18 August 2015

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 150502

Minutes of the NRO EC face-to-face meeting held on Saturday May 2nd 2015 at 9:00 AM London Time

Executive Council:

Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Chair
Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC Secretary
John Curran (JC) ARIN Treasurer
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Alan Barrett (AB) AFRINIC

Observers:

Patrisse Deesse (PD) AFRINIC
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN – Remotely
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC – Remotely
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC

Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO

Draft Agenda

0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) I* Meeting Results
3) IANA Stewardship Transition Status
a) SLA draft
i) comments from the NRO EC
ii) IANA Performance Review Team
b) RIR Accountability Review
c) ICANN CCWG Status
d) Transition proposal for naming-related Functions
4) Joint RIR Stability Fund Update
5) ICANN Meeting Preparations
6) Next NRO EC Meetings
a) Teleconference
b) Face-to-face
7)AOB
8)Adjourn

0) Welcome

AP welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 9:05 AM London Time.

1) Agenda Review

AP asked for any changes in the agenda.

PW suggested adding a point about IGF contribution.

JC asked to discuss the IETF Open Internet endowment

AP added IGF contribution as point 5 of the agenda and IETF endowment as point number 6.

2) I* Meeting Results

AP reminded that the intention was to meet frequently online being the next meeting around first week of August and next possible face-to-face meeting before ICANN in Dublin.

JC said it was useful to meet with the I* group.

PR commented that he would work with I* representatives to align a joint strategy for WSIS. PR suggested that CCG could support on communications aspects for the WSIS plan. PR mentioned that RIPE NCC resources would focus in WSIS instead of IGF.

JC said that CCG would need direction on what they need to produce.

PR agreed with and that after WSIS meeting in Geneva, he’d have more information on what need to be done.

PW suggested producing a public NRO statement of the I* meeting.

JC agreed to prevent any misunderstanding that the NRO engaged on any SLA negotiations with ICANN.

PW volunteered to draft an announcement for the consideration of the NRO EC.

AB agreed to draft a statement stating what were the topics discussed.

New Action Item 150502-01: PW to draft a NRO announcement about the outcomes of the I* meeting in London.

3) IANA Stewardship Transition Status

a) SLA draft

i) Comments from the NRO EC

JC pointed out that an abrupt termination of the relationship with ICANN for IANA number services, as allowed for in the Number Community proposal, could be destabilizing factor for the services to our community. JC added he would be discussing the matter with ARIN board and would come back to the EC with an update.

PW agreed with JC.

PR said that if ICANN has to always remain in the US the community would question the value of the process.

JC said that termination definitely should be subject to performance, but termination at any time by either party “at will” creates potential instability. JC added that the process for notice & termination before renewal would still allow the community to select a non-ICANN IANA operator in the future.

AB said that the Montevideo statement was clear on the termination of US government unique role over ICANN. AB added that ICANN’s jurisdiction could be a topic of discussion as US government’s sanctions could affect ICANN operations. AB agreed that termination could be made subject to specific listed causes.

JC suggested that a termination cause could be any performance contrary to an adopted policy via the dispute resolution process.

HG suggested that disputes affected by ICANN’s jurisdiction could be dealt by arbitration

PW suggested that the renewal of the relationship with ICANN be subject to renegotiation according to the SLA review terms.

AB said that the RIR should have the ability to leave the relationship with ICANN and PW suggestion would allow it.

JC agreed with PW.

PR said that the RIR should be careful in raising expectations in the community in the formation of the SLA, which it’s the ultimate responsibility of RIR managing directors and Boards.

AP asked what would be the actual comments from the NRO EC to the SLA consultation.

JC said after the ARIN legal review other that the termination the other content in the SLA looks not contentious. However, JC added that the selection of judges in the arbitration section seems ambiguous. JC expressed concerns that ICC should have Internet matters experience.

