22 September 2010

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 100922

Minutes

Teleconference September 22, 2010, 11:00 UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

  • RIPE NCC: Axel Pawlik (AP, Chairman)
  • LACNIC: Raul Echeberria (RE, Secretary)
  • ARIN: John Curran (JC, Treasurer)

Observers:

  • APNIC: Germán Valdez (GV)
  • ARIN: Nate Davis (ND)
  • RIPE NCC: Paul Rendek (PR)
  • LACNIC: Hartmut Glaser (HG)
  • ARIN: Leslie Nobile
  • LACNIC: Arturo Servín
  • RIPE: Andrei Robachevski (AR)

AGENDA

  1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
  2. Previous Minutes (17 August)
  3. Review Action Items
  4. Report from ECG
    1. a. RPKI
      1. RPKI global view and transfers. The ECG seek approval.
        Per document “RPKI global view.pdf”, e-mail sent June 25
        RE opinion outstanding
      2. Content of the phase 2 Resource Trust Anchors (RTAs). The ECG seek
        approval of the proposed alternative, e-mail sent June 25
        deferred last meeting
      3. Approve revised roll-out plan incl up-down protocol, e-mail sent
        15 July
    2. DNSSEC
      Roles and responsibilities of the secondary DNS operators for
      in- addr.arpa and ip6.arpa
      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?
  5. Report from CCG
    1. NRO RPKI Factsheet and presentation
    2. NRO RPKI Paper
  6. Report from RSM (tbc)
    1. approving “various registries” space distribution
  7. ASO
    1. Kicking off ASO Review, Status
  8. ITU
    1. ITU-IPv6 Group
    2. Plenipot
    3. NRO Membership
      yes/no, substitution/addition
  9. IGF review
  10. EC retreat
  11. I* retreat
  12. AOB
    1. ICANN DNS CERT working group (now called the Security and Stability Analysis charter working group), NRO representative needed
  13. Adjournment

1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing

The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:15 UTC. Apologies from Paul Wilson.

The agenda was not modified.

2. Previous Minutes

Postponed. RE will send a new version of the minutes.

3. Review Action Items

OPEN ACTIONS

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.
OPEN.

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.
OPEN.

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

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. OPEN.

AP is waiting for PR to send a job description.

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

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). OPEN.

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. CLOSED. OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS.
(AP will still send the letter)

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

This will be discussed later in the meeting.

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-R2-5: JC to prepare a document to discuss in the EC about the role of the ASO AC in communicating policy status for further discussion with the ASO Chair and vice chairs. OPEN.

This action item was clarified to say “ the role of the AC in communicating policy status”

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

RE: The idea is to have al list of messages in packet form to share with ISOC, ICANN, etc.

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

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 given to IANA. DONE.

This will be discussed later in the meeting.

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

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

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. OPEN.

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

Action Item 100817-01: JC to call Elise and get back to the list with some notes on the results of the call. (Re: various registries addresses). CLOSED.

Action Item 100817-02: RE to take the lead on starting the exchange of information about IP address stocks in each registry. OPEN.

RE: We are working on a report to send to the RIRs on October regarding the status of LACNIC stock as at September 30. We hope that the other RIRs could do the same very soon.

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. OPEN.

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. DONE.

JC: The ASO AC has been notified that the EC requires a strong, clear agenda if the ASO AC will request a meeting, but so far they do not have a strong, compelling agenda.

4. Report from ECG

AR said there was not much to report other than the email he had sent to the list.

a. RPKI

I. RPKI global view and transfers. The ECG seek approval. Per document “RPKI global view.pdf”, e-mail sent June 25. RE opinion outstanding

RE asked for clarification.

AR: There was a document on the global view on transfers which covers different models and alternatives for how we can basically structure RPKI. It also indicated the model preferred by the ECG with regards to transfers, which is a two-layered approach.

After receiving clarification from AR, RE said that in order to not create an obstacle, he supported what AR is doing and provided his approval.

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

RE suggested creating a new action item:

New Action item 100922-01: AR to prepare a more clear explanation of what is being proposed (a couple of slides re. ECG proposed alternative for RTAs).

III. Approve revised roll-out plan incl up-down protocol, e-mail sent 15 July

AR: What we did was to create another phase (2.5) as requested by the EC. What was also asked from the ECG was to create the internal and external timeline for communication purposes, so that’s what we did.

AP agreed with the proposed timeline.

RE agreed with the proposal and will ask for PW’s and AA’s approval.

New Action item 100922-02: AP to prepare a list of what needs approval, the Secretariat to make sure that PW and AA are asked about this issue. (Re. Approval of revised roll-out plan including up-down protocol, e-mail sent 15 July – ECG)

b. DNSSEC

Roles and responsibilities of the secondary DNS operators for in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa
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?

AR: There were 2 documents, one proposed by ICANN that looked more like a contract which we thought was inappropriate, and another that was more of a mutual commitment between IANA and the RIRs.

JC: Obviously we want to make it mutual and should use the amended version, the title of which is very clear “Agreement on mutual responsibilities for the reverse DNS servers”. As PW and AA are not present I will take this message and forward it to the NRO EC again. I propose that the next step be to send the edited document to Elise on behalf of the NRO EC.

AP: I will send the amended document to the list and then we’ll finalize this.

It was proposed that to go back to Elise to say “clarifying roles and responsibilities is not an engineering matter but an inter-organizational matter”, to send our counter proposal and work togheter on this.

AR: Something critical we want from the EC is the global view on transfers, which is related to the overall model.

