March 4th, 2014
Face to Face Meeting Dubai UAE 9:00 AM Dubai Time
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
Anne Rachel Inne (ARI) AFRINIC
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Cathy Handley (CH) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC – Remotely
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Remco Van Mook (RV) RIPE NCC
German Valdez (GV) NRO
1) Agenda Review
2) Future IANA Functions / NRO Contractual Agreements with IANA/ICANN
3) NRO Accountability and Transparency
5) NRO Contribution to NETmundial Conference / Financial Contribution
7) NRO Distribution Formula
8) 2014 Roadmap
AA welcomed and opened the meeting at 9:10 AM local time in Dubai. All NRO EC members were present at the meeting.
1) Agenda Review
AA suggested discussing in day 2 the last 2 items of the agenda, the NRO distribution formula and the 2014 Roadmap.
AA reminded the NRO EC about the joint session with the PACG and CCG in the afternoon of day 2 of the EC retreat.
2) Future IANA Functions / NRO Contractual Agreements with IANA/ICANN
AA presented a ppt file summarizing the discussion of the last months. AA documented the RIRs/NRO relationship with ICANN focusing in the IANA functions. The presentation included, current situation, discussion on the outcomes of the Design Team, relationship scenarios and AoC framework.
PW said the NRO EC could consider different kind of agreements like AoC, MoU, contracts, etc.
JC clarified than in regards RFC 2860 IP addresses and DNS policies issues are outside the scope of the RFC. It delegates the authority but acknowledge the policy issues. JC suggested that the EC should pay attention on this aspect.
AA agreed with JC. AA observed that IANA operates under 2 authorities, USG government contract and IETF/IAB MoU that delegates the Protocol Parameters Registry Administration but the IETF/IAB MoU doesn’t include the Number Resources. AA added that NRO/RIR authority comes from the ICP-2, ASO MoU, RFC 7020 and the RIR communities.
AA mentioned that is not clear where the USG derives its authority to have the contract with ICANN. AA said that if this comes from the IAB the NRO should deal with IAB in order to move forward.
JC considered that the question of from where the USG obtains his authority is more a philosophical question with no clear answer. JC suggested working in a plausible alternative case that the USG can approve.
PW agreed. PW said that the EC should avoid to be distracted with historic or legal arguments of the origin of the USG authority but to put in place the mechanisms that justifies where are we going.
AA continued the discussion on the outcomes of the Design Team. AA said that the group was created internally in the I* group to analyze the future of IANA services. AA considered that the Design Team didn’t bring a particular actionable proposal. AA mentioned that based on what was discussed in the last I* meeting in Santa Monica there is a possibility to have the USG to terminate the IANA contract and leave it directly in the hand of ICANN and its community.
AA said that the RIR should find a way to support ICANN and its evolution in order to allow the USG contract to be finalized. AA added that in the current context the NRO should find a way to protect and ensure the services provided by IANA to the RIR. Finally AA said that the NRO should agree in appropriate review mechanisms for ICANN services that include the RIR community.
PW suggested moving ahead in the form of review mechanisms, as this is easier to define and avoid the concept of oversight as this will expose more disagreements and at the end it’d be more difficult to implement.
JC said that the NRO should be clear on what part of ICANN we need to define an oversight/review mechanism as the NRO interest remains in the globally unallocated number registry administration.
AP agreed with JC. AP mentioned that for RIPE NCC board the main objective of these activities is about let the USG contract go.
RE agreed with RIPE NCC approached. RE suggested that instead of discussing a proper oversight the NRO EC should discuss what kind of role we what to assign to ICANN post USG era.
RE added that there is a confusion regarding that IANA functions is equal to oversight. RE reminded that in the 3×3 matrix the IANA functions in regards to IP addresses were part of the implementation layer and that the EC agreed on that.
RE asked if the IANA staff asked the USG for approval in the delegation of /8, for example.
JC answered that the process for IP address delegation in IANA are already approved so they don’t need to consult NTIA, however changes in the DNS related to root zones according to procedures should be consulted with USG.
RE asked if the approval of IP addresses global policies required the oversight of USG.