AP suggested requesting the legal team to resolve the ambiguity.

ii) IANA Performance Review Team

AP reminded that he sent the request to CRISP Team to suggest on the creation of the IANA performance review team but they declined the request as this is out of the scope of the group.

JC JC said that we need make sure that we’re accountable to the entire community, and not easily subject to capture by any specific community or entity. recommended conducting a deep RIR and NRO accountability review involving independent firms familiar with each RIR local law and jurisdiction.

JC volunteered ARIN to lead this activity.

New Action Item 150502-02: JC to draft a proposal to the NRO EC for an independent review of the RIR and NRO accountability.

AP thanked JC and asked to keep discussing about the IANA performance review team suggested in the Number Community proposal.

JC noted that the review team was not included in the SLA. JC said that should be clearly defined to show that we heard the community.

AP said that the review team could be added to the SLA and making them part of the SLA review and renewal process. AP suggested being explicit on how the review team would work.

JC questioned how many people outside the RIR and IANA staff are actually familiar with the routine interaction with IANA.

AB said that the review team empowers the community to raise questions on the operations.

JC recommended keeping the composition of the review team small.

PW said the NRO EC should layout a proposal and submit it to the CRISP Team for review, to ensure consistency with the CRISP proposal.

AB suggested mentioning the review team in the SLA but not going into details, those could be incorporated in a separate document.

API said that the CRISP Team designed the review team open for the NRO EC to decide on this.

JC questioned if the review team would be elaborating regular performance reports or being part of the SLA end of term review and renewal process. JC said that if it was the latter the NRO EC should comment on the formation and role of the review team in the SLA public comments.

AB said he liked the idea of including the review team in the renewal process but also could be given mid-term role to pre-evaluate the performance.

AP suggested mentioning in the SLA and work in the details for later.

JC suggested that the NRO EC should send a public comment regarding the SLA instructing the legal team to review arbitration process and clarify aspects of judge selection, integrate the review team prior the five year renewal and add that renewal would be subject to renegotiation of SLA terms.

New Action Item 150502-03: AB draft a NRO EC public comment to ianaxfer list instructing RIR legal team review SLA arbitration process and clarify aspects of judge selection, integrate the review team prior the five-year renewal and add that renewal would be subject to renegotiation of SLA terms.

API questioned if ICANN legal staff should be commenting on the current drafts.

JC mentioned that ICANN legal staff comments should be made public so positions are open and clear for the community before negotiations.

AB said that ICG expects all comments being made public and ICANN should be linked to that.

JC suggested drafting a letter to ICANN board requesting they express publicly on the SLA.

OR suggested to appoint the chairman of each Board to the review team as they have enough information and interest in the contract negotiations and considering this team may potentially terminate the contract.

AP said that each RIR should be open to decide the way of their appointments.

PR asked what would be the timeline and who will lead the definition of the review team as this would impact in the discussions of the CWG proposal.

AP suggested having them ready by September.

PR suggested that the NRO owns the definition of the review team.

PH said that the NRO EC should communicate this to the CRISP Team.

PW commented that the CWG proposal is ambiguous in referring to “IANA functions”, as a whole or in relation to names only; and it needs to be clarified if PTI would encompass all IANA functions.

JC said that his assumption is that PTI includes all IANA functions, in light of the language to transfer staff, processes, etc.

PW suggested providing comments to CWG proposal to clearly state the RIR understandings and expectations of PTI role.

AB suggested that NRO EC should clearly comment to the CWG that numbers services should not be part of PTI. AB added that the NRO should continue to work in its own review team and SLA.

JC clarified that currently IANA team share staff and resources to provide the names, number and protocol services. JC suggested that ICANN contracts with PTI only for name services and CSC only affect the names operations.

JC provided a summary of the CWG proposal that includes the following aspects:

– The creation of a subsidiary PTI to deal with all IANA functions
– Establishing of contract with ICANN as IANA functions operator (IFO)
– The creation of IANA customer standing committee (CSC) involve in the renewal of the services.

