16 June 2014

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 140218

MINUTES

February 18th, 2014
Teleconference 11:00 AM UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

Chairman: Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC
Treasurer: Raul Echeberria (RE) LACNIC
Member: John Curran (JC) ARIN

Apologies:

Secretary: Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC
Member: Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC

Observers:

Neriah Sossou (NS)  AFRINIC
Madhvi Gokool (MG) AFRINIC
Leslie Nobile (LN) ARIN
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC

Secretariat:

German Valdez (GV) NRO

0) Welcome

GV reported the list of current participants and reminded AA the apologies received from PW and AP

AA welcomed all participants of the teleconference and started the meeting at 11:06 AM UTC.

1) Agenda Review

AA asked if there were any points or changes to the agenda.

JC noted that 2 EC members were not present in the meeting and suggested to postpone the approval of minutes.

RE Agreed.

The item was removed from the agenda.

RE Suggested not including any discussions regarding the NRO distribution Formula and move the topic to Dubai.

AA agreed on that as AP had some comments on that topic.

Final agenda was adopted as follows.

0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) Review Open Actions
3) F2F Dubai Meeting Agenda and Format Preparation
4) LA Retreat Follow Ups
5) 2014 NRO Budget
6) ASO AC 2014 Travel Plan
7) ASO AC Request for Procedures Amendment – Appoint Members to Various Bodies.
8) CGs reports
a. CCG
b. ECG
c. IPv6
d. PACG
e. RSCG
9) AOB
10) Adjourn

2) Review Open Actions

Action Item 041013-09: GV to review and update budgeting, purchasing and administrative procedures for the NRO document for the approval of the EC.

GV reported that he sent to the EC mailing list a new document on budgeting, purchasing, reporting and general administrative procedures. GV mentioned that the original document was crafted by the CFO and he updated the content considering the new NRO Executive Secretary role and the COO group.

Status: CLOSED

Action Item 041013-15: PW to send to ICANN and IANA the agreed letter on the following steps on RPKI.

GV reported that the action should be updated and assigned to AA as 2014 NRO EC Chair.

JC asked to review the content of the letter as circumstances might have changed since the creation of this action.

Status: CLOSED

New Action Item 180214-01:GV to circulate in the EC list the agreed letter (in MVD retreat) to ICANN and IANA regarding NRO position on RPKI developments.

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.

GV sent to the EC list a document with a map of the projects of all NRO CG for 2014. CG work plans considered the NRO Key Strategy Objective Document input.

Status: CLOSED

New Action Item 271213-01: GV and RE to work in a light charter to define the role and scope of the COO group.

RE reported he received a proposal from GV. RE would further work on this action before coming back to the NRO EC.

Status: IN PROGRESS

New Action Item 300114-01: GV to send to the EC a short proposal for the CCG and PACG meeting in Dubai.

GV reminded he sent to the EC list a proposal with the agenda of the CCG and joint CCG and PACG meeting. He highlighted that both groups are requesting a joint session with the EC in the afternoon of March 5th, second day of the NRO EC meeting.

Status: CLOSED

3) F2F Dubai Meeting Agenda and Format Preparation

AA reminded some of the items suggested in the EC mailing list to be added to the agenda in Dubai, one being the NRO contractual agreement and the future of IANA functions. AA mentioned also the importance to spend time on the NRO contribution to the Brazil Meeting. AA emphasized the importance to have enough time to discuss on the critical aspects especially in the topic of IANA future and the relationships that the NRO will have after that. AA suggested working in an agenda with few but critical items in order to dedicate enough time to them.

JC supported AA approach.

RE said that the main topic should be the future of IANA functions. RE considered that the NRO failed to come to the Santa Monica meeting with a common approach, not necessarily a common position. RE suggested having more discussions on the topic to analyze the different scenarios. RE asked to be added to the Dubai agenda how the NRO EC are going to face all the important global meetings that will happen this year like Plenipot, Net Mundial, etc. He suggested to spend enough time on this matter as well.

