11 November 2011

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 111115

Minutes

15 November 2011
Teleconference

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)

Secretariat:

  • Therese Colosi, ARIN

Observers:

  • Pablo Hinojosa, PH – APNIC
  • Akinori Maemora, AM – APNIC
  • Scott Bradner , SB – ARIN
  • Nate Davis, ND – ARIN
  • Susan Hamlin, SH – ARIN
  • Leslie Nobile, LN – ARIN
  • Andres Piazza, A. Piazza – LACNIC
  • Ernesto Majo, EM – LACNIC
  • Paul Rendeck, PR – RIPE

1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Bashing.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 a.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted and he welcomed everyone to the call.

The Chair reviewed the agenda, and asked for any comments. JC requested discussion of G-SPID, and the draft U.S. SOPA Bill. The Chair added these items under any other business.

2. Approval of the Minutes.

  • August 17, 2011. The minutes were approved with no objections.
  • September 20, 2011. The minutes were approved with no objections.

New Action Item 111115-01: SECRETARIAT. Post August 17and September 20 Minutes to the NRO website as final.

3. Review Action Items.

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

The Chair stated this is part of the daily job of the CCG. He stated it would remain open until confirmed by PH that it can be closed.

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

The Chair stated that the announcement would be published later today. He stated the action will be Closed.

In preparing this message, he remembered that it was decided in the past to focus on blocks bigger than a certain size because there was no benefit to do otherwise (blocks larger than /16). He asked if it was worthwhile to review the space and identify holds smaller than this size? He speculated that there is free space that can be used for special purposes.

JC stated he would like to see the RSMs look at the potential, and make a recommendation. The Chair supported JC’s approach, and state that he would discuss this with LN.

New Action Item 111115:02: RSMs. Review free space smaller than /16 for redistribution, and provide recommendation to NRO EC.

Action Item 110920-01: CHAIR. Send e-mail to Elise at ICANN regarding the cessation of ICANN GTA presentations. (Chair to check with Paul and Adiel beforehand to ensure they are in agreement.)

Chair stated this has been done in person and via email. He stated this item as closed.

Action Item 110920-02: ECG. Produce Final Extended Stats Documentation. Arturo Servin to coordinate with RSMs. Arturo stated a draft could be ready by the EC’s meeting in October.

The Chair noted that AS was not on the call. There was no update at this time.

Action Item 110920-03: ARTURO. Check on existing documents to use to craft high-level RPKI documentation.

The Chair noted that AS was not on the call. There was no update at this time.

4. Internet Governance.

  • Next Steps with the ITU.

Report from the IGF Meeting in Nairobi. The Chair called for any comments on ITU items in general. JC stated Cathy Handley is actively engaged in preparation for WCIT. There is much work to be done by various governments relating to the Internet, through various proposals. Cathy is invited to sit in on the ITU Council as an observer. Many proposals are in discussion.

SB stated that the IETF does want to participate. The Chair stated he saw a message from the IETF and found this a step forward. The Chair stated he would post the IETF’s message on the EC list.

The Chair stated he will be attending a meeting in Washington DC for CITEL in December. There will also be a “rapporteurship” meeting for the preparatory meeting of the WTSA and a communications framework meeting. LACNIC and ARIN will participate together. He will report on this in the December.

The Chair stated that the EC attempted to have a meeting with ITU folks, but it was not possible due to scheduling issues. He recalled that PH proposed the meeting. PH stated the issue was to work on IPv6 capacity building, which was a safe area, but unfortunately, the opportunity no longer exists. He stated that there has been progress made on putting the IPv6 WG in the Counsel WG, and closing the discussions.

5. RPKI.

  • Status at ARIN. JC stated that ARIN is forging ahead with hosted RPKI, and RPKI up/down protocol, with hosted being top priority. There was a setback from switching to a different hardware security module, and there has been some turnover in staff. There was vocal discussion of RPKI at the ARIN PPM in Philadelphia last month, with members who have said they expect it from their RIR, and hence, only ARIN can deliver it. However, it is lukewarm in general within the community. It is primarily the largest carriers and content service providers that desire the service. JC will be proposing funding to the ARIN Board. He stated it is possible that, early next year, deadlines will be slower than anticipated depending on the level of funding.

PW stated he believed this to be the reality of the community process, and was trying to impress this upon ICANN since their accelerated response to the post-February retreat. He suggested making an adjustment to the NRO’s position on RPKI.

JC agreed and stated that if an RIR believes we are not proceeding, the EC needed to discuss what that means, and how to communicate it to the community. The good news in the ARIN region is that ARIN is expecting to proceed, but the progress could be slow and steady – dependent upon its budget. He asked AP if this was worth doing with regard to RIPE.