JC recommended answering proactively as NRO EC to CWG. JC volunteered to draft the response but AP as NRO Chair should send it. JC added that the answer should be copied to the Number Community ianaxfer mailing list.
PW asked to be clear that this communication comes from the RIR, and not from the RIR communities.
API said that the CWG proposal mention the appointment of liaison to their performance review team (CSC).

JC said that the only name services we should be interested is the in-addr.arpa. JC agreed to include this in the message draft to the CWG.

New Action Item 150502-04: JC draft a message to CWG stating the expectation of the RIR that the services provided by PTI would be limited to naming services only. The message would include the agreement to appoint a liaison to their CSC given the services related to in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa.

b) RIR Accountability Review

Discussion was interlined during the IANA Performance Review Team.

c) ICANN CCWG Status

JC mentioned that the CCWG would release their proposal draft for comments within the next day. JC reported that the proposal proposes six powers for the community to retain. These were listed as follows

1. Remove boards members
2. Remove groups of board members (spill out)
3. Prevent changes in the bylaws that are not approved by the community
4. Fundamental bylaws that can only be changed by a higher threshold of the community
5. Community to approve budget and strategic plan
6. Incorporate content of the current AoC into the bylaws.

JC said that the proposal includes two ways to implement these powers, by formalizing ICANN’s existing designators or by establishing ICANN as a membership organization.

JC explained that in the designators model the SO and AC becomes designator organizations and according to California law they should have a definition document of the organizations, furthermore designator organizations are able to appoints and remove their designations to the ICANN Board. Additionally, bylaws could change only under the ratification of designator organizations. Some restrictions of the model are that designators have no power to spill out the entire board – they can only remove their designees, and designators do not gain legal standing by being a designator sue the board.

JC explained that under the membership model SO’s and AC’s becomes members of ICANN. In this model, members owns ICANN budget and strategic plan, the proposal distribute 29 votes, GNSO CCNSO ASO GAC AND ALAC 5 votes each and 2 votes for SSAC and RSSAC. JC added that the default according to California
Law members can remove the entire board by simple majority vote and this could be a destabilizing factor unless somehow addressed. Finally members could sue ICANN.

JC said that the CCWG recommends the membership model.

PR stated that the NRO EC should recognize the hard work of the Number Community appointees to the CCWG specially Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli.

JC agreed.

AP thanked JC report.

AP asked for a break for lunch at 12:40 PM

AP reconvened the meeting at 1:20 PM

AP asked about the future of CRISP team.

OR asked what other expectations are about the CRISP Team. OR mentioned that the message from ARIN Board of CRISP Team reviewing the consistency of the SLA with the Number Community proposal has not been communicated to them yet.

JC considered that the CRISP Team could monitor and help with the discussion of SLA draft in the ianaxfer list.

AB said that the CRISP Team charter doesn’t have a mention about their involvement in the SLA. AB added that the SLA is not part of the submission to the ICG.

JC mentioned that the CRISP Team needs to be involved in the SLA discussions in case they need to make changes to the community proposal.

PW said that the CRISP Team should continue monitor the discussion and provide feedback regarding the consistency of the implementation, and any proposed changes, with the Number Community proposal.

New Action Item 150502-05: AP to communicate with the CRISP Team the expectation of the NRO EC to monitor and facilitate discussions in the public comments on the SLA draft so they can verify the consistency of the implementation with the Number Community proposal.

d) Transition proposal for naming-related functions

Discussion was interlined during the IANA Performance Review Team.

5) IGF Contribution.

PR reported that the PACG have discussed a proposal to support 20,000 USD through IGFSA and 100,000 USD for fellowships.

HG clarified that local host pays the logistic, infrastructure, translation, security travel but no for participants travel or fellowships. HG added that UNDESA pays for the secretariat and their team.

PR asked how many organizations pledged to contribute to the UNDESA fund.

HG said it’s not clear yet.

