March 18th, 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
Anne Rachel Inne (ARI) AFRINIC
Madhvi Gokool (MG) AFRINIC
Neriah Sossou (NS) AFRINIC
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC Remotely
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
German Valdez (GV) NRO
AA welcomed all participants and opened the meeting at 11:10 AM UTC.
1) Agenda Review
AA asked for any additions or changes to the agenda.
No additions or changes to the agenda were suggested. The above agenda was adopted.
2) Approval of Minutes
AA asked for comments for the minutes pending for approvals.
JC mentioned that he reviewed all minutes except for February 18th 2014. JC was ok to proceed with the posting of public version except for February 18th.
AP made some comments on February 18th 2014 minutes and suggested changes in the content.
AA requested GV to publish in the NRO website public version of all pending minutes except for February 18th, that will be considered in the next meeting.
New Action Item 180314-01: GV to publish in the NRO website November 19 2013, November 20 2013, December 17 2013, December 27 2013 and January 30 2014 public minutes.
3) Open Actions Items
Action Item 271213-01: GV and RE to work in a light charter to define the role and scope of the COO group.
Status PENDING. GV reported that RE and GV will have a teleconference after the conclusion of the call to finalize the action.
New Action Item 300114-01: GV to send to the EC a short proposal for the CCG and PACG meeting in Dubai.
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.
New Action Item 180214-06: GV to send the ASO AC 2014 Travel Plans for formal approval of all the NRO EC members.
Status CLOSED. GV mentioned that the travel plan has been sent to the EC list. GV would send the plan again looking for explicit approval from the NRO EC.
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.
4) NTIA Announcement Follow Up
AA mentioned about the importance that the consultation process go beyond ICANN framework.
RE agreed with AA. RE suggested that the EC should open discussions in the RIR communities besides those held in the ICANN framework.
AA said that in the ICANN timeline it’s not clear how they would consider input from others communities. AA asked if this should be brought to ICANN formally.
AP agreed that should be mention at least to ICANN.
AA mentioned that the RIR related discussions are held regionally and they should be considered in the ICANN process.
JC agreed that the NRO EC should inform ICANN that the RIR would run their own consultation processes in the communities. JC said that such RIR consultations should be expected.
AA said that the only piece missing is how ICANN will integrate input from other stakeholders into their process. AA suggested that the NRO EC should clarify that aspect now and avoid later surprises.
PW suggested that the NRO should engage very actively with ICANN to make sure that the RIR community views and interests are represented. PW mentioned he was not expecting ICANN do all the work and the NRO and ICANN should work together to make this consultation process work.
PR agreed with PW that the RIR should work together with ICANN in the regional consultations. PR considered that in some cases the RIR could lead the regional consultation process.
JC asked to inform ICANN on the RIR consultation plan and work together on how the input will be integrated.
AA said that there is an agreement in the NRO EC to work in a refinement of the ICANN timeline so RIR input is taken into consideration and in order to do so the NRO should engage with ICANN. AA asked PACG to come up with some ideas on the RIR consultation plan.
PR mentioned that RIPE NCC external relations team is working in a plan that will be shared with the PACG and CCG.
AA asked PW if this could be linked to the review of the wording in the fabrics’ text.
PW asked for clarification, as there were different texts under discussions.
RE clarified the history and changes in the status of the text. For clarification purposes RE sent the final version of the text to the NRO EC with the title “The Santa Monica I* IANA Globalization Outline”.
PR asked about the text that was agreed in the I* list to be published on Thursday.
AA mentioned that the most important activity is to agree in the starting points for discussion in our communities.
JC said that the Santa Monica Outline was developed by the leaders of the I* organizations as indication that there were conversations and alignment among us so NTIA could start the process. JC questioned the reason of a joint statement as the purpose to kick the process was already done.
PW suggested a joint RIR statement on the situation.
RE supported PW. RE said that the communiqué should at least mention that the RIR acknowledges the USG statement, the RIR commitment to participate of the discussion and the involvement of their communities.
AP suggested to use the document sent by RE as the basis of a RIR joint statement to be used as a starting point for discussions. AP considered that look for a unified communiqué with the I* at this time is not necessary.
JC agreed with AP. JC advised that the Santa Monica Fabric document is now more content than process and no statement regarding process should be done based on that document.
