Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 110719


Teleconference, 19 July 2011

Executive Council Attendees:

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

Secretariat: Therese Colosi, ARIN


  • 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

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 a.m. EDT and apologized for the delay. The presence of quorum was noted.

The Chair called for any comments on the Agenda.   JC stated he had a speaking engagement in two hours, and would need to drop of this teleconference in an hour and 40 minutes. The Chair stated he would try to accomplish the call in an hour and a half.

PW stated he had proposed to add the Restful WHOIS item to the agenda. The Chair suggested postponing the discussion, to be discussed at the EC Retreat in August in Montevideo. All agreed.

2. Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for approval of the following:

  • June 21, 2011

The Chair asked if all EC members had reviewed the minutes. PW stated he had not had an opportunity to review them. The Chair postponed approval of the minutes until the next EC meeting and asked all members to send any comments to the Secretariat.

3. Review Action Items

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

Ernesto Majo (EM) stated that he is still working on the white paper. The Chair noted the need to complete this item due to its age, and asked if EM would complete it before the NRO EC Retreat in August. EM agreed.

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

The Chair stated he had not yet sent this message and that he would be doing so.

Action Item 110310-03: CFOs to work together for their next meeting to communicate information about financial stability. OPEN

The Chair stated this item would remain open until the CFO meeting is organized and asked the Treasurer to begin planning.

Action Item 110310-05: NRO EC Retreat Dates. OPEN.

The Chair stated the dates have been set and this item should be closed.

Action Item 110621-01: Secretariat to post March 2011, and May 2011 (with edits made) NRO EC Minutes as final to the NRO Website. OPEN.

This item has been completed; the Chair stated this item would be closed.

Action Item 110621-02: To propose mechanisms of collaboration between different RIRs on public affairs matters. Pablo Hinojosa tasked. OPEN

PW stated that he had sent an update on comments he received to the EC list yesterday; however, he had not received comments from AFRINIC or RIPE.

AP stated that he approved the whole document and wanted know who will be placed on the Public Affairs Working Group (WG). He stated that Paul Rendeck and a back up person will be on the WG from RIPE. The Chair asked AP and AA to send their comments to PW in order for him to finalize the document. Both agreed.

4. Internet Governance

B) Next Steps with the ITU. The Chair stated that there have been no further changes than what had been discussed with Nick Thorne previously. He proposed a meeting to be held during the IGF Meeting in Nairobi. JC agreed.

PW reported that APNIC is engaging with the ITU-D through the Bangkok office on a regional level. They are having an ITU-v6 related meeting next week, and the Regional Director of the ITU-D, based in Bangkok, will be attending. He stated that he had a meeting in Singapore with the Regional Director, and that Hammond Turee was also there from the ITU. It was a cordial meeting with activities discussed in regard to the ITU-D capacity IPv6-building, and developmental goals in IPv6 deployment, in developing countries. APNIC is moving forward with the ITU-D, providing substance with the goal of collaborating with the Internet community. This relates to the fact that Phil Smith is joining APNIC and engaging in ramping up workshop education outreach consulting activities on IPv6. APNIC may also be ramping up engagements with the ITU-D on the same activities if they are willing to bring useful people to APNIC’s training activities.

The Chair thanked him for the information/update.

C) ITU IPv6 Working Group (WG). The Chair asked for an update on when the WG meeting would be.  PW stated it would be held either in September or October.  The Chair stated he would need the specific date, as the ECG was responsible for organizing LACNIC for the meeting. The Chair stated he would research the date.

Paul R. stated that RIPE was working on capacity training as well. He stated that they are working with Mohammad, the WG Chair, and his team, on hands-on IPv6 training next week, and also in Abu Dhabi in the Fall. They are moving around the Middle East with IPv6 training. Core material is being worked on, and RIPE is working with APNIC. RIPE will be working with the technical community and will determine if it is appropriate to do so with the ITU in Russia and Central Asia. He stated that the RIPE and APNIC regions overlap in Central Asia. PW thanked Paul R. his work.

JC stated that, with regard to the IPv6 WG, Ms. Xiaoya Yang indicated in an e-mail that the date is undecided, but they wanted to hold it back to back with the dedicated group with public policy issues. It may be held in February 2012. It might not be a pending meeting. This response was as of the end of June.

A) Support to IGF.  The Chair called for the approval of sending a contribution of 25,000 Euros to the IGF. All EC members approved.

