Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 110310


Thursday, March 10 2011

Executive Council Attendees:

  • Chairman: Raúl Echeberría, CHAIR (LACNIC)
  • Secretary: John Curran, JC (ARIN)
  • Treasurer: Paul Wilson, PW (APNIC)
  • Members: Adiel Akplogan, AA (AFRINIC), Axel Pawlik, AP (RIPE NCC)


  • Therese Colosi, ARIN


  • Maemura Akinori – APNIC
  • Pablo Hinojosa – APNIC
  • Scott Bradner – ARIN
  • Nate Davis – ARIN
  • Susan Hamlin – ARIN
  • Leslie Nobile – ARIN
  • Hartmut Glaser – LACNIC
  • Ernesto Majo – LACNIC
  • Arturo Servin – LACNIC
  • Paul Rendeck – RIPE


  1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing.
  2. Previous Minutes.
    • January 25, 2011
  3. Review Action Items.
  4. RPKI.
    1. Development/Deployment Status in each RIR
    2. Single Trust Anchor Discussion update
    3. RPKI Communications update
  5. Internet Governance.
    1. Relationship with ITU.
    2. ITU IPv6 WG.
    3. IGF – CSTD.
  6. NRO.
    1. Incorporation.
    2. Retreat.
  7. ASO Review Update.
  8. OECD.
  9. IANA Notice of Inquiry (NoI).
  10. ICANN Meeting.
    • ASO Presence, Meetings, Positions.
  11. Report from the CCG.
    • Need official NRO EC approval of 2011 Workplan presented in Miami.
  12. Report from ECG.
  13. Report from RSM.
  14. Any Other Business.
  15. Adjournment.

1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing

The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:06 UTC. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair called for comments on the agenda.  PW stated there were events from the recent APNIC meeting that may be of interest. The Chair stated this would be discussed under any other business.

2. Previous Minutes

  • January 25, 2011

The Chair stated these minutes needed to be approved and called for any objections. There were no objections. The minutes were approved.

New Action Item:  110310-01: SEC to publish minutes of January 25, 2011.

PW noted there were no formal Minutes for February, however the notes from the NRO EC Retreat had a few items that he would like clarified. The Chair stated this could be done via the EC’s list, and that it would be helpful to have them reviewed and agreed upon.

3. Review Action Items


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

JC stated that information from LACNIC had now been received, and he needed to put it in the table.

JC noted that each RIR should consult local Counsel, as needed, to bring the statements into concert with other RIRs.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action 100427-4: After AP sends out the corresponding job description, each organization is to provide the EC an estimate for adding such an FTE (full time employee) 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.

POSTPONED until the NRO Retreat February 2011 in Miami.

It was suggested to close this this item per the recent workshop. All agreed to try to fill this function with existing RIR staff notably Cathy H and Pablo. (CCG and Government Affairs person.)

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

JC asked if there would be no communications lead? The Chair answered that he was in favor of having that, but there is no proposal on the table. It was agreed there would be no communications lead.

Action item 2010-05-25-06: AP to put together a straw man for the NRO EC and get it to the ECG before Brussels. (Re: Contingency plans). OPEN.

No change per Axel, but to keep it open. Interesting to do and will work with locals to get it out. JC to put together an ‘A-B-C’ recovery list, to include Resource Certification (RPKI), and refine it with ECG.

AP sent e-mail today to the list, regarding this action item –  upscale operations center and training on systems for the other RIRs for a back up plan. JC: there are several levels of cross recovery, and I will put a table together regarding the levels and review it with the ECG to cover: can we cross recover each others data if something catastrophic happened in a region, and can we resume business operations.

Chair: material from Axel is sufficient to begin discussions, and we will close this item at this time.

JC proposed an action an item for him to put together a multi-tiered recovery list and refine it with the ECG. The Chair stated that the EC needed to discuss AP’s post first. He directed the EC to comment on AP’s proposal, and then see what needs to be done. JC agreed that that  would be a good first step. The Chair gave the EC 2 weeks to respond to AP’s post.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

New Action Item 110310-02: send comments to list regarding AP’s post on Contingency Plans within the next 2 weeks (by 3/24).

