Teleconference December 21, 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)
- Nate Davis (ND) (ARIN)
- Arturo Servín (LACNIC)
- Ernesto Majó (EM, LACNIC)
- Andrei Robachevsky (AR) (RIPE)
- Akinori Maemura (AM, APNIC)
- Leslie Nobile (LN, ARIN)
- Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
- Previous Minutes
- Review Action Items
- Report from ECG
- Report from CCG
- Review Cartagena presence
- Report from RSM
- Address stock info
- Distribution of last five /8s
- Legacy space
- Adoption of draft charter Joint Security and Stability Analysis Charter Drafting Working Group (see http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jssawg.htm)
- Review CSTD decision & further action
1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing
The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:10 UTC.
RE suggested several items to add to the draft agenda, which was finalized and approved.
2. Previous Minutes
RE will release a shorter version of the minutes for the last two meetings for their approval via the mailing list.
3. Review Action Items
Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property. DONE.
Action item 100720-01: ARIN to send a summary of each RIR’s report on their formal statements regarding being property/non property. ONGOING.
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.
RE disagreed with hiding this action item without the support of the CCG, so it was decided to wait until the CCG’s January meeting to have a resolution on this point.
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-R2-6: PR to work with the CCG in elaborating this list of IPv6 key messages for sharing with partners. OPEN.
AP said that the CCG is working on this but it is not quite done yet, and RE stressed that this is needed urgently as it will be used as one of the materials for the I*retreat.
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. PENDING ACTION ITEMS 2010-R07 and 100720-01. OPEN.
Action item 100922-03: The CCG will work on an NRO RPKI factsheet and presentation and an NRO RPKI Paper. OPEN.
RE noted that this is also a very important issue, to which EM replied that the CCG had prepared a factsheet for the Cartagena meeting, which is available online.
Action item 101026-02: RE to prepare a message for the public (Re. distribution of various registries address blocks among the RIRs). OPEN.
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. OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS.
Action item 101125-01: All to approve or suggest modifications to the minutes of the previous meeting on the mailing list. OPEN.
Action item 101125-02: AP to find out the state of the material prepared by the CCG (Re. Action Item 2010-R2-6 − The CCG to prepare IPv6 key messages). OPEN.
Action item 101125-03: AP to contact Leslie about the paragraph in the RSM recommendations on reservations/cessation that says “reservations may continue for other purposes” so that it may be perfectly clarified. DONE.
Action item 101125-04: PW to write up his interpretation of the reservations agreement and then circulate that via email for its consideration in order to check whether everyone is in agreement. DONE.
AP said he would re-circulate the latest text.
Action item 101125-05: AP to reply to the UN / Sha invitation to ICANN re Enhanced Cooperation, indicating that JC would be the person speaking. DONE.
Action item 101125-06: JC to take the reverse servers mutual understanding document, insert Geoff Houston’s clarification and send it to the NRO EC for review. DONE.
4. Report from ECG
AR presented the following brief summary: “The main thing is the report deliverables and tests for the production release of the RPKI that I sent to the list. The summary is that, apart from ARIN, all RIRs are ready for production release on 1 January 2011. ARIN is delayed by additional security requirements and plan their release at the end of Q1 2011. The ECG defines seven points that we monitor with regards to deliverables:
– Validation, which is all done.
– Implementation on a single TA format, which is mostly done in development environments for all the RIRs and they plan to roll this out prior to production deployment in January 2011.
– We all tested third party validation tools and how they work. In the development environment everything went fine.
– Certificate policy, which is in the WG Last Call and we don’t anticipate any changes.
– CPS, which is mostly done by all of us, in different stages of legal review in the different communities.
– We all tested planned and unplanned key roll-overs in the development environment, tests went fine.
– Test reports for re-signing RTA and CA were also fine (in testing environment).”
AR made a suggestion regarding the TA: Until a single root trust anchor is in place there will be five joint trust anchors; on the ECG mailing list it was suggested that perhaps the NRO could consider some sort of interim trust anchor, basically a web page where the five trust anchors are published once they are in place.
PW clarified that AR’s proposal was not that the NRO provide a single trust anchor but a directory of the trust anchors of the RIRs.