5. NRO EC Retreat

Chair stated that LACNIC is looking at venues for the Retreat, planning to be held outside of Montevideo to accommodate the convenience of possible early departures of EC members. He stated that LACNIC would be making hotel reservations for all members. AP stated that he would be leaving Montevideo on the afternoon of August 18th; and would leave on the 17th if the meeting permits earlier departure. The Chair acknowledged AP’s plans.

The Chair stated he would propose an agenda next week to the EC’s list EC member’s comments were appreciated, and to please send them to the ECG or to him directly.

6. IANA Notice of Inquiry (NoI)

At the last meeting, the Chair noted the deadline for comments was July 29, 2011. He called for volunteers to craft answers. Paul stated he could craft a first draft with Pablo H.

The Chair stated that the points on positions have been made, per the post that PW had sent to the EC’s list. JC stated he had not had the chance to review the post within ARIN, but he agreed with the points.  He needed to discuss them with Cathy Handley, but was generally in favor. He stated that ARIN would try to follow the NRO to the extent possible. The Chair requested JC to please send information within the next 24 hours so the NRO can draft a response. JC agreed.

The Chair noted language regarding increasing oversight by the U.S. Gov. and stated it was most likely an error in the text.  He stated that it is a baseline for LACNIC in the sense that it is not negotiable for LACNIC to give an increasing role to the US Gov. in the development of address policies. AP agreed.

JC provided his thoughts that it was the result of attempting to clarify and make explicit the role of the US Gov. with respect to domain names,as it was strongly stated by many in the DNS community that the US Gov. needs to be clear and transparent in how it works with respect to the IANA. There is no doubt the proposed Statement of Work carries that into new areas, and he too hoped the text was simply an error in editing, and not intentional, as an expanding scope for the US Gov. is unacceptable. It was clarity work with respect to the DNS, but it was most likely put in the wrong place in the document.

The Chair requested the EC members send comments within the next 24 hours. He tasked PW to continue working on the document, and coordinate with the Chair. PW agreed.

7. Discussion of IETF Formal Liaison

JC raised the issue whether there should be a formal liaison relationship with the IETF, noting that ARIN has found it necessary to engage with the IETF on occasion and has recently been asked about the topic. JC considered that this, if done at all, should be done through the NRO. He stated that if the NRO was interested, the Chair and the IETF leaders could discuss it.

The Chair agreed with a formal liaison, stating that the matter had been discussed in the past. He was a liaison years ago, but the position was not reassigned, and he considered the liaison a good relationship. The EC was in agreement.  AA considered it a good idea but and suggested perhaps it fall within the ECG.

JC stated that ARIN has received a suggestion under the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP), that ARIN formalize interaction with IETF that has a clear processes mechanism whereby the ARIN community’s consensus can be conveyed. He stated that before ARIN does this, he needed to raise the issue with the NRO for a unified action, not a unilateral one. JC pointed to, the suggestion numbered 2010.19.

The Chair asked JC for a proposal. JC asked if it would make more sense for this to be done by the NRO, as opposed to being done by each RIR. He noted that he had no knowledge of whether or not the IETF is interested. He speculated the possibility of the IETF inviting the NRO to their WG meetings. He stated that he did not want ARIN to have its own liaison with them.

AP, replying to AA’s previous suggestion, stated that he had doubts that the ECG was the right place within the NRO for the liaison. He stated it should remain on the EC level, as he considered this more of a political issue, not a technical one. The Chair agreed.

JC suggested this matter be discussed at the NRO’s Retreat in August. He suggested the ECG could be a point of contact, but that when it comes to interpretation of documents such as RFC 2860, which describes IETF/IANA relationship functions, the ECG should not be interpreting it. He noted that a liaison could not be established in a short timeframe, and that ARIN would be engaging in current policies in the meantime. He stated that due diligence and time was needed to consider the matter.

The Chair stated he would add this item to the agenda for the NRO Retreat and thanked JC for his thoughts.

8. ASO Review

The Chair asked Tom McKenzie, the point of contact from the consulting firm performing the review, to submit a report on their work.  The Chair stated that he received a report yesterday, and sent it to the EC’s list during this meeting. He asked that if the EC had specific concerns or questions, to please address them to him, so that he could forward them to Mr. McKenzie.