RE added that in regards to the format of the meeting the EC should innovate. RE mentioned that EC retreats are not very efficient and the EC needs more dynamics meetings. RE suggested, as example, to allow different people to lead discussions.

AA suggested that he and GV would work in advance and propose some background documents including what PW prepared last year relating to the contractual relationship with ICANN. Regarding the NRO engagement in the international arena AA suggested to request to the PACG to prepare a brief in what would be the strategy in all these meetings and based the EC discussion on their work.

Regarding the format of the EC meetings, AA reminded the experience of having an external facilitator during the discussions in Montevideo retreat and the suggestions expressed by RE in the EC list in how to improve the efficiency of EC meetings. AA asked for more comments.

JC shared similar concerns on the efficiency of EC meetings. JC expects that the COO group might address routine aspects of the NRO EC calls. JC considered that the NRO EC should keep discussions focus on the important items and leave to the CG and the COO groups most of the operational load. JC considered that the NRO EC should facilitate its own meetings.

RE agreed with JC. RE clarified that he was not proposing hiring an external facilitator but to change the dynamics of the EC retreats. RE mentioned that his concerns were not about the EC meetings in generals but the retreats. RE suggested that instead of having one person moderating we could have different RIR staff close related to the topics moderating them. RE mentioned that those people could dedicate time to prepare and thrive discussions focusing in specific topics in advance of EC meetings. RE shared that such format is in use in LACNIC, where people is more concentrated in obtain outcomes.

AA said that CG Chairs could work on facilitations depending of the topics and ask them to work in advance. AA said he was skeptical in the distribution work and moderation but it was open to try. AA said that the PACG could work in advance regarding the NRO engagement in the global arena and moderate the topic in Dubai. He suggested trying to conduct the topic in that way and evaluate the proposal that RE sent to the mailing list based on that exercise.

RE made clear that the approach should work for everybody in the EC

JC considered that AA proposal was a good approach.

4) LA Retreat Follow Up

AA said that one of the most important follow up topics were already in the agenda for Dubai which is the IANA contract and the RIR relations with ICANN. AA asked if there were anything else that should be considered in the coming EC retreat.

AA mentioned that the I* meeting in LA was a good meeting but personally he’d like to go back to have more cooperation agreements inside the group, as it was the result of the Montevideo meeting. AA said he would prefer a more action-oriented declaration.

JC said that the meeting was constructive as it could be although much time was spent to build a common background, which it was unavoidable.

AA reminded that the next I* meeting will coincide with the next NRO EC retreat. AA asked to GV to keep that in mind.

5) 2014 NRO Budget

AA asked GV to guide the explanation of 2014 NRO Budget.

GV explained that the current proposal includes the projects in the CG work plans and the format followed the one used in previous years developed by the CFOs.

GV referred to the budgeting, purchasing, reporting and administrative procedures document sent to the EC list. GV explained that the budget format includes NRO meeting expenses, ASO and Internet Governance support and administrative expenses where is considered travels, communications cost, equipment, consultancy services, etc.

GV mentioned that the support to the ASO increased for 2014, as there was a new item to celebrate the ASO 15th anniversary and the ASO dinners that are organized during ICANN meetings have increased the number of participants in addition to the living cost of the cities where ICANN will have their meetings in 2014.

GV continued by explaining that the Budget is trying to be more realistic. He explained as example that the ASO AC Travel support was increase in 50K to match the actual support during 2013.

GV stated that the administrative cost also increased as this now reflects 12 months of NRO Executive Secretary support.

RE mentioned that the 3 main components of the budget was the secretary cost, the contribution to IGF and ASO AC travels and none of them are considered to be changed. RE said that it seems difficult to reduce very significantly this budget; RE asked GV is there is a way to reduce it someway without affecting the work of the NRO

GV said that the budget was very realistic on the costs associated to the NRO however there are more indirect costs that are not considered like RIR travels and time dedicated to the NRO projects. GV suggested that meeting expenses could be cut like the EC, CG and ASO dinners.