AR said that he simply meant publishing all the information at a single, convenient location.
PW suggested that the ECG work on that. AP and JS supported the idea.
RE said that during the previous meeting JC had proposed moving the deadlines forward but they hadn’t make any decisions on that.
JC: It might be better to wait until the second week of January in order to have a greater level of confidence regarding the date (after the ARIN Board meeting).
5. Report from CCG
EM presented the following brief update:
The CCG has been focused on the ICANN Cartagena meeting participation, on which we sent a report. One of the things that we need to take care of for the next ICANN meeting is the timing of the booth, the activity started when the ICANN meeting started. From Monday to Thursday many people attended the booth asking about IPv6, IPv4 depletion and other issues. The booth was staffed by Adriana (LACNIC), Hollis (ARIN) and Germán (APNIC). The materials we delivered were well-appreciated, but we could not hand out the Continuing Cooperation Report because it was delayed at Madrid airport. The other relevant point was the ASO slot at the ICANN meeting, which was a very good experience. We need to work on some aspects of the presentation, perhaps it was too focused on technical. But all in all it was a good experience, the presentation was coordinated by ARIN, and I think we have to work as the CCG with the policy managers and the ASO representatives to improve the level of the presentations. Also, some people said that perhaps it would be good to have an ASO report at the GAC meeting as well.
The other thing that the CCG has been focusing on is the RPKI factsheet, which has been uploaded to the website and was delivered at the Cartagena meeting.
We were also discussing the possibility of having a back-to-back meeting with the EC in Miami on January 31st and February 3, but of course I would like to ask you whether you agree with this decision.
AP: I agree with what you’ve said about Cartagena and my proposal would be to go ahead with a slot like that at the next ICANN meeting. Regarding the separate meeting with the ICANN Board, I would be favorable if we can organize that, same thing with the GAC.
EM: The plan is to have a one and a half-day meeting to discuss the work for 2011. We’d like to prepare a whole plan for 2011 focusing on IPv6, RPKI and governance activities.
RE: What venues are you considering for the meeting?
EM: We agreed with the ECG to have one meeting in the area of the secretariat, Susan’s idea was to meet somewhere in the ARIN region during their summer, but I suggested meeting jointly with the EC because I think that we can take advantage of the presence of the CEOs and the participation of the coordination group chairs in the NRO EC retreat. I think we can participate in the first part of the meeting communicating our communications plan and checking our ideas with you.
After further discussing possible dates, the following was decided: The CCG will prepare a brief summary of what they expect to do and how they want to interface with the EC. In terms of timing, the CCG meeting will be included in parallel with the I*retreat (4th and 5th).
a. Review Cartagena presence
AP: I’d prefer to have a proposal from the CCG as to how the ASO presence might be improved.
JC: With respect to the ASO report, the CCG probably needs guidance regarding the formats involved, getting one person from each region, etc.
AP: Regarding the format of the ASO slot, more efficiency would be good but I’d leave it to the CCG to propose how to achieve this.
PW: I think we should have a rational and dispassionate cost/benefit discussion about this and then decide what the investment should be.
AP: I would be supportive of doing at least two or three next year to establish if there is growing interest in what we are doing or no interest at all.
PW: I agree that the time is right to be doing something, but I’m a bit concerned about the value and the cost which has to do with the system that was used (AC members freely volunteering).
JC: I agree with AP that we need to do it at least 2-3 more times, it’s very wise for us.
6. Report from RSM
Leslie: All our action items have been closed, but the one observation I’d like to make is that at ARIN we’re starting to see many requests for IPv4 space that we hadn’t seen in some time. Andrei told me they are seeing the same thing at RIPE and I guess the other RIRs are too. Just a heads up about what I think we’re all experiencing right now.
a. Address stock info
RE: In the last two meetings two RIRs also said that their organizations are thinking about issuing information about their stocks, so I wanted to know if any of you have made any progress on that.
JC: Starting January 1st we intend to provide on our website an automatically generated summary of our “stores of address space”. We will refresh the total inventory every day on the website starting in January.
PW: We’re looking the issue in a similar way: we’ll be producing a summary report and a detailed report, which will be in the form of an updated version of the stats file to include available and reserved space under the agreed terms of reservation.
