Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 140520


May 20th, 2014
Teleconference 11:00 AM UTC

Executive Council Attendees:

Chairman: Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC
Secretary: Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC
Member: John Curran (JC) ARIN


Treasurer: Raul Echeberria (RE) LACNIC
Member: Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC


Madhvi Gokool (MG) AFRINIC
Neriah Sossou (NS) AFRINIC
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Paul Andersen (PA)  ARIN
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC


German Valdez (GV) NRO

0) Welcome

AA welcomed attendees at 11:10 AM UTC and noted the apologies from RE and PW.

GV advised that EM was participating in the meeting on behalf of LACNIC

1) Agenda Review

AA asked if there were anything to add as AOB.

No new topics were added.

2) Review Open Actions.

AA asked GV to go through the open actions.

GV mentioned that the last time the open actions were reviewed was in February so some of the actions were already closed but wanted to go through the whole list to make it official.

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

GV mentioned that RE and he worked in the proposal for the creation of the COO group. GV said that it was designed as informal group. GV said that the text has been shared in the EC list for further review by the EC.

Status: Closed.

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.

Status: Open

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.

GV reported that the ASO AC conducted a formal voting to consider the new text as proposed by the NRO EC. GV said that as result of the voting process the ASO AC formally adopted the procedures.

Status: Closed.

Action Item 040314-01: PW to work with Craig Ng on a MoU with ICANN for IANA services related to Number Resources (4 weeks)

AA reminded that the MoU draft has been circulated in the EC list and the document should be incorporated in the transition IANA stewardship process discussions.

JC mentioned that even though the transition of IANA stewardship process is running the EC couldn’t rule out a MoU or other sort of agreement for the IANA services.

AA agreed with JC. AA said that the discussion of the MoU should be part of the whole process. AA suggested that the EC reviews the MoU that has been circulated and continues from there.

Status: Closed.

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)

AA said that the action was taken by events.

Status: Closed.

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).

AA mentioned that like the previous action this has been taken by events due to the IANA stewardship transition process. AA said that a new AoC could be discussed considering the transition process.

Status: Closed

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)

JC reported that the action is underway. JC suggested that the EC should use RIPE document as baseline. JC said that was going to complete ARIN information and pass the document to the next RIR.

AA reminded that according to the RIR engagement timeline for IANA stewardship transition document that he sent to the EC mailing list he is suggesting to have a full matrix completed and ready for publication by mid June. AA mentioned that this could be used as a supporting document for the accountability framework reaffirming what exist and propose areas of improvements. AA added that he has completed RIPE accountability and transparency document with AFRINIC information

JC said that it’s achievable. JC suggested AA to work in parallel. JC agreed with AA that ARIN would pass its document to APNIC, and suggested AA send his copy with RIPE & AFRINIC info to LACNIC and eventually merge both documents.

Status: In Progress

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.

Status: Closed.

Action Item 160414-01: EC to review meeting requests from the CCG and RSCG for ICANN 50 in London.

GV mentioned that the action was 50% completed pending the RSCG meeting decision.

EM said that the issue was discussed in LACNIC. EM said that LACNIC is not currently supporting the meeting. EM added that LACNIC supports the approach of the efficient use of resources in CG meetings.

AA suggested to the EC to close the action.

GV said that he could coordinate with MG in a reply to RSCG so they could work in a new proposal.

AA said if there were an urgent matter the RSCG could work it by teleconference.

EM said that it could be confusion between the CG that the proposed face-to-face CG meetings are already endorsed after the approval of the NRO budget.

AA said that it was not the case and that the EC still needs to review and approved f2f CG meetings. AA suggested to GV to communicate this to the CG chairs.

3) Approval of Pending Minutes

JC asked for more time to review the last 4 minute documents before proceed to formal approval.

AA suggested to the EC to move the action on line so this could be resolve in the EC list and not deal with this in the next teleconference. AA said that one week should be enough for reviews.

4) CG Input/Consultation

AA asked NH if the CCG has something to consult or report.

NH welcomed the incorporation of Gaelle Fall as part of communication team in AFRINIC. NH reported that the CCG is preparing an announcement for the NRO website about LACNIC reaching a /9 which would trigger the global IANA policy for distribution of recovered pool. NH said that the CCG is working in a plan to rebuild the ASO website, following the ITEMS recommendation. NH mentioned that the CCG is working in the details of their meeting in ICANN where they will we continue developing all the work related to the IGF meeting in Istanbul. NH added as a personal note his disappointment for not having a joint CCG – RSCG meeting in London.