AP stated this was discussed during a panel session at the recent RIPE PPM, and all points of views were stated. They asked the membership formally about certification activity with regard to disable it, or disable the routing, or continue as is. The outcome was to continue as-is. But there was a tight vote on the question of continuing routing. He stated RIPE considers input regarding progress very carefully, and also to stimulate the development of operators more than before. The RIPE community has strong concerns on Single Trust Anchor (STA)/Global Trust Anchor (GTA) matters. RIPE has adjusted that in it’s messaging. He stated the need to continually communicate with the community.

The Chair stated that there were different levels of priority in each RIR for the progression of RPKI. It is a solution for the community to move forward, but the RIRs are changing on the speed in which they do it, based on concerns and without solutions. As it is a joint effort, the Chair stated the EC must discuss this matter more deeply as soon as possible.

AP stated that it is a different interest among various communities. The Chair agreed, but stated that the RIRs need to be in agreement on the pace for 2012. AP agreed, and posed the question of what happens if an RIR drops out of the project. He suggested this be discussed at next NRO Retreat. The Chair agreed.

PW stated that there are still the questions of the pace of adoption, implementation, and the nature of implementation. There are many discussions yet to be had, and agreed that they should be on the next agenda. He also considered this item should be on I-Star Retreat agenda. What the questions are need to be agreed upon to include ICANN and ISOC.

JC agreed. He stated that the RIRs need to work together making sure that the RIRs and ICANN and IANA work at a complementary pace. RIRs can proceed on resource certifications, even if other RIRs are behind. AA agreed stating that the timeframe no longer matters. At the beginning it was an NRO project and deployment plan. He agreed and wanted the EC as a whole to agree on that. The deployment time is no longer valid and it is very important to everyone to understand that.

JC agreed and stated AA was very accurate. ARIN left those dates behind when security and liability of the timeline proved unacceptable for ARIN. ARIN restarted with a different security model, and broke the common date due to the liability the project had.

The Chair stated he respected ARIN’s position and fully understood. LACNIC’s view was different. It sees the project needing a common timeline, and achieving and deploying RPKI around the world at the same time. LACNIC can wait, but at some point the RIRs have to be together again. If we cannot get committed to the timeline for lack of resources, or priorities of each RIR, it is fine, but we need to be frank about it. JC agreed stating that the RIRs need to be clear and forthright with timelines.

  • Report from the RPKI meeting with ICANN in Dakar, Senegal. The Chair stated all EC members were in attendance. It was a productive meeting, and ICANN staff understood the EC’s concerns. They agreed to work in a simple way to sign the GTA certificates, and that it is important at the same to consider the different decisions, and paces in the different regions. They tasked the technical staff to work together with the IETF for a simple mechanism and proposals for approval. They agreed upon how to sign the /8’s allocated by the central registry in that they will ‘follow the registry’.

6. Discussion of IETF Formal Liaison.

The Chair stated that he had met with Russ Housley and Olof Nordling, during the LACNIC PPM in Buenos Aires. It was decided there would be no formal liaison between the IETF and the NRO, but to communicate via email and face to face. JC stated he considered that the IETF would not see the need and believed that the Chair of NRO is the natural person to communicate with the IETF. He agreed that a formal liaison was not necessary.

7. ARIN’s Next Steps with Draft Policy 2011-9 (Global Proposal):

Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. JC updated the EC that the proposal was presented with strong support at the ARIN PPM in Philadelphia, with a show of hands of 49 to 2. It was sent to the ARIN AC for last call, which has now likely ended, and there have been no comments to the contrary. The ARIN AC will have a regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow and will most likely recommend adoption to the ARIN Board. The Board will be meeting in December. ARIN will be recommending the draft policy for adoption before year-end. The Chair thanked him for the update.

8. CFO’s Retreat Report.

On October 24, 2011 the Treasurer, PW, requested, via e-mail, a discussion of revenues, IPv4 allocations and IPv6 allocations at this meeting. PW stated he did not have the report prepared in time for this meeting, and will have it for the next EC meeting.

9. CCG Report.

EM stated that they are planning a communications plan for 2012 and are including in it the transition of communications, and their view of next year and suggestions for the plan. EM stated that RPKI affects the CCG’s work. He requested clear guidance on activities that the CCG should do to communicate RPKI activities publically. One of the action items of the CCG, tasked by the EC, is to provide a slide deck on RPKI, He stated that the CCG is finding it difficult to do so without clear direction of what should be presented.

The Chair stated that, at this time, the EC does not have a clear message regarding RPKI. The RIRs need to agree on what they plan to achieve. He stated that the CCG could still provide a message on what RPKI is, and its benefits, but not on its progress or on the timing of when the RIRs expect to have results.

EM thanked the Chair. He stated it was much clearer to know they can communicate on technology, but not on progress.

10. ECG Report.

The Chair stated that AS was unavailable to report at this time.