RE said that the NRO should be careful on spending money on trivial activities like dinners. RE considered that the budget could be reduced by around 10% by cutting down NRO meeting expenses and better travel planning. RE recommended to GV to maintain a close control of the budget and save resources when possible.

JC agreed with RE that there are not many way to reduce the budget. JC stated he was not concern of this budget but of all the other indirect costs outside the budget. JC mentioned that travels arrangements are made in very short notice. JC said the he would expect that videoconference should be given priority instead of face-to-face meeting. He suggested to change the EC mode of operation to make more use of videoconferencing tools and meet f2f when is really necessary and using those meetings where they need to attend anyways.

RE asked if the NRO should document the indirect costs to find out how much money is really invested.

AA considered that it could be a good exercise. AA mentioned that it was important to keep control of the NRO budget to avoid wrong impression in the community. AA agreed with RE to reduce any not critical expenses.

RE suggested to ask to GV to have second version of the budget considering the aspects discussed today. RE said that as NRO treasurer he could work with the CFO in the indirect costs.

JC supported the idea to collect the NRO indirect cost information from the CFO. JC stated that, he would not support NRO separate meetings from existent and already schedules meetings or any short notice meetings, before 60 days, as this only increase drastically the cost.

AA shared JC concerns about.

AA suggested the following 2 new actions items

New Action Item 180214-04: AA and GV to review the 2014 NRO Budget based on the input received in the February Teleconference and distribute a new version back to the NRO EC

New Action Item 180214-05: RE as NRO treasurer to work with the CFO to determine the indirect cost from each RIR in their support to NRO activities.

6) ASO AC 2014 Travel Plan

GV presented the ASO AC 2014 Travel Plan. He reminded that as part of the ASO Travel Policy the NRO EC needs to formally approve the plan.

GV mentioned that the travel plan is including also those AC members that are planning to travel to ICANN meetings through other means but it was clear who where requesting support from the NRO. GV explained that in the case of RIPE ASO members the information of who will receive the support from the NRO was not in the travel plan but RIPE NCC will pass this information as part of the NRO expense control.

GV said that there were some notes in the travel plan. Such notes pointed out aspects like Hartmut Glaser doesn’t require support for any ICANN meetings, Tomohiro Fujisaki won’t require support for London ASO AC face-to-face meeting and Dmitry Kohmanyuk needs support only in accommodation in Singapore and London. Also there was a specific request to support the travel of two LACNIC ASO members to LA meeting instead of one as there is no possibility to participate with NRO support in the ICANN Singapore meeting. Finally GV confirmed that the preparation of the travel plan and the submission was according to the ASO AC Travel Policy.

AA asked for any objections. There were no objections.

AA suggested to move this to EC mailing list for formal approval.

New Action Item 180214-06: GV to send the ASO AC 2014 Travel Plans for formal approval of all the NRO EC members.

7) ASO AC Request for Procedures Amendment – Appoint Members to Various Bodies

AA reminded to the EC that according to procedures the EC should formally approve any changes in the ASO AC Procedures

GV said that JC and PW expressed comments on point 10. He suggested to circulate the document in the EC list again requesting comments before send it back to the ASO AC list.

JC suggested to incorporate his and PW suggestions and to circulate a newer version in the NRO EC list for formal approval. JC said that the ASO AC could receive a timely response with a specific concern and specific suggestion from EC on how to address it. The ASO AC could accept the suggestion or comeback with an alternative.

All agreed in the approach.

New Action Item 180214-07: GV to update the ASO AC procedures to appoint members to various bodies based on JC and PW feedback and comeback with a newer version for formal approval before sending the document back to the ASO AC list.