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

Chair: bring info to Miami and share it there, then close it after Miami. In progress – each RIR to provide information to the other RIRs.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

New Action Item 110310-03: CFOs to work together for the next meeting to communicate information about financial stability. JC asked if the indicators are to be shared internally or after publishing? The Chair stated shared internally – but speaking about public information. The purpose is to have an action if one or more RIRs have trouble. All agreed.

Action item 2010-R2-6: PAUL RENDEK to work with the CCG in elaborating this list of IPv6 key messages for sharing with partners. OPEN

AP stated 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. Chair tasked Ernesto as CCG Chair. AA stated it is still valid because it is v6 – important to have it.

P. Rendeck stated the document is completed. Susan Hamlin stated they agreed and adopted key messages. P. Rendeck suggested having the EC approve it. The Chair requested it include IPv6 deployment information. Susan agreed, confirming they have a list of documents.

The Chair stated to leave this item open until all the documents from the CCG are received.

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 Item: 100720-01 (On-Going). OPEN.

CLOSE, as it is a duplicate of item 100720-01 above.

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.

EM stated that the fact sheet is finished. Paper needs to be completed.

Susan Hamlin confirmed that this is still a valid status.

Action item 101026-02: RE to prepare a message for the public (Re. distribution of various registries address blocks among the RIRs). OPEN.

The Chair stated he would this today (3/10).

Action item 110125-01: SEC: to publish the Minutes of October, November and December 2010. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-02: Chair to finish arrangements of Ceremony/Press Conference with ICANN for the events in Miami; and, share the communications with the EC. JC and CHAIR to share all communications with ICANN. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-03: CHAIR: Work on speech for the Miami event and share with EC, to ensure that the speech represents the NRO. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-04: CHAIR/ Ernesto CCG: to work w/ICANN in a joint announcement of last allocation event. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-05: CCG: have an updated version of the Press Release for 03 Feb. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-06: CHAIR: Agree with ICANN on the timing of allocations and announcement. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-07: CHAIR: inform all involved in the event about the meetings. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-08: JC to check with ICANN to make they want a guest speaker and then search. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-09: CCG: List of key messages on IPv4 and IPv6. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-10: JC to prepare a list of organizations to inform about IPv4 free pool run-out. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-11: CHAIR: RPKI Statement (Refresh). Answer to ICANN and comments to IAB: I will circulate to the list.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110125-01: SEC: Publish Minutes of October, November and December 2010. OPEN.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110204-01: Analysis of Upcoming Internet Gov. Events. Determine and recommend which events the NRO should attend, why and what the NRO’s position will be going into each event. Assigned to Cathy Handley and Pablo. OPEN

Pablo: I will send a list and apologize for the oversight. There is an agenda on v6 group submissions that I can discuss later. JC: This item came out of the discussion where P Rendeck pointed out that the CCG has challenges being ready with materials and booth participation unless planned ahead, long-term. We need a Government Affairs Coordinator for the NRO, or Pablo and Cathy, to forecast ahead and propose it with enough ramp-up time. P Rendeck stated he would be happy to work with them on this if they wish. JC: it’s good to get an absolute list, but a first pass recommendation from all of you regarding where it should be to forecast a budget, etc. would be beneficial. A default list of what we can refer to. All agreed.

Action item 110204-02: ITU IPv6 WG Submission. Due March 25. Meeting is April 7 & 8. Resolution 180 to be reviewed. OPEN

Chair asked if this would be submitted today? Pablo: I was referring to this, a discussion on this – one or two letters are pending to go today, and 2 letters that we agreed upon are ready to go. We need final approval, awaiting approval from AA.

Chair: Thank you very much to the people who worked extensively on these documents. JC, PW, Pablo and everyone else – forgive me if I left out anyone. 2) It is difficult to follow discussions on list to approve/revise documents. We need to improve the way we do this. Once it is approved, we need to stop working and identifying problems – we need to agree if we need a new version of the same document.

AA: no objections to the documents, and thank every one as well. I will send my approval.

AP: agreed as well. I do agree with the Chair, if there are minor changes I do not need to see them again. Final fine-tuning, I don’t need to see. Chair: I agree. At some point if they have major changes, we will approve the version. This is not a complaint, people spend a lot of hours on this, and we just need to improve how we are approving them.