HG confirmed that a change in the contribution to UNDESA wouldn’t affect the infrastructure in IGF in Brazil.

API said that a reduction in the contribution to UNDESA would send a political message.

JC suggested keeping the 100,000 USD contribution to UNDESA unless we’re clear about our revised messaging.

PR said that RIPE NCC would support at least five people from RIPE community to participate in the coming IGF.

GV confirmed that NRO budget includes 100K for UNDESA, 5K through other channels, 10K for speakers supporting NRO workshops and 10K for a joint reception with other I* organizations.

PW mentioned that IGFSA website has not been updated, and it’s not clear how the funds will be used.

AP suggested maintaining the 100K to UNDESA, not contributing through IGFSA and use the resources to support travel of RIR community members to IGF.

PW suggested reserving the 25k in NRO budget, subject to a NRO plan for the IGF to be developed.

PH said that the PACG should own the IGF strategy in cooperation with CCG for the development of material.

PH reminded that there are plans of a RIR open session, IPv6 best practice forum and 3 proposed workshops.

PR said that PACG would have more information to develop the plan in June, after MAG and WSIS meetings in late May.

PH requested support from the RIR to the IPv6 Best Practice Forum leaded by Izumi Okutani, Susan Chalmers and GV.

PR agreed with PH, PR added that the focus of the IPv6 Forum should be exclusively in best practices.

HG said that the local host would propose to avoid competitions between workshops and main sessions. HG said that in order to avoid the competitions they might have to reduce the number of workshops.

API reminded that UNDESA should be more transparent in selecting MAG members.

New Action Item 1505020-06: GV to coordinate with NRO treasurer the contribution of 100,000 USD to IGF through UNDESA.

6) IETF Endowment

JC reported that the IETF endowment is needs about 20M-30M USD contributions if IETF is to be self-sufficient; current annual IETF operation is around 6 million that are covered partially by meeting registration feex and the rest by ISOC contribution. JC indicated that he would be proposing to the ARIN Board to make a sizable contribution once the endowment documents make clear that it is solely to support the IETF. JC suggested other RIR consider a contribution to the endowment.

OR reminded that ISOC depends on .org renewal. OR considered that Internet principles should not rely in the renewal of the contract. OR asked if the endowment exists already.

JC confirmed the existence of the documentation of the endowment but currently is not restricted only for the IETF. JC clarified that ARIN would wait to see the updated documentation before considering a contribution.

PW said that APNIC is supporting IETF by redirecting ISOC contribution to sponsorship of IETF meetings which are organized in Asia Pacific Region.

AP mentioned that he’d consult with RIPE NCC board.

New Action Item 150502-07: JC to circulate to the NRO EC the IETF endowment documentation once received from ISOC.

7) Joint RIR Stability Fund Update

AP asked for any updates on the consultation to RIR boards.

JC noted the significant RIPE NCC commitment to the stability fund, and said that ARIN Board is ready to commit 250K USD. JC said that clearer documentation will be necessary for the use of the fund.

8) ICANN Meeting Preparations

PW reported that the ICG would meet the week before the ICANN meeting.

GV reported that the NRO shared calendar has been updated with the known sessions for far. GV mentioned that the ASO AC, PACG and CCG would meet face-to-face in Buenos Aires.

JC asked if the NRO EC should have an open meeting during ICANN.

PW said that in the ICANN meeting context we should remain focused on the ASO, and not on NRO business more generally. Open NRO EC meetings could be held, but not necessarily in association with ICANN.

JC mentioned that NRO EC could conduct open meeting using ISOC Board model where meetings are open for observers.

OR asked if the NRO have received any requests to be part of EC meetings.

JC mentioned that he has been asked in ARIN community for more details of the NRO EC meetings and openness.

OR said that as a first step the NRO EC could open their meetings to the ASO AC.

9) Next NRO EC Meetings

a. Teleconference

GV mentioned that the next agreed teleconference would be May 26th.

AP suggested meeting face-to-face in Buenos Aires instead of having the June teleconference.

