Minutes
January 30, 2014
Teleconference 11:00 AM UTC
Executive Council Attendees:
Chairman: Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC
Secretary: Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC
Treasurer: Raul Echeberria (RE) LACNIC
Member: John Curran (JC) ARIN
Member: Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Observers:
Anne Rachel Inne (ARI) AFRINIC
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Sanjaya (SS) APNIC
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Andrew de la Haye (AH) RIPE NCC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
0) Welcome
AA welcomed all participants of the teleconference and started the teleconference at 11:08 AM UTC.
1) Agenda Review
AA suggested changes in the proposed agenda to focus in the most important items for next week I* retreat meeting.
All agreed with AA changes. Next agenda was adopted
0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) Action Item Review
3) I* Retreat: Issue of Interest
a. Design Team / Talking Points
b. Follow up MVD Statement
4) Approval of Minutes
a. 19 November 2013
b. 20 November 2013
c. 17 December 2013
d. 27 December 2013
5) CG Reports
6) AOB
7) Adjourn
2) Action Item Review
Action Item 041013-03: PW and GV to prepare an internal document containing the NRO vision, mission, values and behaviors and prepare a message communicating the \ outcomes of the retreat to the coordination groups.
Status: DONE
Action Item 041013-09: GV to review and update budgeting, purchasing and administrative procedures for the NRO document for the approval of the EC.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 041013-15: PW to send to ICANN and IANA the agreed letter on the following steps on RPKI.
Status: OPEN
Action Item 191113-01 PW to prepare a draft ICANN/IANA agreement for the review of the NRO EC.
Status: DONE
Action Item 191113-02 JC and PH to prepare some talking points on the work of Design Team in preparation for Brazil Meeting.
Status: CLOSED. It’s part of today agenda.
Action Item 191113-03 RE put some questions together on the work of the Design Team to have a new round of brainstorming in preparation of Brazil meeting.
Status: DONE.
Action Item 201113-01 JC to circulate to the NRO EC mailing list comments to be submitted to ATRT2 review team
Status: DONE
Action Item 201113-02 GV to publish in NRO website NRO EC August, September and October minutes.
Status: DONE
Action Item 201113-03 GV based on the NRO Key Strategy Objective document and in coordination with the CG to prepare a list of projects to be implemented to meet the objectives.
Status: OPEN. Finalizing CG work plans.
Action item 201113-04 GV to request the CFO to have a final expenses report for 2013 for NRO EC January meeting.
Status: DONE.
GV reported that some CFO still hasn’t received from their CEO confirmation of the agreed NRO distribution formula.
AA requested to add this point in AOB
Action item 201113-05 CEO to comeback with final figures for the NRO distribution formula based on estimated registration revenue only, except in the case of RIPE NCC that will be cost estimated. In all cases, an explanation will be added how the calculation was made.
Status: DONE.
RE mentioned that this action clarify any doubts on the agreed NRO distribution formula.
Action Item 171213-01 AR and GV to communicate the NRO EC concerns regarding Technical Community Nomination Call for Brazil Meeting to the NomCom Chair and involved ISOC staff.
Status: DONE
Action Item 171213-02 GV to do a doodle poll in order to schedule the time and date of second NRO EC December meeting.
Status: DONE
Action Item 171213-03 GV to do a list of urgent items that should be considered and close for the year. Add those to the agenda of second NRO EC December meeting.
Status: DONE
New Action Item 271213-01 GV and RE to work in a light charter to define the role and scope of the COO group.
Status: OPEN
GV reported that a draft is in review by RE
New Action Item 271213-02 GV to set up a doodle poll to decide for the f2f stand-alone NRO EC meeting.
Status: DONE
3) I* Retreat: Issue of Interest
AA asked if there were any additional item of interest to be discussed in preparation of next week I* retreat.
AP asked to discuss the request of funding for the Brazil meeting.
AA confirmed that there is a call for funding but he hasn’t seen the formal call. AA asked what are other positions.
AP said he hasn’t received either the formal call. AP made clear that RIPE NCC hasn’t considered any budget for this purpose. AP added that is unlikely that RIPE NCC Board would support such funding.
RE mentioned he didn’t have much information about the funding request but shared AP position. RE said that in case LACNIC supports the event financially would be through fellowships in a small amount.