RE mentioned that it was not clear the way to proceed as the commitment with I* was to base the discussion on the Santa Monica Outline document. He suggested that if the NRO EC was not ready to do that the EC should notify them before Thursday.
AP said that the EC could use the Santa Monica outline as basis of invitation for participation of RIR community in the coming consultation process on Thursday.
JC mentioned that there is no definition of the consultation process neither the way to incorporate input to it. JC commented that there is no answer to those potential questions from the community.
RE reminded that in the last I* call he mentioned that ICANN should avoid the impression that they are the only one to have something to say. RE added that it’s clear that USG asked ICANN to drive the process. RE said that the RIR should organize their own discussion and ensure the input of such discussions be incorporated properly in ICANN consultation process.
AA said what it’s not clear how ICANN will run the process beyond their own organization process.
RE said that in the case of the RIR, we should be responsible of running the consultations. RE added that the NRO EC should avoid surprises and ask ICANN what is the next step they have in mind. RE suggested taking the opportunity to do something together as NRO along the lines on what AP suggested.
PW said it was not clear for him the Thursday deadline but agree in a joint RIR statement explaining what are the next steps.
PR suggested going to Singapore meeting to analyze better the situation and review the text to be sent in a later time.
RE agreed to proceed on Thursday.
PW was ok in Thursday.
AA mentioned that his preference was to wait on ICANN first round of consultations in Singapore. AA asked what would the risk that the announcement go out on Thursday by some and not every I* organization.
RE said the risk would be for the organization that doesn’t do anything.
AP agreed with RE. AP said there is no shame to not know the process yet. AP mentioned we can say that in the joint statement and that details can come later.
JC supported RE and AP positions.
AA summarize the discussion on the following points
1. – Notify the I* that the NRO is ok to use the Santa Monica Outline as basis for engaging RIR communities.
2. – In parallel the NRO will draft and issue a statement referring to some elements of the outline and state that this is the beginning of the process and the RIRs are going to engage with ICANN in Singapore in order to get clarity on the process and ensure that feedback from various communities will be properly considered along the process.
3. – Statement will go out on Thursday March 20th 2014.
AA suggested asking the CCG for a first draft statement
5) IANA Framework (AoC and IANA SLA Services)
AA reminded that the agreement in Dubai was to work in a MoU that would clarify the services agreement with IANA and the AoC would be consulted with ICANN if there were a need for that.
PW briefed about the proposal he prepared with Craig Ng. PW said this was a first step before entering on any details of a SLA or contract.
RE said that things have changed since NTIA announcement. RE said that it’s now clear that ICANN needs to work with Internet operator to formalize the relationships and now a SLA with ICANN should be negotiated. RE considered that the AoC discussion has been taken by events, as this might not be necessary after NTIA announcement.
AA reviewed the agreements in Dubai that were distributed in the EC list in a ppt file.
PW asked for clarification on the resolutions included in the slides.
AA sent the ppt file to the EC list. AA said that now the content of the agreement with ICANN should be in the services and no longer in the commitments.
PW asked for comments to the AoC/MoU document prepared by APNIC.
AP said he reviewed it, he mentioned didn’t find anything that strongly disagrees and it was happy to take it to his Board
RE mentioned that he had the same opinion than AP. RE asked PW about including the payment to ICANN for performing the IANA functions.
PW said that this was optional. PW suggested that in order to move forward to put all aspects and terms of RIR relations to ICANN in a sheet document for a more complete discussion.
JC considered that the NRO should work in 2 documents for the NRO relationship with IANN. JC said that one document should be services related which is the document prepared by PW and Craig Ng. The second document, JC mentioned, it has not been consolidated and refer to the agreement with ICANN regarding for an ASO for joint policy aspects.
AA asked JC to write down his suggestion.
JC said he would provide his comments directly in PW AoC document.
AA suggested to keep discussing this topic in the mailing list.
AA suggested moving the rest of the topics for the next teleconference or for a meeting next week in Singapore on Tuesday.
AA also mentioned about possible changes in the teleconference formats by moving CG reports at the beginning of the meeting and focus on specific decisions actions that the CG needs from EC
PW and AP liked the idea.
AA thanked the participants of the meeting and adjourn 13:01 UTC