The Chair stated that Mr. McKenzie noted that the contract had not yet been signed. He asked PW, as Treasurer, when he expected it to be finalized. PW stated that there were issues with the indemnity and liability clause that were too broad, and he was working on alternate wording.  He understood that the company has agreed to it, and the contract is about to be signed. The Chair stated the consultants were concerned, as they have started working already. PW assured him that the intent is to get the contract signed, and that the consultant’s fees will be paid.  The Chair requested the contract be signed as soon as possible.  PW agreed.

9. CCG Report

EM stated that there were three matters being addressed:

1) RPKI Communications. EM noted differences in the deployment between the RIRs and stated that it has been difficult for the CCG to decide the measures of communication. At the last CCG meeting 2 weeks ago, Arturo S. had stated that the right information needed to be prepared for different audiences. The action item is pending. EM asked for the key measures that the CCG needed to communicate. He noted that all five RIRs would not be deploying until the end of 2011.

The Chair stated that by the end of the year all 5 RIRs should be deploying.

JC provided an update stating that ARIN spent time on technical issues to make sure it could confirm that the user is accountable for its actions for certifications. Parties relying on ARIN’s RPKI infrastructure will be accountable to a relying user’s Term of Service though a click-thru acknowlegement of the trust anchor material. The ARIN Board has authorized ARIN to proceed with the hosted and up/down protocol, and ARIN is proceeding. ARIN is not holding anything up, but it is currently in development. The Chair thanked him for the update.

EM stated that the audience target is political, not technical. The Chair stated that it consists of ISPs, governments, and the public in general.  There are two main items: 1) Determine who performs actions; and, 2) determine who develops materials and communication. Common guidance and materials from the NRO will be independent of later campaigns from each RIR. It applies to another audience. For example, LACNIC will work within its region, but that does not mean it will have the same messages as the NRO would have.

2) IGF Workshop. EM stated they needed input, and would request specific information via e-mail to the NRO EC.

3. CCG Face-to-Face meeting. EM stated this meeting is being planned for September 5 and 6 in Dubrovnik, Croatia during the RIPE Regional Meeting. Materials will be available regarding RPKI and v6 and also materials related to the IGF meeting in Nairobi with discussions.

The Chair asked how the venue was selected, as his preference was for the CCG to hold their meeting in conjunction with an RIR or ICANN meeting, to better network with the variety of attendees. The Chair stated the best option is to meet in the facilities of one of the RIRs Public Policy Meetings, not the regional meeting of one RIR.  He did not consider it beneficial to the attendees.

EM replied that they were trying to find a date for which the entire team could be available.  They did not manage to finalize in time for the NRO Retreat in August, which they thought could be a possibility.  RIPE suggested their regional meeting. It was less complicated for the host, and the CCG wanted to take advantage of the meeting time.  He agreed that the best way is preferably to attend ICANN, or RIR’s meetings, but that it is not always possible.

The Chair asked the EC for their approval for the CCG meeting in Europe. JC replied that if it is the most appropriate venue, then he deferred to the CCG’s judgment. All agreed. The CCG meeting was approved.

10. ECG Report

Arturo S. stated that additional information would be provided at the NRO Retreat next month. AS stated he would provide large report on: transfers, trust anchor and Whois.

11. RSM Report

Leslie Nobile (LN) stated that she had sent the RSM report to the NRO EC. She summarized that the RSMs met in Tanzania, and it was a productive and long meeting, covering the agenda items.  All resulting action items are either completed or in progress. She noted, with regard to IPv6 allocations, 3 RIRs are providing sparse allocations, and running through /12s quickly. There may be a need for new allocations from IANA. A new process and new policy is needed. Leo Vegoda contacted the RSMs and we will hold a teleconference in 2 weeks to discuss a process on sparse allocations.  We would like to meet during the ARIN meeting in October, where we would discuss the process of requesting additional address for allocations.

2) 4 byte ASNs. LN stated that RIPE and LACNIC are not having problems and there is not a high exchange rate. It is working in some regions and not in others. Most of ARIN’s are returns, and the software cannot accept them. ARIN and AFRINIC are assigning from one pool, lowest to highest, with 2 byte ASN’s assigned first. APNIC is rapidly running out and cannot qualify for more from IANA due to their existing large 4 byte ASN pool, of which APNIC is defaulting to for assignments.

