22 February 2012

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 120222

Minutes

22 February 2012
Teleconference

Executive Council Attendees:

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

Secretariat:

  • German Valdez (APNIC)
  • Bhadrika Magan (APNIC)
  • Sarah Hu (APNIC)

Observers:

  • Akinori Maemura, AM (APNIC)
  • Arturo Servin, AS (LACNIC) (for RE)
  • Hartmut Glaser, HG (LACNIC)
  • Nate Davis, ND (ARIN)
  • Pablo Hinojosa, PH (APNIC)
  • Scott Bradner, SB (ARIN)
  • Susan Hamlin, SH (ARIN)
  • Ernesto Majo, EM (LACNIC)
  • Andrew De La Haye, AH (RIPE NCC)
  • Mark Kosters, MK (ARIN)
  • Leslie Nobile, LN (ARIN)
  • Cathy Handley, CH (ARIN)

1. Welcome, Apologies, Agenda Review.

The Chair started the meeting at 9:16 (UTC+10). The Chair noted that there were no additions to the Agenda. The Chair also noted that RE was absent and that AS was attending in his place.

2. Approval of previous Minutes.

The Chair noted that the October minutes were reviewed by the EC and asks for its approval. This motion was approved and carried.

The Chair moved to approve the remaining outstanding minutes (November and December 2011 and January 2012). There was a single motion to approve and this was carried.

3. Review Action Items.

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

AS reported that this is now part of the ECG working plan. JC recommended that this action item be dropped, which was supported by PW. Action dropped.

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

LN provided an update of this action and noted that there is uncertainty as to whether the space exists to actually divide up. JC clarified that the original intent was for space smaller than a /16 to be redistributed, ie /24s, and now because there is only a little of that space left there may be no need to do it. JC clarified that the recommendation is that nothing needs to be done yet. PW noted that an informed decision must be made on how much space is involved and who is distributing it. LN to provide more detail. Action open.

Action Item 111220-01: SECRETARIAT. Change references to last /8 for legacy /8 during RPKI discussions and correct Paul Wilson initials in the minutes of October Meeting and circulate the draft to the NRO EC list for final approval.

JC notes that this is done. Action done.

Action Item 111220-02: JC To elaborate a letter for ITU-T and ITU-D secretaries to conduct a meeting to discuss coordination and capacity building activities.

JC requests guidance as to whether this is still an important activity. PW agrees that it is and believed the action came about following a genuine interest to collaborate with the ITU.

CH asked PW whether this was in relation to the IPv6 Council Working Group. AP notes  there was discussion on workshops and capacity building and that we should emphasize we are happy working with them. JC proposes that the draft go to the ITU-D and T Sectors stating the RIR are happy to collaborate with the ITU on capacity building.

AA suggests this letter be directed to the Secretary General and a copy sent to the ITU- D and T Directors. PW agrees with this approach. JC revises the action item to draft this letter offering continued support for IPv6 outreach capacity-building activities. Action Open – JC to draft letter to ITU Secretary General and copy the D and T Sector Bureau Directors.

Action Item 120117-01: PW to supply CFO meeting report at the next EC meeting.

Sent to mailing list and completed. Action Done

Action Item 120117-02: JC to draft cover letter and submit to EC for sign-off, before sending the ASO Review Report to ICANN.

It was decided that this will be sent by email instead of a cover letter. Action Open.

Action Item 120117-03:NRO EC to review and approve 2012 CCG work plan, before the Mauritius face-to-face meeting

It was decided this action remains open. Action Open.

Action Item 120117-04: JC to convene special meeting of the EC (by email or teleconference), upon advice from AFRINIC of the adoption of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. (GPP-IPv4-2011)

This is done. Action Done.

Action Item 120117-05: Chair to correspond with PACG considering and making recommendations on how it would engage and work with ISOC regarding WCIT.

PW noted that ISOC made contributions, but the NRO EC were not consulted. PW asks if there is a problem with coordination? JC asks whether this should be escalated with Lynn at ISOC. PW agrees that it should. JC notes that this will be handled in AOB. (Note: the meeting was adjourned before this was discussed). Action Open.