Pablo: this has not been a small process. Too man iterations – things need to be coordinated, and it was clumsy. It was not clear who was working on it, and there were different iterations from the CEOs. I hope in future, we can make the process more efficient and will try to make that happen. If you have suggestions on managing the iterations of the documents, and improving the process, it would be very welcome.

The Chair stated this item to be Closed.

Action item 110204-03: ABC Recovery List to include Resource Certification. JC to pass to ECG for refinement with regard to Contingency Plans. OPEN.

JC stated this item was merged into the earlier item regarding commenting on AP’s post. Do we do this after AP’s document is reviewed?

The Chair stated this should be closed and if needed, a new action can be opened.

Action item 110204-04: ASO Review: AA to distribute work plan and responses. PW and JC to review for compliance. ON-GOING.

JC: regarding the proposals and the grid that AA crafted to evaluate them, I sent comments to the list earlier. AA: it’s in the agenda for today’s meeting. Workplan distributed on the mailing list. Awaiting Paul’s review. PW: can discuss later on agenda. Agreed.


Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property. CLOSED.

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 101125-03: 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. CLOSED.

AP said he would re-circulate the latest text.

Action item 101125-05: AP to reply to the UN invitation to ICANN re: Enhanced Cooperation, indicating that JC would be the person speaking. CLOSED.

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. CLOSED.

Action 101221-01: AP to send an email to Rod Beckstrom, and the list, proposing that the attendance to the I*retreat be (CEO+1). CLOSED.

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). CLOSED.

Action item 101125-01: All to approve or suggest modifications to the minutes of the previous meeting on the mailing list. CLOSED.


A) Development/Deployment Status in each RIR. Arturo stated he sent a presentation on tasks regarding RPKI this morning. Signing objects as discussed in the recent Retreat. RIPE has the most signing objects. We need to work with the other RIRs for ISPs to sign objects. RIPE has 3% allocated space assigned which is very good. LACNIC, APNIC and AFRINIC less than 1%. I have been working with other CEOs, and we have a meeting in Prague during IETF. I will check the deadline but ARIN, RIPE, and LACNIC need to work on the up/down protocol. Everything is on schedule and operations are fine.

JC noted that ARIN was behind. He stated that at this point, there legal and risk management reasons and ARIN staff is working on bringing them to the ARIN Board to get a fresh assessment from the Board. He asked if there were similar issues in the other RIRs, or is there a green light to proceed with RPKI and trust anchor? AP answered that the RIPE NCC is fine with it, it was discussed internally, and also discussed certification and benefits with RIPE NCC members.

B) Single Trust Anchor Discussion Update. The Chair stated that the EC has been invited from ICANN to discuss our letter and the meeting, during IETF in Prague. He asked the EC if this was the best venue to have some technical talks between ICANN and NRO staff. JC though it made sense, asking if the IAB or IETF would be involved. The Chair replied that he did not believe so, that it would be a meeting for ICANN and NRO technical staff to make progress. He stated that later, we can involve the IAB and IETF. PW suggested making efforts to assist ICANN. The Chair replied that we sent a letter to them to talk about implementation, and they are glad to have conversations with us. The status of which is that we have not yet responded. What kind of meeting do we need to have and who should attend – it should be to discuss possibility for engineers to start work. Agreed or not?

Discussion regarding the pros and cons of this meeting. It was the sense of the EC that they would accept the invitation to meet in Prague with engineers from ICANN and the NRO side – 1 per RIR. The Chair stated he would send a note to IANA and copy Arturo to set up the meeting. All agreed.

C) RPKI Communications Update. The Chair called for any comments on doing things differently. There were no comments with all agreeing on what had been discussed.

5. Internet Governance.

A) Relationship with ITU. The NRO EC crafted a proposed engagement letter to the ITU. After discussing, it was the sense of the EC to send the letter to the ITU in good faith, to express a willingness to work together.

B) ITU IPv6 Working Group. Previously discussed.

C) IGF – CSTD. AP volunteered to travel to Geneva to attend the IPv6 study group meeting. The Chair stated he agreed and that someone from ARIN also attend.

The Chair stated that the Sixth IGF meeting in September will be in Nairobi and urged everyone who was attending to make hotel reservations right away.

Arturo: at CSTD there were challenges to the Chair coming from India, Brazil, and Egypt. Hartmut was there. HG: it was not a final proposal from the countries. My understanding – it was a personal position not supported by others (Egypt).