RE warned the EC that this year the NRO/RIR might receive requests for funding for different events and activities. RE considered that the NRO should be careful to give a perception that we have infinite resources and we are willing to fund anything.
AA agreed with RE. AA added that AFRINIC doesn’t have any budget to financially support the Brazil meeting.
PW agreed as well.
AA asked if the RIR/NRO should consider funds for fellowships that could be something global a fund we can use to support people to go to some events, something to think about it in the long run.
JC said that ARIN’s situation is similar to RIPE NCC. JC shared the concern of the late request for funding
AA invited to consider RE idea to support a fund for participants’ travel to the Brazil meeting.
AP stated he was quite critical of the idea.
JC said that ARIN have only specific funds to support participation in ARIN meetings. JC considered that ARIN’s board wouldn’t authorize funding for travels to Brazil. JC stated that ARIN doesn’t approve support in the form of funding to the Brazil meeting or travels for people. JC considered that the funding issue should have been handled before convening the meeting.
PW agreed on what it has been said. PW added that it was possible for APNIC to provide support for some fellowships but it seems clear that won’t be such support through the NRO
AA considered this topic a clear consensus from the NRO something that could be expressed in the I* meeting next week.
RE offered a report on the activities of Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC). RE briefed that the EMC have made progress in several points, one of the points was about participation and how the invitations will be issued. He said that there is concern regarding the capacity of the room that can receive 800 people at the same time, except for that, there are no other limitations.
RE continued mentioning that the EMC decided that before establishing a limitation in the participation they will try to find out how many people is willing to participate. As a consequence there will be pre registration for the event to determine if they meet the capacity of the room. RE added that the EMC have decided the distribution of the participants, 200 from governments and 150 from each constituency (private sector, technical community, academic and civil society). He said that if there are more people that the slot assigned to that constituency a set of criteria will be developed for selecting the people where the first criteria will be to accommodate as many countries as possible.
RE concluded the report mentioning that the EMC is developing the format of the Brazil meeting. He said that there should be a draft document before the meeting, such draft will be built over the public submission and contributions from all the stockholders including the open discussions during the meeting, at the conclusion of the meeting there will be an updated document as the main outcome of the meeting.
RE suggested that the NRO should prepare contributions in advance of the meeting in relation to the roadmap of the future and evolution of Internet Governance and the future of IANA functions. He advised that such contributions should be concrete and easy to integrate to the final meeting document.
AA asked if there is a formal communications or minutes from the EMC.
RE said that some members of the EMC sent comments to governance lists and similar groups and those were broadly distributed but was not the idea as there was a formal communication underway very likely to be sent tomorrow (January 31s 2014).
JC asked is there is any formal dialogue within the /1net Steering Committee on what is the /1net role in the planning of the meeting.
AA mentioned that there is no formal linkage between the 1net Steering Committee and the EMC.
JC raised the issue that the website conference indicates that there is a partnership between CGI.br and /1net. JC recommended that the EMC somehow formalize with 1net such partnership, as right now there is no record of that. JC mentioned that without a formal agreement the meeting was in high risk to be attacked because the lack of formal sign off by /1net to partner it. Either the sentence in the website should be updated or formalize the agreement with the current /1net Steering Committee.
RE mentioned that maybe this is something between the CGI.br and /1net Steering Committee but agreed with JC’s assessment.
AP strongly supported JC
AA said that those were valid arguments. AA mentioned he’d try the Steering Committee to become active and takes over on this issue.
a. Design Team / Talking Points
JC reported the advances of the work of the Design Team (DT). JC mentioned that the process has been used to look at the delegation of the registry authority so we want to make sure that we have the required documentation. JC mentioned that in the front of IP addresses we have the RFC that describes effectively the delegation of the Internet Registry system so we are in very good shape there.
JC also mentioned that the second type of agreement we realized we need are agreements in respect to registry services because right now the administration and the publication of some of the registries are done solely because the IANA function contract. JC considered that at high level we have very good report to send next week, which outlines what MoU or agreements are needed to strength the system.
JC clarified that there are 2 issues outstanding. The first, the small issue is whether or not the IETF reflects the delegation of registry authority based on the type of registry so names go to ICANN and IP addresses to the RIR or whether the delegation goes entirely through ICANN so ICANN delegates IP address to the RIR, that is an open topic.