Action Item 120117-06: The Chair will forward the message from ICANN regarding the 2013 budget framework discussion to AA for action.

Done. Action Done.

4. ITEMS ASO review report.

JC – Noted the discussions on the mailing list. JC commented this review should follow ICANN’s existing review procedures, therefore recommends that ICANN post the review report as any other public comments document.

PW noted Article 4 of the ICANN bylaws and Article 8 of the ASO MoU, which allows the NRO to provide its own review recommendations. AA commented that the ASO is doing the review, and ICANN can be informed of progress made and then they can follow their own process.

JC noted two issues. One – should this go for public comment via ICANN bylaws and then review the results, or if the NRO should do it themselves. PW suggested that a declaration be made that the report was reviewed as part of the NRO, was made available for public comment; those comments were then considered, and then finally the report is submitted to ICANN, who then follow their own process. JC supported this approach.

AA noted that the ICANN process might be different with this report. PW then suggests that if this is the case, the option is to forward the ITEMS review to the ICANN board and follow their process. AA noted that it is for the NRO to clearly state that we have contracted a third party to conduct the review.

JC notes that there are two options: 1. To submit the ITEMS report to ICANN for their review; or 2. Institute our own review process. PW suggested approaching the ICANN Board to see if they would accept the report and then consult this review to relevant regional communities. AA comments that this review should be governed by Article 8 of the MoU; that it should be fully conducted by the NRO; and clearly state that it is conducted by a third party.

AP supports having an independent review process.

JC suggests the following process. 1. Alert ICANN of the NRO review process and provide them with a report for public comment. This then complies with their review process. 2. The NRO then also conducts its own review process. JC recommends that the ICANN bylaws should reflect this process. AP and PW agree to this process.

JC notes that the ICANN bylaws need amending. JC recommends keeping this as a separate issue. AA comments that the bylaw issue need not be raised as we are following the MoU – a process that we have determined. JC notes that our process should be compatible with the bylaws.

New Action item 120222-01: JC Alert ICANN of the NRO review process and provide them with a report for public comment.

5. Clarify position on RPKI global trust anchor.

JC notes the issues of whether it should be a single, global, or hosted position. AP commented that RIPE has concerns with this and that the text was not entirely clear. JC asks if there was specific language that shouldn’t be used. AP suggests alternative formulations.

JC notes that there has been planning, standards work, and development coordination, but no formal decision to create a global trust anchor. AS clarified that there is no final trust anchor to ICANN. JC confirmed that the NRO has not authorized deployment of the global trust anchor and this will only occur with full community support.

PW suggests we communicate this at the ICANN in Costa Rica. AP and JC support this approach. JC recommends an agreed communication.

AP to write a script for ICANN in Costa Rica.

New Action item 120222-02: AP to write script for ICANN in Costa Rica of NRO position on the global trust anchor.

New Action item 120222-03: AP to work with ECG on a RPKI Plan

6. 2012 Budget. AA to lead. Agree on ASO AC travel, cost of IPv6 survey, global INET contribution etc.

AA recommends formally adopting the budget. AFRINIC approves. Supported by JC, noting that ARIN approves the new budget. PW (APNIC) also approves, as does AP (RIPE NCC). AS see no problem with LACNIC’s approval, but wants confirmation from RE first.

AA comments that the INET contribution needs to be managed given its size.

JC notes that the 2012 budget is approved subject to RE confirmation.

AA note the expense distribution model has changed with the introduction of IPv6 into the formula. PW and JC are happy with that change. AP requests more time for review. AS requests confirmation from RE.

AA commented as to what fiscal year this new budget applies. JC assumed it was for 2012. AP agreed with the new contribution scheme by email to the NRO EC before the end of the meeting.

JC noted that the new NRO expense distribution model is approved subject to RE confirmation.

