Teleconference October 26, 2010, 11:00 UTC
Executive Council Attendees:
- RIPE NCC: Axel Pawlik (AP, Chairman)
- LACNIC: Raul Echeberria (RE, Secretary)
- ARIN: John Curran (JC, Treasurer)
- APNIC: Paul Wilson (PW)
- AFRINIC: Adiel Akplogan (AA)
- Nate Davis (ND) (ARIN)
- Paul Rendek (PR) (RIPE NCC)
- Hartmut Glaser (HG) (LACNIC)
- Leslie Nobile (LN)
- Arturo Servín (LACNIC)
- Andrei Robachevsky (AR) (RIPE)
- Pablo Hinojosa (APNIC)
- Ernesto Majó (LACNIC)
- Maemura Akinori (APNIC)
- Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
- Previous Minutes (17 August, 22 September)
- Review Action Items
- Report from ECG
- Report from CCG
- Status of in-addr.arpa transfer
- Report from RSM
- Use of “new” stats file format
- RSM proposals
- Reservations, cessation
- declaration of ERX holes space to IANA
- IPv4 issues
- Policies after IPv4 central pool depletion.
Raúl: My intention is to check if all of us have the same view on what will be the status of the global policies about IPv4 after the central pool depletion.
- IPv4 addresses recovery
- IANA reissuance of returned space
- Policies after IPv4 central pool depletion.
- UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation
- ITU PP, review and actions arising
- ASO Review, Status
- ASO presence at ICANN meetings
- NRO incorporation issues re CFO meeting
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
The minutes of the two previous meetings were approved
RE made a last call for comments on these minutes until Thursday. After that the minutes will be published. All agreed.
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. ONGOING
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. PENDING PREVIOUS ACTION ITEM
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
Action item 20100525-05: JC to try to draft a message that describes the scope of the initial data escrow project. DONE
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 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. CLOSED (overtaken by events)
Action item 2010-R2-6: PR to work with the CCG in elaborating this list of IPv6 key messages for sharing with partners. ONGOING
Action item 2010-R2-15: AR to work with the ECG to monitor the progresses on domain names signing. CLOSED
Action item 2010-R2-17: The CCG to revisit the CCG charter to ensure that PCG activities are covered in the charter. DONE
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 this 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 100817-02: RE to take the lead on starting the exchange of information about IP address stocks in each registry. DONE
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. CLOSED (overtaken by events)
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). DONE
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). DONE.
Action item 100922-03: The CCG will work on an NRO RPKI factsheet and presentation and an NRO RPKI Paper. ONGOING
4. Report from ECG
AR: Not much to report. We are aiming to meet at the IETF Beijing meeting with the main focus on transfers: we don’t want to prescribe how transfers are done from the policy point of view, we just want to see that the structure that we’re developing doesn’t present any obstacles in the future.
AR went through the following items that are waiting for EC decision:
– RPKI global view on transfers. I believe that this was approved by the EC but would like confirmation on that.
– Content of phase 2 resource trust anchors (email clarification sent on 12th October with a couple of slides). The main decision point is whether you find it acceptable for RPKI to have overlaps and gaps in RTAs in phase 2 (next year when we roll the first production). If this is acceptable then transition to phase 3 will become easier from our point of view, if not it will have implications on the complexity of this transition and the accuracy of our global registry before we roll out the production phase in January 2011. This is a crucial point that requires guidance from the EC ASAP.
AP: AP will resend the document and everyone should review and send comments by the end of the week.
– Approval of our rollout plan. PW’s and AA’s approval of the rollout plan (milestones for phase 2, phase 2.5, and phase 3) was still outstanding, as they were not present during last meeting. Once this is approved the CCG can in their factsheet also include the actual milestones. So far we have not been able to communicate the milestones to the wider community, particularly the technical community.
PW and AA expressed their approval of the plan.
JC: Update from the ARIN perspective: We are in the middle of a pretty significant legal review before having final approval on the ARIN side. This is fairly new information.
6. Status of in-addr.arpa transfer
JC reported on this point:
On the 30th of August the IAB sent direction to ICANN to that effect. At this point it’s got the green light and it’s a question of getting the work done. Part of this work involves deployment of servers by each of the RIRs because as in-addr requests will eventually be transferred to individual RIR regional servers as opposed to being done in root servers.