AP: The same goes for us.
7. Distribution of last five /8s
RE: Everything leads us to think that the next allocation will be for APNIC, I don’t know if PW knows whether they will be submitting a request in the next couple of weeks.
PW: I’m told that at this rate we’ll be in a position to present a request in February.
RE: I think that February would be a good opportunity for organizing something in Miami, as all of us will be together. From our February retreat to the other date I proposed (Friday before ICANN LA meeting) it could be just four weeks, if the request is submitted after the February retreat I think that we could wait 2-3 weeks to organize something together. I think that it would be very important to organize something, we will not have another similar opportunity.
JC: The challenge ARIN has is in setting the date on which we announce this, because in our region our policy significantly changes with the final /8 distribution.
RE: We cannot miss the opportunity to organize something like this. A major event which requires planning.
AP: We should think about it, this is all we can do right now. For now there is no action on anybody’s plate.
JC: As we get close to the date this gets easier to do. As we’re meeting in February and we don’t envision that this will occur before our retreat, why don’t we agree that this is on our agenda for February and see whether or not at that time we can make it work.
8. Legacy space
RE: A good compromise would be to agree to this declaration from the IANA: “we are ready to receive the addresses, we will be the steward of those addresses but we will not allocate the addresses until we have a policy in place.”
JC: ARIN is the successor registry and it’s been providing in-addr DNS and whois services for these records. I anticipate that we are going to see at least one more partial return if not several.
RE: I think that the recognition of the PDP by the IANA is a very valuable point, as they are recognizing that they need a policy that will be approved through the global PDP.
RE: I also ask that JC take our views (which at least in LACNIC‘s case also represent the view of our Board) to the ARIN meeting in January.
9. Adoption of draft charter Joint Security and Stability Analysis Charter Drafting Working Group (see http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jssawg.htm)
AP: This working group would like to have a reply on this matter, so I would support it. I’ve read the document, it’s pretty straight forward.
JC and RE expressed their support for the document.
PW: I’m a bit confused: It seems to be a working group to form a charter and the group involves us, yet the group itself doesn’t include us.
AP: We would be part of the working group, this is basically the charter that needs to be approved. I think it’s pretty straight forward, we would of course be a part of it and decide who we would send (all or part of the CCG, probably). But what they are asking us right now is whether we agree with the charter.
PW: Are we a participating or a non-participating SO?
AP: I would see us as a participating SO.
AS: We are not a chair of the group, but I confirm that we are a participating SO.
PW: The chairs are elected by ALAC, ccNSO and GNSO, so they are in a privileged position. We’re quite happy to be participating but not electing chairs and that is being understood by everyone. I just wanted to raise these questions, but I also support it.
AP: I will ask Adiel and then communicate the adoption to ICANN.
10. Review CSTD decision & further action
AP proposed taking this agenda item to the mailing list and including it in the agenda for the next meeting. All agreed.
a. Retreat attendance
PW: I think that only JC spoke in support of the APNIC EC proposal that we bring our EC observer both to the I*retreat and to the NRO retreat. I’m interested in what our joint position is on that question.
JC: With respect to the NRO EC retreat, I believe that each RIR should have the CEO and a guest of their choice. My personal choice falls on Nate Davis, but for our retreat I have no problem with CEO+1 attendance. With respect to the joint Internet organization retreat, the first message we received seems very strongly to imply that it was a CEO only meeting so I don’t know how much flexibility we have in this.
AP: I would come alone anyway, so it’s of no difference to me.
RE: I don’t have any problems, I think that having more people would be good (CEO+1). I also want to be sure that the NRO retreat is not limited to CEO+1, this has not been our practice up to now, so I want to make sure that we can bring more people to our retreat (our retreat is open to NRO EC members and observers, which means a maximum of 4 people from each region).
PW: In the case of the CCG meeting we may have CCG members who are not observers but would still be coming to the meeting, but I guess that’s clear.
New action item 101221-01: AP to send an email to Rod and the list proposing that the attendance to the I*retreat be (CEO+1).
After formally transferring the chairmanship to RE, AP adjourned the meeting at 13:25 UTC.