AA asked if the ECG had something to report

NS mentioned that the ECG has 2 items to report. NS said that in the Trust Anchor subject the ECG met with IANA in the IETF in London to discuss the deployment strategy. NS reported that a few issues were raised and they are working to correct them in the IANA side. NS mentioned that the ECG and IANA agreed on monthly teleconferences to advance in their work. NS said that in the inter RIR transfer subject ARIN and APNIC are still conducting some tests, the ECG would work to have proper transfer procedures where they expect to have a rpki test bed once is deployed.

AA asked MG to report on the RSCG

MG said that some members of the RSCG met in Chicago during last ARIN meeting where they discussed with Leo Vegoda on the global ASN policy. MG reported that RSCG received a set of operational questions from the ASO AC on regards the implementation of the ASN global policy. MG mentioned that the 5 RIR have answered the questions to the ASO AC.

AA asked MG is there is any specific action on the global management of 2 and 4 bytes ASN.

MG responded that not yet. MG said that the RSCG would have a teleconference to discuss on the issue.

AA noted that the PACG chair was not in the call. AA asked PH if there was anything to report.

PH said that there was nothing to report from the PACG at the moment.

5) IANA Transition Stewardship Updates

AA updated that the NRO EC was still waiting for ICANN to publish the final process with the timeframe or timelines. AA reminded that the NRO submitted the response to the draft proposal of the principles and mechanisms to transition NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions. AA confirmed that the response was sent to NTIA authorities as suggested in the EC mailing list. AA mentioned that he sent to the EC list a draft document with a timeline with the RIR engagement for IANA stewardship transition process. AA mentioned that in the draft document the RIR should produce a common shared supporting/background document for number resources management by ICANN/IANA to help the community understand the current situation and what to expect from them.

JC agreed with AA summary. JC said that the EC should look at the timeline in terms of the steering or coordinating committee and being sure to comply with the appointments.

AA asked JC on how he sees the composition of that steering or coordination group and how they’d drive the process.

JC reminded that this was discussed briefly in the last I* and NRO meeting. JC said that the Steering Group document says community representation and so it may be expected that the ASO AC make appointments to that part of the group.

AA asked JC when he thinks ICANN would publish the final process document.

JC answered that he has no information.

AA suggested that while the NRO EC waits for the final process they should prepare and have ready the candidates. AA reminded that the EC agreed that the ASO AC should run their own process to appoint their 2 representatives.

AA asked if there were any input collected so far in the RIR community ready to be shared. AA asked EM if LACNIC had a panel discussion during their last meeting

EM said that LACNIC finally reached the last /9 today. EM mentioned that LACNIC was planning to send an announcement later the same day to their community. EM stated that LACNIC was in coordination with the CCG so a NRO announcement could follow the one from LACNIC. EM said that the new phase would imply stricter analysis in the request of resources.

AA thanked EM for the information. AA clarified that the original question was on point 5 of the agenda.

EM apologized for the misunderstanding. EM said that LACNIC organized a panel with Jari Arkko from IETF, Elise Gerich from IANA, Carolina Aguerre from LACTLD and himself during Cancun meeting where they set the scene of the IANA stewardship transition consultation but they didn’t receive any questions from the community. EM added that they received some guidance from LACNIC board in organize further consultation.

AA said he’d update the timeline with the last LACNIC consultation. AA mentioned that as part of the timeline RIR engagement process proposal he is suggesting that the RIR should work in consolidate the different consultation from all RIR communities. AA said that this task could be part of the first NRO EC retreat in 2015. AA suggested that the consolidated document be put for a second round of input and discussion in the RIR communities before being submitted to ICANN.

6) Activation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA

AA said that EM already covered the topic in the previous point of the agenda. AA asked for any further comments on this point of the agenda.

No further comments were provided.

GV raised the issue that he was having problems hearing AA at his end.

7) RIR Accountability and Transparency Provisions Update

AA said that the item was discussed during the review of actions items. AA asked if there were any further additions to this topic.

No comments were provided.

8) 2014 Q1 NRO Budget Review

GV reminded that he sent a report with the execution of the NRO budget for the 1st quarter of 2014. GV reported that the information was provided by the CFO with the contributions of each RIR to the NRO expenses. GV said that in general the execution was according to the plan however he pointed out that the financial support to ASO AC travels were higher than expected with around 36% of the allocated budget and still the ASO AC face-to-face meeting in London have not taken place yet. GV added that the support to ASO AC chair travel was in similar situation with ¾ of the resources allocated already used but he expected that having the last ICANN meeting in Los Angeles would help to avoid a major over expense on this budget line. GV advised that ASO AC travels expenses should be closely monitored.

AA asked GV maintain in observation those expenses line and alert them in case of any over expenses. AA added that the quarterly reports are very useful

EM asked when to expect to make the payment for support to the IGF.

GV clarified that the payment was already made in April.

9) AOB

AA asked for AOB

No additions were made.

10) Adjourn

AA adjourned the NRO EC meeting 12:18 UTC

Last modified on 14/07/2014