7. ASO AC travel policy.

PW stated the funding of the ASO AC travel is a shared expense, subject to variation by the NRO EC. JC questioned whether the funding is a shared expense when done in the performance of an ASO duty. PW commented that his understanding was that it was a shared responsibility, recognizing that the ASO AC meetings were in the joint interests of the NRO. PW commented further that he is fine not having it as a share additional expense. JC commented that he is fine with having it as long as it is a conscious decision.

HG asked for some flexibility in the travel planning and requested changing the text to “until the last meeting of the year”. PW noted the change.

JC also questioned whether the policy assumes that representatives will rotate attendance, and what the working practice is if a Chair has not been rotated? PW noted that this needs consideration.

New Action item 120222-04: PW to amend text in travel policy to provide added travel organizational flexibility. Action for PW.

8. WTPF nominations.

JC noted the EC has until May to submit nominations, but questioned whether it has a process for this. PW noted that this date may be wrong and is investigating, but stated that first submissions are required by 9 March 2012.

JC commented that the PACG could provide a summary of what this expert group could be and the likely candidates. CH suggests putting forward two candidates. PW states that he is happy to put himself forward and suggests CH to support.

JC formally proposes this. Agreement confirmed by JC, PW, AS, AA and AP.

New Action item 120222-05: JC to submit PW and CH nominations to WTPF before March 9th.

9. Status of global policy IPv4 allocations.

AP states this is currently with the ASO and with regard to legacy space to IANA, poses the question of expediting the process.

JC comments that this is a valid global policy, therefore the ASO ratification should be issue free and would likely occur in May/June 2012. PW comments that if this is on track, can it be done on a shorter timeline? AP notes that the RIPE region will likely exhaust their IPv4 pool of addresses in June 2012.

JC notes that there is currently nothing that precludes an RIR returning address space, but points out that the current ARIN policy – that address space should be promptly made available for use – will probably not be accelerated in the ARIN region.

AP noted that he is unsure what the RIPE community’s opinion is regarding exhaustion and returning legacy space. JC noted that he understood this.

10. Status of inter-RIR transfers policies through the regions.

AP notes that not all of the RIRS have a similar policy and that we need to encourage all the respective RIR communities to have one.

JC notes that the ARIN AC has recommended an inter-RIR transfer policy, but there have been amendments made which will be discussed in ARIN’s Vancouver meeting. However, ARIN will proceed with the requisite implementation steps, but not activate them until the policy is formally approved.

PW commented that APNIC already have an inter-RIR policy. AS commented that there is none as yet in LACNIC. AA noted that AfrNIC did have one, but this was dropped.

11. ICANN Costa Rica schedule.

JC noted that a rough schedule has been drafted, but this is subject to confirmation. He will keep the group updated. JC noted that all the NRO EC would be there except AA. AA will however call into the GAC and ICANN Board meetings if he can.

12. NRO EC face-to-face meeting.

JC noted that no decision has been made and suggested it be held after the Costa Rica ICANN. PW suggested holding with the I* retreat after ICANN. JC and AP supported this suggestion.

JC notes that the next NRO EC retreat will be adjacent to the next I* meeting. Supported by AA, PW, and AS.

13. NRO EC List. XCG Chair rotation.

ND suggested that the Chair be added to the NRO list as they rotate.
All supported this suggestion.

AA bought up whether to have EAs on the list. JC commented that this was fine as long as the list didn’t get too long.

PW suggested adding some NRO policies on the website.
AA suggested updating the relevant mailing lists.

New Action item 120222-12: Action for PW to update the NRO website with relevant policies and update mailing lists.

Due to time restraints, JC suggested putting the remaining action items (12-17) to the mailing list:

14. CCG report.

  • CCG Work plan

15. ECG report.

  • ECG Work plan

16. RSM report.

  • Various Registries Address space

17. PACG report.

  • PACG Charter

18. Any other business.

19. Adjournment.

PW moved to adjourned at 23.30 (UTC +10). As there were no objections, the Chair adjourned the meeting.

Comments are closed.