CH said the NTIA has only authorized two times RIR issues, those were the creation of LACNIC and AFRINIC and only because the DNS implication in the root zone.
JC said that on practical basis the USG has none oversight on the RIR or the IANA IP addresses services.
AA mentioned that it’s important to document all the web of relationships clearly and identify all the potential control points correctly.
RE said that there is an agreement to support ICANN and its evolution in order to terminate the USG contract.
AP asked if it was the NRO or the RIR
RE answered that both.
AA continued the discussion based on future relationships scenarios, where ICANN terminates the IANA contract with the USG, where IAB delegates the Protocol Parameters Registry Management to ICANN and the Number Resources Registry Management to the NRO. AA added the NRO should provide to ICANN support maybe through an AoC and contract the IANA services. AA said that the oversight would come through the RIR community and members in the form of the PDP and member services agreements.
JC said that the delegation from IAB to NRO is under way. JC considered that wouldn’t be a delegation of authority from IAB to ICANN instead JC suggested contracting ICANN to perform the service.
RE added that LACNIC board is not against a contract with ICANN. RE said that it could be the time to make decisions about NRO incorporation, as it’s difficult to be a responsible organization if there is no legal existence.
PW reminded that ICANN invited the RIR to put our preferred terms forward. PW said a contract might not represent the best option has it’d be easy to be lost in details and never reach agreements. He advised to consider an AoC with ICANN.
AP agreed. He suggested considering an AoC first before entering in contract relationship with ICANN. AP added that would depend on the content of the AoC to move forward with this option.
JC suggested adding an amendment to the current ICANN – NRO MoU where it recognizes and requests ICANN to provide Number Resources Registry Management Services for the space documented in the IETF.
PW said that AoC doesn’t bind the NRO to ICANN forever. It’s mutual recognition of each part and roles.
JC said that at least he’d like to get a formal IP number service from ICANN by an amendment of the MoU. JC added the ARIN board position regarding an AoC would depend on what we are committing each other and what roles we are reaffirming.
PW considered useful to commit by AoC to ICANN success. It’s not of the NRO interest to see ICANN fails.
API mentioned that early ICANN structure representation showed the RIR as part of their structure and the perception is still there,
AA said that regardless an AoC or amendment to the MoU the NRO is in the position to provide content, what are the commitments we can make, what are the expectations from ICANN to commit as well like the clearinghouse aspects.
ARI reminded that all agreed in Santa Monica in an AoC to take ICANN/IANA out of the hands of USG.
AP said that the adoption of the AoC would depend on what is its actual content.
RE asked what would be the option to follow, the AoC or the MoU amendment.
AA answered that nothing prevents us to pursue both.
JC summarized the discussion stating that even though there is no agreement, we all agree that NRO would support an eventual relinquish of USG on the IANA contract, that the NRO should be sure to have an MoU with a service agreement where ICANN will provide for IP IANA services, this could be done by modifying the current MoU or quickly creating a new short one. JC suggested the following actions.
1.- To create an additional short MoU agreement containing IP IANA registry services from ICANN.
2.- To Share Santa Monica outline for the evolution of IANA functions with RIR boards and consult with ICANN how they want to reflect this in a AoC
PW suggested to work in a separate MoU document to keep policy separated from services aspects in the relationship with ICANN.
AA suggested combining all new aspects like policy, services and contribution in a new reviewed document.
New Action Item 040314-01: PW to work with Craig Ng on an MoU with ICANN for IANA services related to Number Resources (4 weeks)
New Action Item 040314-02: All CEO discuss within their boards to agree on the principle defined in the Santa Monica Outline (IANA Fabrics) (2 weeks)
New Action Item 040314-03: Depending of the results of action Item 040314-02 AA to confirm with ICANN Board the need for an AoC for the NRO in line with Santa Monica Outline (IANA fabrics).
RE suggested reviewing others agreements reached during the discussions.
After some discussion the NRO EC agreed in the following points:
– Agreement to have ICANN continue performing IANA functions for number resources.
– The NRO should propose an acceptable escalation and review for ICANN providing globally unallocated number resource registry services to the RIR
o A Mechanism for this to be developed and implemented through RIR/NRO processes.