6. NRO.

A) Incorporation. AP stated that he would like to move forward on NRO Incorporation. He felt it would be beneficial in the future. JC stated that ARIN’s position is that we are not against it, but we ask for a formal document summarizing the benefits of to take to the ARIN Board for approval. The ARIN Board is concerned because it is clear that incorporation will have costs, staffing implications, and overhead involved. All things need to be counter-balanced against the benefits. We need to see tangible benefits and then we can get it signed off.

AP stated that one benefit would be if there were a breakdown communications to the ITU we can remain sector members through the NRO. For example: the submissions to the IPv6 WG of the ITU: should they be made as the NRO or as individual RIRs? We can do it as the NRO, if incorporated.

JC asked AP to work with him on a statement of benefits to incorporate the NRO. AP agreed. JC stated that they need to list what authority the NRO does and does not have.

Chair: we had an action item open on this regarding documents we had with the ITU; and PW did send it to the list. AP acknowledged this.

New Action Item  110310-04: AP to craft two pages on benefits, etc. of Incorporating the Number Resource Organization (NRO).

B) Retreat. AP asked when the EC would like to hold the next retreast. The Chair stated that the second half of year would be best, and it was his turn to host it. AP suggested holding it before the next APNIC meeting.

New Action Item  110310-05: Retreat Dates. The Chair stated he would send a poll to the EC for available dates.

7. ASO Review Update.

Chair reminded the EC of the need to act quickly, as ICANN is asking to meet during their meeting in San Francisco next week to review the status. It was noted there were two proposals on the table, one more expensive than the other. Discussion ensued and it was the sense of the EC to have AA write an analysis of the two proposals for the EC to review. JC requested calling the references of the vendors as well. All agreed.

Chair to send the vendors a note stating that the EC will be making their decision within the next two weeks.

New Action Item 110310-06: Proposal Selection for ASO Review. JC to select primary and alternate. AA to contact primary vendor references to confirm, and if ok, ratify decision on mailing list.

AA asked the Chair if he could confirm that there will be a meeting with ICANN in San Francisco per a recent post made by Olaf Nordling. The Chair stated that there will be a meeting on Sunday, and it will be a very short meeting. 

8. OECD.

IPv6 should be the key topic and was supported by the EC. This would be for Geoff Houston and/or Vint Cerf to do. June 28th meeting in Paris, two day meeting, with one of the days relevant for the RIRs.

The Chair asked who would speak on behalf of NRO. JC stated there was discussion of a high-level briefing done in conjunction with a pre-G8 briefing in May. He believed Geoff Houston’s name was offered. ARIN checked with Vint Cerf to see if he is available, and are waiting to hear back.

P Rendeck noted that Geoff will be speaking at the meeting on other topics, so he will be there. This afternoon I have a teleconference with the IPAC steering committee, and can report back on that in relation to the meeting in June.

The Chair felt that Geoff would be a good choice to speak on behalf of the NRO. JC agreed, stating that Vint Cerf is willing to speak but it is hard for him to be seen as representing the NRO.

The Chair asked PW to check with Geoff to make sure he can do it. PW stated he would confirm.

Paul Rendeck stated that his group will let the OECD know when Geoff is confirmed.

9. IANA Notice of Inquiry (NoI).

JC noted there would be a teleconference in the next hour  and we are going to be asked if there’s commonality in the I star community regarding our response to Notice of Inquiry (NoI). He suggested reviewing the six questions to determine consensus within the NRO that can share with the others on the impending teleconference. He added that ARIN doesn’t have an official NoI position. He tried to reflect, via e-mail, the NRO’s consensus.

The Chair confirmed comments should be sent as the NRO. All Agreed. The Chair acknowledged JC’s post and stated that the other EC members needed to respond as well. JC explained his e-mail reflected what he thought was the commonality between the RIRs. We are doing an ARIN internal position, and if he can get the ARIN Board to sign off on it, we can respond as the NRO. There is one question where ARIN may feel differently than the other RIRs, but we should try to do it as NRO.

The Chair stated he would write first draft. If we agree, we’ll send it as the NRO. We can do this by 30th of March.