LN spoke with Phil Smith, who wrote a summary on the matter, and LN will take it to NANOG for a panel at NANOG’s next meeting.  She stated she would provide Susan H. with ideas to be discussed at the panel during the next NANOG meeting. Awareness and education are needed. JC asked if it is predominately North American vendors having an issue. LN replied yes, North America has the biggest issue.  RIPE had a 50% exchange rate, and AFRINIC had old routers, and had an issue – but ARIN has the biggest problem. JC stated that the issue should be raised in other operator forums, as appropriate.

3) Joint Statistics. LN stated the need for adding new stats that are of more interest to the community. Another meeting is needed to decide what stats should be added, and welcomed feedback from the EC.

JC stated the top priority is that the joint stats production is as timely as possible. ARIN is receiving requests for stats and it would beneficial to have joint stats as the answer for press to use, or other Internet organizations. They need to be up to date and it is a lot of work to keep them current month by month, but worth it to use as a definitive source – to eliminate ad-hoc information requests.

LN pointed out that the formats are different between the 5 RIRs – it takes 10 days to two weeks to complete the stats. It could be a good two weeks to produce them.

JC stated that there was nothing wrong with it taking 2 weeks after the end of a month; however, quarterly stats are too old. He did not know if other RIRs are going having this same issue. AP stated he would be happy to do this monthly.

LN stated she had a discussion regarding having a similar format for all RIRs, extending the stat file. AS had ideas to discuss this with engineers at IETF. AS stated he agreed with LN as to the difficulty of monthly information as it was conducted manually. A mechanism was needed to make it one format – either an RIR or NRO/ECG effort. The data is there, but we don’t know how much space each RIR is holding because it is not bi-level information, which is the most important part of the information people want to know. If we agree to make that format mandatory, all the information would be in the file.

AP supported a joint extended format being mandatory and recognized it would take a effort. He stated it was not a task of the ECG to have it done – each RIR has to publish to the format, and the RIR’s communications people can use it to post. He considered it a high priority. Each RIR should publish according to a jointly agreed upon format ASAP.

JC suggested that each RIR report, to the NRO, the date it expects to publish its stats in the extended format. All agreed.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

  • ARIN Policy Announcement. PW stated he noted the recent ARIN announcement regarding Draft Policy 2011-6. He considered it an important announcement and a potential ‘game changer’ depending on its outcome. He stated it was conditional in the statement that relates to global policy (GP) and asked if there were thoughts about the likelihood of a global policy that would satisfy the situation. JC stated that folks active in the ARIN region proposed at least 2 GPs about the reallocation of returned address space – one being approved by the APNIC Executive Council. He stated that APNIC’s pending proposal 097-v002 and ARIN’s proposal 137 are global policies that were similar, and that would resolve the issue, but he did not know if the communities would converge on them. The Chair stated for clarification that there were 3 GPs originally: 1) entered by all RIRs – approved in 4 RIRs, but not in ARIN; 2) Martin Hannigan’s proposal which was later withdrawn by him; and, 3) one proposed by LACNIC which is under discussion at this moment and is the only one under discussion at this moment. AA stated that returning space to IANA is not covered in the policy. JC stated that the proposal would be discussed at the October ARIN Meeting. He noted this matter is in discussion in other regions (APNIC’s 097.v002 and RIPE’s 2011 01) PW stated that currently APNIC’s proposal covers IANA distributions only, and it is being implemented, but returns are not covered. The Chair stated that LACNIC finished last call 2 days ago, and the LACNIC Board may ratify it today. PW pointed out that there is not enough information to discuss the matter thoroughly, and stated discussion should continue on the EC’s mailing list. The Chair stated there is not much to discuss within the EC, as the EC has no impact on GPs. He noted that LACNIC will try to approach the issue of returns. JC suggested this be discussed in full at the NRO Retreat. The Chair agreed to add the item to the NRO Retreat agenda.
  • Alain Aina stated that Adiel Akplogan had returned full-time to AFRINIC on 16 July. He explained that from now until the end of July, he (Alain) is still in charge, but that the EC is free to contact Adiel at any time, as he is back to running AFRINIC. Alain stated that 01 August, he would continue at AFRINIC resuming his position as Special Project Manager. The Chair thanked Alain for the update.

13. Adjournment

The Chair moved to adjourn at 8:39 a.m. EDT. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Last modified on 08/12/2011