8) CG Reports

a. CCG

NH said the CCG welcomes the opportunity to meet in conjunction with the EC and PACG. NH mentioned he expected it wouldn’t be the last opportunity to have this kind of iteration with the EC whether by teleconference or face-to-face. NH reminded that the CGG work plan has been submitted. He said that the CCG is looking forward for advice and guidance on the NRO engagement with the Brazil summit and IANA globalization as well as the rebranding, reposition of the NRO. He said he was looking forward for the NRO roadmap ahead.

b. ECG

NS reported that the ECG will have their first meeting of the year during IETF in London in two weeks. He said that the first activity in their work plan is to continue working in the Global Trust Anchor development in conjunction with ICANN. NS mentioned that the ECG is working in a test bed architecture document that will be tested in London. NS mentioned about an ECG workshop that will be submitted to the EC for approval.

AA asked JC if there were any new RPKI development in ARIN

JC said that the ARIN RPKI road map is the same one as presented in the Montevideo meeting. JC mentioned that ARIN still believe in the current direction of the road map and to work with ICANN. JC considered that the NRO should prioritize efforts to serve our community more efficiently and that the current RPKI accomplishments are not in the critical path for our customers.

JC stated the only concern about the RPKI letter to ICANN is that people understand the NRO is committed to the development of RPKI services but we may move slower in the roadmap.

c. IPv6

No representative of the IPv6 CG was present in the call.

d. PACG

PH asked for clarification and more detailed instruction on how the PACG could contribute in the preparation of the EC meeting in Dubai. PH said that the PACG members are currently deployed in different events so they need to prepare as best as possible on a limited time.

RE said that at least four members of the PACG will be participating in the EC retreat during the 2 days and that will be a good opportunity for interaction. RE gave a personal answer to PH answer, RE suggested that the PACG provide help to the meeting by preparing questions to drive discussions, what issues and scenarios should be considered so they can have meaningful discussions instead of isolated comments.

AA agreed with RE. AA added that the PACG should prepared information and possible recommendations on NRO strategy and participation on the global events of this year like Brazil Meeting, WSIS+10, WTDC, plenipot, etc. AA suggested that PACG should be ready to advise on what are the different proposals under discussions in the global meetings and what could be the impact to the NRO and what should be the NRO position and contributions to those meetings.

e. RSCG

MG reported on the issue of the IANA ASN global policy. MG explained that RIR has a few hundred 2-byte ASNs in their free pool and they would have to issue from this free pool to their members who may not need them, before they can satisfy the IANA global policy for additional ASN requests. MG said that the RSCG is proposing that they are allowed to keep these 2-byte ASNs to cater for their members’ who cannot use 4-byte ASNs needs. She suggested that IANA should not count the 2-bytes ASNs when the RIRs request for an additional block of ASNs (which will be the 4-byte ones).

MG also reported on the IANA consultation on the interpretation of Implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA so ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is declared active or at the start of the first allocation period after the pool is declared active. MG mentioned that no formal operational consultation has been made to the RSCG from IANA on this matter.

MG finally reported that the RSCG is planning to have their f2f meeting during ICANN meeting in London.

AA said that in his personal view IANA should consider only 4-byte ASN in the pool in the evaluation.

JC said that he had no view on the matter but in the understanding there is a RSCG agreement on the topic, the RSCG should communicate its recommendation to IANA and escalate to the NRO EC in case of any problems.

RE agreed with JC. RE mentioned that it was important to say that we are not changing the policy but providing an interpretation.

AA requested to the RSCG to communicate to IANA on the topics presented today.

9) AOB

RE informed that LACNIC have just hired a sub regional liaison for Central America that will start working in the beginning of March. This new person it’s currently working for the Panama government and it’s well informed in telecommunications and ITU processes. RE mentioned LACNIC was looking for a similar position in the Caribbean.

10) Adjourn

AA thanked the participants of the meeting and adjourn 13:04 UTC

Comments are closed.