11. RSM Report.

LN stated that the RSMs produced the list of holds in the /24 space, and will run a fresh report and work with Geoff Houston. They met with IANA at the ARIN PPM on subsequent v6 allocations and sent notes to the Chair. She explained that they met because there was no clear definition of ‘reservation’. It is outlined in policy, but whatever IANA is calling it, they will consider it if the RSMs publish it.

With regard to the extended statistics form, the RSMs would like to use it, but not all of them have it. They are instead using a common spreadsheet, which Leo Vegoda has worked on. APNIC will be using it for IPv6 allocation. LN suggested it would be a good idea if the NRO put out a public relations piece on IPv6, and it’s positive aspects in anticipation of these subsequent allocations, and requests for additional space. The RSMs will work with the CCG on it.

With regard to the discussion on the matter of 2 and 4 byte ASNs, LN stated that all regions are having issues with 4-byte ASNs. There are five blocks left of 2 byte ASNs. She asked what’s happening with them? Is it a good idea to give one to each RIR, like they did with IPv4 address space? Do we need this in policy or just an agreement? She acknowledged that RIRs can qualify for more than one, but posed the idea for thought.

The Chair thanked LN for her precise report.

12. PACG Report.

Andres P. reported the group met in Nairobi and had a good meeting. Some highlights were about the scope of work in 2011 and next year. Despite the Charter there was consensus on the focus of information sharing. Sensitive information was brought up as the key issue and was discussed heavily. The summary of any of the PACG’s meetings will be provided, when documents cannot be shared with the rest of the group. Global organizations like the ITU, GSA, WCIT, CITEL, the African Union, etc. will be shared by the group.

Andres P. stated that there was no consensus with regard to the dynamics the PACG should have, such as: 1) the group should do tasks as assigned by the NRO; and, 2) the PAGC provides input as information. He stated the group has an activity due by the end of the year. He stated that PH was in a preparatory meeting for WCIT. Andres and Cathy Handley will attend a meeting in December, and will work with the CCG on common communications. They are planning a retreat for early 2012, hosted by PW.

13. Any Other Business.

  • U.S. SOPA Bill. JC reported that there is a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives similar to past bills in this area (like the IP protect bill of last summer) these bills would give U.S. law enforcement the ability to take down domain name services for sites that host copyright materials. This bill includes copyrighted designs and pharmaceuticals for sale. He noted that many people are fighting the bill.
  • Global Service Provider ID (G-SPID) Management. JC stated that he had spoken with Richard Shockey, a consultant to the ITU, and Chair of the Global SIP Forum, at the request of someone in the FCC who reached out to Richard. He stated he is working on an IETF draft to assist with routing and termination of phone calls via VOIP to move global VOIPs off of the trunks to VOIP trunks internationally. You need to know where you are routing a call, and have an 8-digit number as a service provider id that is being provided. The draft is in a WG, and IANA consideration of draft is TDD.

Richard had asked if the RIRs would consider doing this. JC explained that IANA would normally do it, but is not set up to serve end organizations, and many service providers have relationships with the RIRs already. JC stated that he replied to Richard that he did not know at this time, and would bring the matter to the NRO. JC stated that ARIN would need to look to its Board to see if it is within ARIN’s scope. He believed that unless we are asked by IANA to do so, he did not know if it would be the RIR’s job otherwise. It is up to IANA and the protocol authors to figure out how to get numbers registered. ARIN may get asked to consider it. He stated it is a topic worth discussing at the I Star meeting and the reason for his raising it. He sent a note to Lynn St. Amore regarding global service provider ID numbers.

The Chair went back to Andres P.’s report regarding his question of if the PACG should be proactive in sharing information they understand is useful or limit information sharing to the point tasked by the EC. The Chair stated his view is that the PACG needs to be proactive in trading information on anything, but that they do not need to be in a position of deleting or defining positions. They should be proactive in sharing information. The Chair asked if the EC agreed. It was the sense of the EC that this was the correct direction.

PW brought up the RFC on the IANA function, stating the NRO needed to have a formal position. He asked what is our position in the bidding process?

PW stated it was worth discussing if ICANN is not renewed, and whom we would work with in that case. He was in favor of moving forward with singular support of ICANN. JC stated he supported an NRO letter strongly recommending the reissuance to ICANN and interest of its mission. The Chair agreed to issuing a letter, and including it in the proposal.

PW stated that there would be discussion in Miami in December. The Chair stated that the deadline is December 12, 2011. He had talked about this to Elise at ICANN while in Dakar, and ICANN would appreciate the support. JC supported letter and agreed to discussions in Miami. The Chair stated that he would create a draft before the meeting in Miami.

The Chair stated all will be meeting in Miami, and they will miss AA’s presence there. They will provide remote connectivity for him. AA thanked the Chair.

14. Adjournment.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 8:05 EST with no objections.

Comments are closed.