AR: All RIRs are ready to host those services. Another aspect we discussed the last time we talked was a mutual responsibility agreement. The documents will be sent again to the EC.
5. Report from CCG
PR: The biggest thing we have to report is the 5% press release. Other areas we’re working on are the certification factsheet and paper, IPv6 messages for our industry partners, and our presence at ICANN.
JC: We’ll need to have some messaging for the first 6 months next year, some uniform messaging already prepared in advance for the various depletion events.
PR: That’s the plan. We’ll be coordinating this on the CCG list, it’s been talked about.
7. Report from RSM
LN: Summary of the brief report I sent earlier:
- The NRO joint stats are up for the quarter.
- We’ve finished our recommendations on reservations.
- Regarding the various registries space, we’ve made a couple of recommendations to the EC.
AP: I think it would be nice if we could all agree that we would cease to make reservations e.g. from the 1st of January, I would certainly support making a statement to that effect.
PW: I agree that if a move is going to be made along those lines it should be a coordinated one, as this represents a big change in address consumption and the timing of requests for additional address space.
JC: There’s a proposal to cease making reservations as of January 1, most RIRs are in agreement with this. I agree with PW, this is something on which we need to act in coordination. To some extent what that means is that it would be good for APNIC to come back saying “January 1 makes sense” or making a different proposal. I don’t have any strong feeling on this other than that we need to act together. I think our registry services departments would be better off if we discontinue this sometime between now and January 1st.
PW: I’d like to see a release document that reflects exactly what we’ve agreed here to make sure that there are no loopholes.
LN: I will resend the document to the list right now.
AP: PW will look at LN’s document and see if the level of detail is sufficient or further clarification is required.
LN: Regarding the various registries space, what I sent to you yesterday was PW’s original email to the IANA announcing or declaring this division of the various registries space. He sent that list to the IANA in 2008, so what I wanted to clarify is that you’ve already done this, formally declared this to the IANA, in 2008. The list PW sent to IANA is now outdated and if you’d like to resend that list I would be happy to update it.
New action item 101026-01: LN to redraft the message for the NRO so AP can resend the message to the IANA with the current list of resources (distribution of various registries address blocks among the RIRs).
New action item 101026-02: RE to prepare a message for the public (Re. distribution of various registries address blocks among the RIRs)
8. Reporting of address space
a. Draft address space report prepared by LACNIC
AP: I will go through this and see that we do a similar thing ourselves.
b. Use of “new” stats file format
AP: Regarding b), so far we’ve only used the new stats file format internally and I would like to push this out and say that we all do this publicly as well. Any issues with that?
PW agreed, no further issues were heard.
AP: I will ask my RSM to coordinate with the other RSMs so that it is implemented.
10. IPv4 issues
a. Policies after IPv4 central pool depletion.
RE: I’ve talked with some of you informally about this point, so I think it’s good to bring this discussion to the EC. My understanding is that once the central pool is depleted no more global policies are in place for the distribution of IPv4. The global policy that implemented the distribution of the last five /8s is based on the assumption that those /8s are the last /8s in the central pool, so my view is once those five /8s go out there are no more global policies. Is that everyone’s understanding?
AP: I’d like to rephrase that slightly: After the last five /8s are out in the absence of any global policy there will be no more allocations from IANA.
PW: I’m not so sure. If the last /8s goes out and then the next day a /8 is returned to IANA, what’s the implication? Are you saying that IANA does nothing with that unless there is a global policy that deals with that?
AP and RE replied affirmatively.
AA: My view is that as soon as the last /8 goes out of the central pool we don’t have any more global policies, as these are related to what exists now. My understanding is the same as RE’s.
RE: I see we have different interpretations on that. I expected to take from this meeting a common view in order to have an official interpretation.
JC: In looking closely at the global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space. The second sentence says: “When a minimum amount of available space is reached, one /8 will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy.” This means literally, global policy for the allocation the remaining IPv4 address space removes the other policy, there is no policy for IANA to issue address space once we’re past the final five. Looking at this I have to agree with RE: if some address space ends up at the IANA at that point I honestly do not believe they have a process to re-issue it unless some global policy is adopted.