Regarding the teleconference that JC would be attending shortly, the Chair stated that the NRO has stated its position, as of the meetings in February in Miami. He felt it best to find out if there are any new issues from today’s call. JC agreed.

P Rendeck noted that time is of the essence, and we need to look at the timeline. The Chair replied that they can have something put together by the beginning of next week.

PW asked if the letter to ICANN regarding the IANA contract had been sent. The Chair replied that  the EC agreed on the language, and that he would send it to the ICANN President. It was the sense of the EC that it be sent formally, rather than via e-mail.

The Chair stated he would send the formal letter today.

10. ICANN Meeting.

ASO Presence, Meetings, and Positions. AP stated there will be an ASO AC Face to Face meeting in San Francisco during the ICANN meeting next week, but he had not seen much information about it. JC replied that, as the SEC for the ASO AC, ARIN has been in dialogs with them, and the ASO AC Chair, crafting the agenda and formatting presentations. They are making good progress. It was a surprise how quickly it came upon them, but you should see something published shortly. AP thanked him.

It was confirmed that Pablo, JC and the Chair will all be attending the ICANN Meeting.

11. Report from the CCG.

Need official NRO EC approval of 2011 Workplan presented in Miami. Due to time constraints, the Chair stated he would pass approval of this to the EC’s list.

EM stated that they are working on 1) NRO website content updates. Focusing on different sections and IPv6, RPKI information and NRO structure. 2) Collaboration on what we are sending to ITU and IETF. He asked if there was information on IPv6 World Day because the CCG is in touch with ISOC, but has not decided what its participation level will be. We decided to work with the ISOC team to decide which areas of participation are possible.

12. Report from ECG.

Arturo stated that he had information on: RPKI, servers, joint dns sec group. They reviewed RPKI, and inaddr arpa. In February, ICANN  released zones from servers with some surprises, the load in the beginning was heavy, but now is stable. Everything went according to projection. The Registries and ICANN are operating with v6 and v4, and it’s stable.

He asked if the EC could confirm the people participating in the DNS group, then they can let ICANN know. The Chair stated it has been confirmed and to proceed.

13. Report from RSM.

Leslie stated that the RS Managers want to hold a meeting in May in Amsterdam and a formal letter will go to the Chair of  the NRO. Some RIRs are using and adding to inventories and there are discrepancies between the RIR databases, so we are working together to resolve them. Some issues are due to returns and transfers. We’ve all agreed to check the final registry list before adding anything to inventory.

14. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

PW stated APNIC had a minor crisis at its Member Meeting. There were public protests from the Indian members of the APNIC membership. There may be more during the ICANN meeting as they may say we are not open to the Indian members of our community. It was a deliberate misinterpretation of our presentation, resulting in being taken to be offensive. The APNIC EC position is that what happened was a reaction as a result of a genuine misunderstanding, and no ill intent on APNIC’s part. He stated he would appreciate feedback if anything comes up during the ICANN meeting.

PW also stated that APNIC is holding enough address requests to exhaust its remaining supply and take us to our last /8. This is the first time this has happened. It’s known that they aren’t going to be approved in full, and we won’t hit the final /8, but it’s a good indication of how close we are. If the current accelerated rate keeps up, even rejecting 50% received, we appear to be very close to our normal stocks and moving to final /8 policy – which involves rationed allocation to single /22 – made on demonstrated need basis. He asked the EC to let him know if you have any questions.

The Chair called for any other business items.

JC discussed the letter from Depository Inc. to ICANN regarding ARIN’s refusal. ARIN had sent it to ICANN pointing to Internet Policy 2, that states, in part, that multiple RIRS will lead to fragmentation and coordination difficulties. We note if there is a desire to devolve the RIR system, it shouldn’t be done by unilaterally acting, but as a result of global discussions on the merits of commercial registries. He stated that the EC may begin hearing about this, and that ARIN cannot acknowledge them as a number registry until the community sets up a framework of how it would work. It is Important that IANA function contract is renewed as it provides an anchor, which is useful when we have parties like this assaulting the system. The concern is: registries w/out a roadmap, and how it works, and law enforcement, etc. If we let it happen, there will be a lot of registries all unlicensed and it will be the end of the Internet number registry system.

15. Adjournment

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 13:38 UTC, with no objections.

Last modified on 27/06/2011