RE: Everybody said yes in the last meeting except me, now I’ve also said yes, so It is approved.

5. Report from CCG

PR: We’re working on the wrap up of the IGF, have had no discussions since that time, no traffic on our list. We ended up delivering what we said we would at the IGF, it was a great effort by everybody there. I though we delivered good quality stuff at the workshops that we organized as the NRO or just as RIRs and that our presence was certainly there.

AP: I’m impressed about how things went and would like to formally thank everybody involved in the preparations and execution.

PR: The CCG will have a teleconference soon to pick up on the rest of the action items we have and also to start working towards getting ourselves to ICANN. The CCG is planning to have a meeting to coordinate what we’re going to do next year (Jan. or Feb. 2011), we’ll be submitting a proposal to you.

a. NRO RPKI Factsheet and presentation
b. NRO RPKI Paper

PR: Had a full day meeting in London on certification with our operations and communications/external relations folks, we built a timeline of communication and a list of collateral website presence and whatever else we need going up to phase 0 and phase 1. I plan on sharing everything we’ve got including the timeline and what we’re doing with the CCG. Conclusion: we’re planning on having all this written and sorted by mid October so if the other RIRs have worked out what they’re doing in the area of certification to take us to the January 1st delivery and Q1 after that, we’d appreciate it if they’d share it with the CCG.

JC: I The part I’m concerned about is coordinating any overall statements of availability.

PR: We want to make sure that we (all registries) are all moving in the same direction.

JC: The best way to handle that is for us to coordinate the broad brush announcements.

PR: The CCG will have a conference call and the two major items we’ll discuss are ICANN meeting presence and certification. Then we will report back to you.

RE: I propose to have single materials for using around the world. A simple factsheet and one NRO presentation on RPKI that could be used by all RIRs.

PR: Do you want me to go back to the CCG and tell them that we need to work on these two items?

RE: The CCG could work with the ECG to compile some slides and prepare a presentation that could be endorsed by the ECG.

New Action item 100922-03: The CCG will work on an NRO RPKI factsheet and presentation and an NRO RPKI Paper.

AR: Two closely related but separate issues: 1) our common messaging with regards to the implications of the RPKI application like in routing security, things like we discussed at the IGF workshop; 2) the timeline for our communications about the roadmap. I think the document the ECG produces is a good basis for building this communication plan.

JC: It is important to publish the RPKI roadmap.

AP: Now that we have RE’s final approval we are good to go.

6. Report from RSM (tbc)

AP: Thanks Leslie for coming to this meeting.

Leslie: The RS managers have been working closely, we have a number of open action items that we discussed at our last meeting (you have the notes from this meeting). The biggest thing is the various registries’ space, we were asked to even up the numbers a bit more (total number of /16s), so we revised the list, finalized it in July and sent it to AP. We were able to get the division pretty close: each RIR would receive between 391 and 392 /16s.
Something to keep in mind is that this list does change, people do return address space to RIRs and when they do that our numbers will change, so the sooner we get this done the better. Once we get word from you, ARIN’s going to need to coordinate with the other RIRs to add placeholders to the ARIN database for reverse DNS purposes. Other than that we’re good to go: we’re just waiting for you to approve the list.
The one thing I was told by IANA is that they’d like to do some kind of joint announcement. I think it’s a good idea for you to make an announcement.
The other thing that we’re working on for you is the proposal for phasing out reservations. I’ve discussed it with my colleagues and in principle we agree that we need to do phase out reservations very soon (we’re looking at January 1st as the final date). Three of the five RIRs don’t do reservations, ARIN does it fairly infrequently, LACNIC does it very frequently but Arturo has agreed that it’s probably time to phase these out. We will come up with a proposal for the EC on that.

a. approving “various registries” space distribution

AP: I’m ready to approve the list sent by Leslie, JC and RE also approved the list. We will wait for PW and AA to approve. RE will ask them for their approval.

7. ASO

a. Kicking off ASO Review, Status

As AA was not present, it was decided to take this to the list.

8. ITU

a. ITU-IPv6 Group

No comments were heard.

b. Plenipot

It was exchanged information about who will attend the ITU Plenipot.

c. NRO Membership
yes/no, substitution/addition

AP: This requires further discussion, specially with the two other CEOs who are not present.

9. IGF review

AP: This was already covered under the CCG section.

RE: We talked in a meting with Rod Beckstrom and discussed the possibility of issuing a formal declaration after the fifth IGF. It would be a good idea either to issue an NRO statement or a joint statement with other organizations, to have a voice on how we see the future. The IGF’s fifth anniversary provides us with an opportunity to prepare something.

AP: Agreed. It would be good for PR to contact Rod’s communications and external relations person. PR will contact her.

11. I* retreat

Several options were discussed, and it was decided that Miami (after NANOG) or Washington would be good options for having a 3 day meeting, 1 day and a half for the I* retreat and one day and a half for the NRO retreat.
Different options were explored. The preferred date seems to be 3-5 February.

RE offered to take the lead on making this proposal.

12. AOB

a. ICANN DNS CERT working group (now called the Security and Stability Analysis charter working group), NRO representative needed

RE: LACNIC has some expertise in this field and considering that we will have the chairmanship of the ECG next year, if this task is going beyond this year we can take on this responsibility. Our CTO, Arturo Servín, would be our representative. We’ve also recently hired one person who’s a CERT specialist. He can also assist Arturo in this task.

AP: Will go back to Bart (ICANN) and say we’re definitely interested, please contact RE.

RE: Will ask PW and AA to confirm this.

13. Adjournment

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 13:15 UTC

Comments are closed.