rod.

Action item 2010-R2-7: AP to share the document provided by Ray and Olof regarding ASO review. DONE.

Action item 2010-R2-8: AA to send the NRO document to Olof regarding ASO review.

AP proposed doing this himself unless AA had done it already.

AP said that he had already told Olof that we want to do this ourselves, that we have a document. He suggested confirming this in writing to Olof and Ray and attaching the NRO document as a sign that we have worked on this.

This action is DONE.
A new action is created.

New Action item 100720-02: AP to send the NRO document prepared by AA regarding ASO review to Olof.

Action item 2010-R2-9: AP to contact Chris Disspain in order to talk about the charter (of the DNS Cert working group) before deciding if joining or not.

AP said he had talked to him in person in Brussels and is now waiting for the charter to arrive. AP said he would remind Chris.
This action item is DONE

Action item 2010-R2-10: AP to respond to Doug Brent saying that the NRO will work in a proposal on how to best communicate the status of Internet number policy development to the various ICANN communities. DONE.

AP commented that Doug is leaving and has referred him to his replacement. He added that the NRO now must come up with that proposal.

New 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 (see Action Item 2010-R2-5).

Action item 2010-R2-11: All to read the document prepared by John on budget process proposal and send final comments before the next EC meeting. DONE.

Action item 2010-R2-12: PR to circulate the latest version of the NRO Secretariat Duties & Responsibilities document to the NRO EC. DONE.

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 and they will be asked if they can participate according to plan.

AP will ask AR about the status of this action item once he’s back in the office.

PR said in relation to R2-13 that AR has sent the revised project timeline to the NRO EC list and confirmed that it has been sent to the CCG and they’re looking at the latest draft and making their communications plans there.

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

This action remains OPEN

Action item 2010-R2-16: PR to update the CCG report to include actions outlined by the Board.

PR said that this is probably a bit of an error in his part of the notes and instead it should read “PR to update the CCG report to include actions outlined by the NRO EC”. The NRO EC gave us a bunch of actions during your meting in Brussels and I can confirm that those actions were discussed and delegated inside the CCG during our meeting in Montevideo. PR said he’d forward to the EC the email he sent the CCG outlining each of those actions.


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

PR said they had discussed this and the CCG is taking it on board.

This action remains OPEN

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. DONE.

AP said that PR had sent some comments and asked whether they wanted to discuss them now or on the mailing list. It was decided to discuss them on the mailing list.

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

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. OPEN.

4. Kicking off ASO Review

AP said that they are going to communicate with ICANN and have a document for that, but that now they need to decide how they will we do this. He asked if anyone had any ideas or if they should just post this opportunity on our various websites and perhaps point people who we think are useful for this to that.

It was discussed different options regarding who could conduct the review. Among other options, it was considered that the review could be conduced by a  consulting company, an independent review panel or an external organization under an agreement with the NRO.

The discussion will continue on the mailing list during the course of the next few weeks.

5. Leo’s mail regarding risks

JC said that in his opinion, if the ICANN board needs an assessment of the risks involved in the registry system then the NRO should be be the ones to reply very specifically to ICANN staff with our assessment so that they can then forward it on to the board. JC added that he had sent Leo a message saying he would take this matter up with the NRO and get back to him and that had Leo acknowledged this.

JC said that the NRO taking charge of this is good news as we can define the risk as we feel we need to have them defined, but that we now have to create an action item to write up potential risks that could cause the failure of the Internet numbering system.

JC  said that he’d try to take a first try at it. He said that they’d identified risk areas to include force majeure, capture, stockpiling, legal risks, business failure of an RIR, and operational problems.

There was discussion regarding the characteristics of the analysis that should be done.

PW said they’d discussed these issues in the recent retreat, perhaps it’s worth mentioning that in this response.

New 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.

6. Participation in ITU-IPv6 September meeting.

RE said in Brussels they had agreed to send a small delegation to this meeting and he proposed discussing who should be there. He suggested that perhaps AP who is in Europe could be well positioned to lead the group, to which AP replied that he will be in Australia and so he might not be the very best candidate.

RE proposed sending a delegation of three people from different RIRs.

JC repeated that he was planning to be there, and RE said that perhaps there could be two other people from other RIRs − an NRO delegation led by a member of the EC. RE added that JC could be the chair of the NRO delegation.

RE moved to approve the following: “To send an NRO delegation composed by three people from different regions, one of them being an EC member”

AA said that in his opinion it would be good to see people from developing RIRs in that delegation.  If the key message comes from LACNIC or AFRINIC the message would have more weight.

RE asked whether AA would be there, to which AA replied that if necessary he could.

PR said that from a public relations perspective RE’s proposal would be great. He suggested it would be great to have Adiel Akplogan there and he also proposed to include Cathy Handley and Chris Buckridge in the delegation.

PW said that although he will not be attending it’s still possible that he could send either Pablo or Sam, unless they all think it’s not necessary.

JC said that if the NRO is going to be representing the RIRs he’d like to make sure that they at least have a base talking point document and an agreement that the representatives will attempt to get their answers back to that document. He added that they already have such a document from the CCG, but that he wants an agreement upfront that to the extent possible our answers will stay on agreed points.

There were no objections.

There was agreement  with the idea of sending a number of people from different regions including one or more CEOs

7. Finalizing the list of address holds and related IANA concerns

PW said that he wasn’t with the RSMs, that he was just told that the list was still not finalized but needs to be for the RPKI purposes. He also said he’d heard that IANA wants to include consideration of unused space in the RIR request process, adding that apparently a message had come from Leo to the RSMs.

PW said that one aspect to discuss is that, as far as he’s concerned, the issue of reservation of address space is something to be left to the RIR’s own policies (according to the IANA policy), and that what most of us have done so far is effectively to reserve space that was redistributed and therefore not to declare that space as available space in our IANA requests.

JC asked whether the RSMs have any recommendation, to which PW replied that as far as he knows they don’t but that perhaps they should ask for a status report on both the status of the distribution and the discussions that have happened with IANA.

JC said that if the RSMs have a recommendation as to how to treat this (status quo or changes) he’d like to hear it from them as a group, but if the RSMs can’t come to a recommendation then it would be up to the NRO EC to decide how to handle this.

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

RE commented that he doesn’t think that any change will be introduced in the short time between now and IPv4 central pool depletion. He said that they need to be prepared to react if changes are introduced but shouldn’t be too worried about this.

RE said that he believes this issue has no impact for  LACNIC, but expressed his willingness to support what’s best for the other RIRs.

8. AOB

a. Timing next NRO EC retreat

AP noted that they should perhaps begin locking dates and venues for the upcoming retreat.

Several possibilities were discussed (e.g., the APNIC meeting in Hong Kong in late February).

AA said that he finds retreats very productive and asked whether it would be possible to have one before the end of the year, maybe one day, perhaps in November. Others replied that perhaps that might be tight

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

RE mentioned that there was a proposal from other organizations to have a joint retreat and proposed discussing this on the list.

PW said he’s interested in knowing what the respective roles are in this specific setting. He said that ISOC seemed to have volunteered a role for itself in coordinating that activity but he would like to know the scope of the retreat (IAB + NRO, IAB + ISOC, etc.).

RE said that maybe  Rod Beckstrom proposed to Lynn the same idea he proposed to us in Brussels. RE added that although he’s not very objective because he wear 2 hats, in his opinion it would be good to have ISOC assuming a leadership role since it would be somebody more neutral than the others,  inviting a group of friends to discuss different things.  All agreed.

9. Adjournment

There being no further to discuss, AP adjourned the meeting at 12.40 UTC

Last modified on 02/12/2010