Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 111018


18 October 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


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

1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:07 a.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. RPKI.

The EC discussed the discussion points for the meeting with ICANN. The Chair stated there were two points:
A) handling of RIR’s legacy /8; and
B) Identify aspects of the ICANN presentation sent to the EC that needed to be addressed.

The Chair stated that he had a discussion Olof, Russ, AS, Geoff Huston and George Michaelson. He stated it was a good talk, and that they left with confidence that things are going well. He also had a long talk with Elise from ICANN where she expressed concern over whether public presentations made by ICANN regarding RPKI had had a negative impact. He stated after their discussion, she understood the EC’s thoughts on the matter.

JC stated that since the EC sent their letter to ICANN, members of the community were asking what it meant. He stated he has told them that it means the NRO needs to work together with ICANN, not that the NRO does not to work with ICANN, and stressed that we need to over-communicate this point. The Chair suggested using the public forum during ICANN in Dakar.

RIRs legacy /8. The Chair asked AS about the ECG’s proposal on the legacy /8. AS stated there were different options, but ECG’s was technically simple: follow what the registry does. AS warned that if the process starts getting creative, it will be cumbersome. It is the agreement and understanding in ECG to follow the RIRs, and do the change within the RIR. That is the ECG’s approach.

The Chair stated he was confident in the ECG’s approach and stated that most /8’s will be signed by ARIN. He asked if the EC was comfortable with that fact. AP and PW both concurred with the approach. AA stated he was uncertain that, policy-wise, it would be that simple. He explained that IANA has always claimed authority over the /8’s that are assigned to organizations. JC said that as long as the RIRs and IANA agree on the registry contents for a given /8 and that can be updated first, then, the ECG approach is fine. Regarding legacy space, AS proposed that it be the same as the central registries: to follow RIR registration. JC suggested the NRO proposing a list of updates for the IANA to review.

AA stated that there should not be any confusion. It is simple: ask IANA to come up with the list, as they are officially ‘the pool’. He considered it best for them to provide the list. JC agreed, and cautioned as long as it does not indicate that they are providing registry functions for end-users. AA agreed with that stating the need to be precise.

The Chair asked PW if he agreed. PW did agree. The issue of the authority of the /8 is a sensitive point. Technically it is the best solution for the registration of the /8. He wanted to ensure the EC was in agreement.

AA stated that he understood it, and for him there was no issue if it went to ARIN on behalf of AFRINIC. PW agreed, stating it was a separate issue and there was no problem.
AP stated that certification is a reflection of the state of RIR, and he had no problem following joint procedures with ARIN.

JC stated that he believed it was the progress on RPKI that was necessary to have clear and simple understanding of how blocks get certified. He believed the RIRs agreeing which one should do it as the right answer, and having IANA’s concurrence. He stated he was willing to have IANA tell the RIRs what they think the RIR is, and the RIRs agreeing with them. Making sure it is clear which RIR makes the certification.

The Chair stated it must be clear that, if we agree, it cannot be used to support any given view about legacy space. They are two different matters. JC stated the best way to have an RPKI model is to determine the right RIR to certify each block, and that be the only thing we are deciding with no question of authority.

The Chair stated for the record that the EC was agreement on the last /8.

3. Architecture of Signing (ICANN presentation)

The Chair asked if the ECG had discussed that topic.

AS replied that they had discussed it, and the main consensus is that the DNSSEC procedures are too complex for RPKI and the ECG needs something simpler.

After discussion, it was the sense of the EC that a complex mechanism was not needed to give transparency to the community, only documentation and the RIRs. The Chair stated this would be the NRO position in discussions with ICANN. We need a simple mechanism. We are open to document everything to ensure transparency to the community.

The Chair posed the possibility of the NRO funding the development of the RPKI solution on ICANN’s side.

The Chair stated that openness of discussion is what he was looking for. We are talking about investment in the development, not the operation. PW stated that the point is cost is being incurred in a new activity. He agreed with JC that no one can commit or agree right now – but agreed in principle to investigate further.

The Chair stated the EC had now covered all the points and was in agreement.

The Chair believed we should to schedule a meeting in Taipei, during IETF. The Chair pointed out that PW would also be there. AS stated he would send a note to the ECG to move forward. All agreed.

4. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business items.

  • JC stated he had two items:

    1) The SSAC has met with the ASO AC in the past. The ASO AC Chair, Louie Lee, is asking what will be discussed. The SSAC wants to discuss a coordination option for ICANN contracted parties, and RIRs, regarding IP address hijacking. JC stated he had no concerns, but believed it beneficial that people from RIR staff, that are present, be in the meeting. He was uncertain if the registrars or ASO had a solid view on how RIRs prevent hijacking. He stated he was calling this to the EC’s attention, and that this meeting will happen in Dakar.The Chair thanked him for this information. He stated that the ECG Chair and possibly someone from the EC should be there as well. He stated the NRO could coordinate with Louie to ensure they are part of it. JC agreed.

    2) JC stated that there was a small chance that he would not be Dakar, although his plans are set, due to an ARIN matter that may require him to stay in the U.S.

    The Chair stated that they would try to have remote participation and would do his best to make that available. JC appreciated that, and stated that if he was not there, to please not let that hinder any meetings or discussions.

  • The Chair stated there would be an NRO EC meeting within the next two weeks to conduct the NRO’s regular business.

5. Adjournment.

The Chair called to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 am EDT. The meeting was adjourned with no objection.

Last modified on 16/03/2012