JC continued saying that the big issue is whether or not the DT is just trying to stabilize the existing system his accountability and oversight mechanism or whether if the DT is responsible of addressing the political aspects of the oversight and accountability. JC said politically the absence of IANA function contract cause a lot of people to presume that something else will take the place of DoC as an oversight mechanism we are currently not discussing that aspect in the DT so this should be one of the question to the I* CEO next week
JC considered that the DT will make enough progress by the Brazil Meeting to say that the IANA functions contract is not needed and list the set of agreements that are in place or in the process to be in place to handle the relations. It may not address the oversight question but operationally we don’t need the IANA functions contract. He suggested that could be an output from NRO, I* or ICANN or all of us to the Brazil meeting.
PH mentioned that the DT has been good in terms of documenting how the systems works as well that there is progress in clarifying the registries explaining special cases and identifying gaps in the authority of delegation. PH suggested that the DT needs to provide the I* CEO with some elements of perception rather than actual technical facts these arguments needs to be played in the political arena basically we need to convince the world that the NTIA contract is redundant or not longer needed saying at the same time that internal oversight mechanism that are in place can make IANA resilient and those mechanism should give enough certainty to the US government that IANA reached enough maturity. PH highlighted that it’s absolute key to give other governments assurance that no new oversight mechanism are needed so some exercise is necessary after of IETF and IAB work in order to translate a readable document that could be play out in the political arena.
AA asked JC if by the time of Brazil meeting we are clearly making a separation between the registry functions and the oversight mechanism.
JC considered that if the I* CEO push aggressively it was achievable to have a contribution from the DT for the Brazil meeting. JC said that we have a group of agreements between, a group of relationships and each one has their own accountability mechanism so the NTIA contract is not needed.
b. Follow up MVD Statement
JC suggested to prepare a Montevideo statement follow up during the I* meeting next week. The statement should include the progress made and the activities set in motion and that includes /1net and the Brazil Meeting, promoting the contribution of the community to the meeting.
JC suggested that RIR members should be included in the circulation of the follow up statement. He added that such statement should be concise.
AP Agree with JC.
4) Approval of Minutes
5) CG Reports
AA suggested to move the adoption of previous minutes and CG reports to the next meeting.
6) AOB
AA asked if all CEO were in agreement of the NRO distribution formula that was clarified in the actions item so this should be communicated to the CFO.
There was no opposition expressed in the call.
PW mentioned the idea of PACG and CCG hold their f2f meeting back to back with the EC in Dubai.
PW reminded AP proposal to meet next Wednesday right after I* in Los Angeles
AA said it was ok for him to meet next in Wednesday.
PW mentioned he couldn’t stay after I*
RE said that he won’t be in Los Angeles and pointed Andres Piazza on his behalf. He mentioned if remote tools are provided he could participate remotely.
JC said that he understood that it was good to avoid EC meetings during I* to prevent our agenda be overrun, additionally JC requested that EC meetings should be scheduled well in advanced as ARIN doesn’t budget for short term airfare tickets.
RE agreed with JC. RE reminded he proposed not to meet with I*, after the experience in the last Montevideo meeting but considered that this could be evaluated depending on the meeting.
JC said he is not able to meet after I* retreat because a previous commitment
AA mentioned he’d coordinate with GV the next meeting.
GV asked about PW mention on PACG and CCG meeting in Dubai
AA said it has nothing against it but asked if this is the scheduled f2f for both CG
ARI mentioned it’d be considered a scheduled f2f meeting for the coordination and plan of both CG for Brazil meeting, WTDC, Plenipot, etc.
AA said it was ok from his side
RE asked if we are talking about the retreat in March the same dates or extended the dates.
AA said that the PACG and CCG will extend their stay.
RE mentioned it works for him. He suggested use one of the 2 days and meet with them.
AA suggested to accept the meeting in principle. AA asked for details on how how it fits in the agenda in Dubai.
AP confirmed it was fine with them to meet.
JC Agreed. (Through chat)
New Action Item 300114-01 GV to send to the EC a short proposal for the CCG and PACG meeting in Dubai.
8) Adjourn
Meeting ended at 12:29 UTC.
Last modified on 03/04/2014