3) NRO accountability and Transparency
RE mentioned that it was time to introduce changes in the NRO to make it more accountable and transparent if we want to give the NRO a more visible role in the future of IANA services and in the international landscape. RE said that the NRO should facilitate the participation of stakeholders in NRO/RIR activities by creating new mechanisms of participation.
JC asked what parties are looking for more accountability and transparency and, are they looking for the RIR or the NRO, what is the problem statement we want to resolve.
RE suggested that the EC should anticipate the problem. Today nobody is asking for more accountability and transparency, the perception of the RIR in the community is very good so it’s good time to introduce the changes without pressure.
AA agreed with RE that the NRO doesn’t need to go for a whole review. AA mentioned the example of the NRO presentation update; he suggested that the content should be reviewed to draw more attention of the people so they can know the actual activities performed under the NRO umbrella.
JC mentioned that he was in favor in more accountability and transparency for the NRO. JC stated the example of open NRO EC meetings to public observers.
ARI asked where do we stand regarding NRO/RIR accountability to our own members or to the whole community.
JC mentioned that ARIN operations and services are accountable to members only but PDP is to everybody.
AA agreed that it’s not required to change the whole system. He agreed with RE that changes should be to make the ASO more efficient and visible as part of ICANN structure.
JC said that the ASO have to attach to their role in the ICANN system. JC mentioned that the ASO has two roles, appoint members to ICANN Board and deal with Global Policy anything else is outside their scope.
AA reminded the discussions with ICANN about the lack of attention and inclusion of the ASO and NRO as part of ICANN meetings.
PW said in the past he had a conversation with Ray Plzak on the fact that ICANN Board doesn’t understand IP address matters not even consider them enough. PW mentioned the possibility to appoint a liaison, as other constituencies do, to the ICANN Board to provide advise in IP addresses operational matters. He added that still there is a broad confusion regarding the ASO vs NRO.
RE asked to try bringing some conclusion to the discussion.
AA summarized that there is an agreement to improve perceived accountability and transparency.
JC said that currently it’s difficult to be proactive with proposing changes to the ASO when we don’t know how ICANN will be in a few months from now.
OR advised to be careful of introducing external parties in the accountability processes of the RIR. OR agreed with RE to focus in current areas of opportunities instead of being forced in the future to comply with a set of obligations.
In relation to the accountability efforts, PR reported the RIPE NCC efforts to document all corporate governance processes. He advised that in order to do that the first question to be answered is what do you want from the NRO.
RV said the important aspect is not to be perfect but to be clear in the documentation of corporate governance.
RE suggested the NRO EC could agree that the RIR accountability is important and it’s up to each RIR to improve its own accountability mechanisms. With regards to transparency RE suggested that as best practice to develop a basic standard to be applied in each RIR, with regards to the NRO, RE suggested organizing an annual meeting to improve the dialogue with stakeholders, the meeting could be during other meetings like IGF.
JC agreed with RE. JC clarified that he was ok with more outreach of the NRO but he wouldn’t support NRO engagement representation activities.
CH suggested to document better the differences of the NRO and the RIR and the scope of each organization, as this is not clear in the community. In some cases they put the NRO as subservient of ICANN.
PW reminded the content of the NRO mission adopted last October and suggested to improve on how to achieve those commitments.
JC agreed with RE. JC supported the NRO outreach and redirecting request to the RIR.
AA agreed that the NRO cannot represent the RIR but to act as a referrer and some work should be done to clarify the relationship of the NRO and the RIR.
AA added that the NRO could provide some sort of transparency and accountability framework where the RIR commits to implement good governance practice and report and maintain information of those practices, showing what the RIR are doing collectively.
New Action Item 040314-04: RE, PR, JC to work in a NRO framework to be used to improve the accountability and transparency of the RIR (4 weeks)
AA suggested that previous discussion covered the point of the agenda.
The NRO EC agreed.
5) NRO Contribution to NETmundial / Financial Contribution
AA reminded that a NRO contribution draft has been circulated in the EC list. AA suggested that the PACG and CCG work in the current version and comeback with a newer version to be reviewed collectively by the NRO EC before being sent for final approval to the RIR boards.