RE: So we have a common understanding, excellent. We should share this understanding with IANA to avoid any future misunderstandings: IANA will not have any policy for reallocating IPv4 addresses after the central pool is depleted.
AA: If we tell IANA that there is no policy, then the next question will be what do we do if we end up having IPv4 space.
AP: Until there is no global policy they will not be able to reallocate.
AP: There is not much we can do now except stimulate the PDPs to make sure we have something in place at the time.
JC: A global policy for the reissuance of returned space is essential for us to get that space out of ARIN and up to be divided among the RIRs.
11. UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation
AP: It seems to be the case of speaking slots, I don’t know whether we can do anything if we’re not invited ourselves.
JC: ICANN was very nice, making it very clear that they don’t speak for the entire community.
After further discussion the following action item was discussed.
New action item 101026-03: AP to reply to ICANN saying that the NRO agrees to their approach and that we would be willing to go but that if that is not possible then we will provide them with our talk sheet. (Re. UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation)
12. ITU PP, review and actions arising
AA was present in the ITU plenipot. He presented a detailed report.
As a result of the discussion, it was agreed the following action
New action item 101026-04: AP and AA to draft a letter to Touré requesting a meeting to discuss the possibility of cooperating and collaborating on a reciprocity basis.
13. ASO Review, Status
AA: In my opinion what we need to do now is to publish the terms of reference that we agreed on and start receiving proposals, the next step would be to select a consultant. I think we agreed on making this public and allowing an independent body to do the review, so for Phase 2 we need to have a selection committee (perhaps the EC) to select a consultant for the review. I will send the document that talks about the whole process, but the first step we need to agree on is whether to publish the terms of reference.
14. ASO presence at ICANN meetings
AP: My proposal is to work together with HPH who has come up with a detailed proposal regarding the AC.
All agreed that HPH’s proposal was very well put together.
New action item 101026-05: AP to work with HPH regarding the ASO presence at ICANN meetings.
PW: We had a discussion with Rod Beckstrom in Vilnius and spoke about the possibility of doing an RIR-led IPv6 day at ICANN meetings after Cartagena.
AP: The idea has potential, PW agreed.
Various ideas for the Cartagena and San Francisco ICANN meetings were discussed.
15. NRO incorporation issues re CFO meeting
AP: Proposed removing this item from this meeting’s agenda and taking it to the list for further discussion.
a) At our previous meeting we discussed finding out about the possibility of the unincorporated NRO becoming a sector member of the ITU but we haven’t done anything since then. Are we prepared to go ahead and try it bearing the costs jointly?
PW, RE and AA in favor of the reciprocity approach with the ITU rather than membership as the NRO.
It was established that although the reciprocity approach would be followed, nothing prevents an RIR being an ITU member even if we have an MoU.
b) Comments on the IGF-MAG functioning
RE: I said on the list that I would prepare a draft. The deadline was last Sunday 24 October, but I’ve talked to Markus and he will wait for our comments even after the deadline.
New action item 101026-06: RE to prepare a draft for submitting comments to the IGF regarding the MAG.
c) Documents for EC meetings and the difficulty of finding them again when we need them (proposed by PW during the course of the meeting)
New action item 101026-07: The Secretariat to make available all documents to be discussed at or referred to at EC meetings available in advance of EC meetings.
d) RIR board mailing list
AP: AA asked whether we can clean it up, the answer is of course we can.
New action item 101026-08: The Secretariat to send the current list of members of the RIR Board mailing list so we can clean it up.
e) Upcoming meetings
AP: I think we should have a teleconference in 4 weeks time (23rd November). Let’s confirm this on the mailing list.
RE: Regarding the retreat: the I* retreat will be held on 3rd February and on the morning of 4th. It will be organized by ISOC. We will hold the NRO retreat on the afternoon of the 4th and the 5th of February. Our next retreat should be in the US, so I proposed Miami or the Washington area. Let’s see what ISOC does and so we have our meeting in the same place.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 14:00 UTC