All agreed.

b. Face-to-face meeting

All agreed to meet in the morning of Tuesday June 23rd during ICANN Meeting.

JC asked if the NRO should try to schedule the next face-to-face meeting early enough for cost-effective travel planning.

AP suggested to invite I* group to meet around APNIC meeting in Auckland in February 2016.

All agreed to schedule NRO EC meeting 19 and 20 February 2016 in Auckland New Zealand and invite I* group to meet in those dates.

10) AOB

WSIS

PH suggested that the NRO should have a coordinated plan for the WSIS process and IGF renewal.

PW mentioned a letter drafted by ISOC about the WSIS process and IGF renewal, addressed to UN General Secretary.

The EC reviewed the content of the letter.

OR asked if the NRO EC could produce his own statement.

PH said that ISOC is following the process more closely that the NRO.

PW suggested to inform in the Internet Collaboration that the NRO support the goal of the letter but didn’t reach consensus on the whole content of the letter so the NRO EC would draft a more specific message regarding the WSIS process and IGF renewal.

All agreed.

NRO statement on I* Meeting.

The NRO EC reviewed a draft presented by PH and PW. After several suggestions the NRO EC agreed in a text to be released as a result of the I* meeting in London.

NetMundial

HG explained that NetMundial is not a new movement, association or entity, it was not created as a competition of the IGF but the contrary to support it. HG clarified that it was created as a practical platform to help others and that Brazil never took any action against the Multi stakeholder model observed and protected by the CGI. HG said that he realized it was some noise and misunderstanding about the role of NetMundial and he was able to answer any questions.

JC asked if any potential activity of NetMundial requires the attention of the RIR.

PW said that APNIC has taken a more supportive approach to Netmundial, he reminded that AM is a member of the Netmundial council.

HG said that the ToR is open for comments and ideas for proposals on how the NetMundial can support practical Internet efforts.

ICANN Accountability Matrix Next Steps

PR asked what would be the timeline once phase 2 of the accountability matrix is reached and who would own it.

JC said that once the independent review produces results, it’s possible that RIRs would have improvements to do. JC requested all CEO to look for an independent firm familiar with the local law that is not the current legal council who can make the review of each RIR. JC said that process could possibly have a coordinator of the review by the end of the month and have a report back by the end of June. JC estimated that the total cost of the review, including coordination and subcontracting to a firm in each region, would cost around 40K to 70K USD.

OR asked who should be part of this second phase.

JC said that should be people in each RIR familiar with incorporation and governance documents; they need to be able to answer questions to the respective local reviewing firm.

11) Adjourn

AP thanked all and adjourned the meeting at 17:30 London Time.

New Actions Items

New Action Item 150502-01: PW to draft a NRO announcement about the outcomes of the I* meeting in London.

New Action Item 150502-02: JC to draft a proposal to the NRO EC for an independent review of the RIR and NRO accountability.

New Action Item 150502-03: AB draft a NRO EC public comment to ianaxfer list instructing RIR legal team review SLA arbitration process and clarify aspects of judge selection, integrate the review team prior the five-year renewal and add that renewal would be subject to renegotiation of SLA terms. All changes would be drafted unless of lack of community support.

New Action Item 150502-04: JC draft a message to CWG stating the expectation of the RIR that the services provided by PTI would be limited to naming services only. The message would include the agreement to appoint a liaison to their CSC given the services related to in-addr.arpa and ip5.arpa.

New Action Item 150502-05: AP to communicate with the CRISP Team the expectation of the NRO EC to monitor and facilitate discussions in the public comments on the SLA draft so they can verify the consistency of the implementation with the Number Community proposal.

New Action Item 1505020-06: GV to coordinate with NRO treasurer the contribution of 100,000 USD to IGF through UNDESA.

New Action Item 150502-07: JC to circulate to the NRO EC the IETF endowment documentation once received from ISOC.

Comments are closed.