AA moved the topic for discussion to the financial contribution to NETmundial. AA reminded the discussion in the I* on the idea of asking the RIR to manage funds for people traveling to the meeting. AA asked if there were an evolution of that idea.
RE said that during last EC teleconference the EC members agreed in not funding the conference itself but wanted to explore the option to manage travel fund for participants to the conference.
AP said that in the case of RIPE NCC in regards to support Internet Governance activities their primarily focus is in the global IGF and they don’t have resources to support Netmundial or travel funds for participants.
JC mentioned that ARIN doesn’t have budget for this purpose.
PR pointed out that even the management of such funds require time and staffing resources and he wasn’t sure the RIR have the capacity to get this organize.
AA said that in the case of AFRINIC they are in a similar situation that ARIN and RIPE NCC but they could do something if the situation turns critical.
AA concluded that the NRO EC position to provide resources to financially support NETmundial remains the same as discussed in the last teleconference.
AA observed that /1net is seen by the community as one of the consequences of the Montevideo Statement however /1net hasn’t received the support and contributions of the technical community or more I* organizations.
JC suggested that the Steering Committee could help out with more presence and putting on place some sort of contribution administration policy to the mailing list.
RVM mentioned that in order to the technical community participate and contribute into /1net more concrete information on the objectives of the list should be provided.
AP said that /1net mailing could be associated as the IGF mailing list.
AA agreed with AP
RE suggested to avoid any perception that /1net is competitive of IGF.
PR said that in recent RIPE NCC organized IG roundtable the topic of /1net has been discussed. PR mentioned that governments are following up the /1net mailing discussions. PR added that the default place to contribute and participate in IG discussion should the IGF and /1net could work as a complement.
PW said the NRO should support the /1net as a non-institutional forum that allows intersectional discussion.
RE mentioned that /1net should be a place for constructive dialogue and building consensus among IG multistakeholders
PW agreed with RE and suggested to add similar wording to the NRO contribution to NETmundial
PW asked AA that what the NRO can do to help the /1net to be successful.
AA answered that the /1net needs more formal technical and administrative support. AA mentioned that the Steering Group would like to improve communications regarding /1net and expand the participation beyond the usual suspects and in order to do that some resources might be needed.
API asked AA if he considers /1net should be supported by a professional secretariat.
AA answered that he wouldn’t discard it.
AP mentioned that the across goal is a successful IGF and if /1net could function as an intersectional vehicle some resources might be necessary for a solid IGF secretariat.
ARI said that in regards the lack of participation of the technical community, ARI considered that we are already big talkers and we should avoid dominating the conversation and promoting participation of other and new actors.
ARI suggested that a possible action for the technical community is to secure funds for the IGF secretariat and support /1net as the forum where everybody accepted to participate to discuss about IG issues.
PH said that AA has been driving very well /1net but sometimes it has been put in difficult situations. PH mentioned that /1net community is active and has a real traction with 650 non-digest and 150 digest subscribers from all different stakeholders. PH considered that once /1net evolve, more transparency and resources will be required but in the meanwhile AA should receive all the support.
API asked clarification for the purpose to discuss about /1net in the agenda.
AA answered that it was to discuss the level of engagement at NRO level.
PR agreed with PH.
ARI suggested to bring the value proposition to the community stating that /1net list is here to evolve and become a tool for the IGF because all player are here. ARI said that this could be an incentive for governments to participate.
ARI added that /1net could be used for those people planning workshops for the coming IGF to receive input.
AP agreed in the potential but he’d rather wait to watch how the list evolves before committing resources to it. AP mentioned that already all RIR are contributing time, FTE and late calls to the cause.
AP suggested that /1net should work in a charter with clear scope and objectives.
AA reminded that ICANN so far has been the only one investing in /1net and should be other actors at the same level than ICANN behind the /1net.
AA summarized the discussion so the NRO should work to make /1net a complement of the IGF combining an open platform for discussion. AA added that /1net should come up with a propose value that could steer more people to contribute to it.
AA closed the meeting at 5:45 PM Dubai Time