Minutes of the NRO EC face to face meeting held on Tuesday June 23rd 2015 at 9:00 AM Buenos Aires Time (-3 UTC)
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:
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) LACNIC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Invited:
Izumi Okutani (IO)
Fiona Asonga (FA)
Jorge Villa (JV)
Athina Fragkouli (AF) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
Draft Agenda
0.- Welcome
1.- Agenda Review
2.- Review of Minutes
a) April 21st
b) May 2nd
c) June 15th
3.- Review Open Actions.
4.- CG Input / Consultation
a) PACG f2f meeting report
b) CCG f2f meeting report
5.- IANA Stewardship Transition Status
a) SLA implementation, next steps
6.- ICANN CCWG Status
7.- RIR Accountability Review
8.- Joint RIR Stability Fund Update
9.- ICANN 53
a) Meeting with ICANN Board
b) Meeting with NTIA
10.- Next EC Meetings
a) Next Teleconference
b) Next face-to-face meeting
11.- AOB
12.- Adjourn
0) Welcome
AP welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 9:05 AM Buenos Aires Time.
1) Agenda Review
AP asked for any changes in the agenda.
No changes were suggested.
AP adopted the proposed agenda. AP mentioned he would have topic 6. ICANN CCWG Status at 10:00 AM once IO, FA, AF and JV join the meeting.
2) Minutes Approval
AP asked for approval of April 21st, May 2nd and June 15th.
AP confirmed he was ok with the minutes.
AP requested GV to circulate the minutes in the EC mailing list.
3) Review Open Actions
NRO EC
Action Item 150213-05: NRO EC to consult with their Boards regarding the creation of the Joint RIR stability fund and confirm their position on the proposal.
OR confirmed that LACNIC Board was ready to make in kind contribution to the fund.
HG proposed that the NRO EC should pull together a written proposal.
PW confirmed that there is a proposal that it has been sent to the list. PW said he would recirculate the last version of the Joint RIR Stability fund proposal.
JC suggested to work in an announcement in the NRO website, that describes the fund and show we take care of the ecosystem. JC said that each RIR could eventually confirm the amount of the pledge.
OR said that it was important to establish the rules for the use of the funds.
JC reminded that the fund requires only pledges with no actual resources on it.
OR said that he’d support to go public in the joint RIR stability fund announcement but he’d need to go back to LACNIC board in order to confirm a determined pledge for the fund.
JC said that pledges could change over time.
New Action Item 150623-01: CCG and GV to draft a public announcement on the creation of the Joint RIR Stability Fund.
AP
Action Item 150421-01: AP talk to ISOC and find out how their IGF contributions will be used.
AP confirmed that he’d have a phone call with Cathy Brown on Friday.
Status: OPEN
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.
AP confirmed this action was completed.
Status: DONE
JC
Action Item 150502-07: JC to circulate to the NRO EC the IETF endowment documentation once received from ISOC.
JC sent the document to the EC list.
Status: DONE
Action Item 150502-02: JC to draft a proposal to the NRO EC for an independent review of the RIR and NRO accountability.
Status: DONE
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.
Status: DONE
AB
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.
Status: OPEN
PW
Action Item 150502-01: PW to draft a NRO announcement about the outcomes of the I* meeting in London.
Status: DONE
PACG
Action Item 150213-07: PACG to recommend the NRO EC a channel for the contribution to IGF.
Status: DONE
Action Item 141018-03: PACG to include Governing Board Structure, Budget and Activity Approval, Fee Approval and Bylaw/Operational Document Control information to the RIR Governance Matrix.
PR confirmed that RIPE NCC has completed phase 2, including the legal review.
Status: IN PROGRESS
Action Item 141018-04: PACG based on the RIR Governance Matrix propose to the NRO EC those areas where could be consolidation or harmonization among the RIR.
Status: OPEN
CFO
Action Item 150213-06: CFO to document how they calculate the registration services only amount.
Status: DONE
GV
Action Item 150213-09: GV and COO to present a compiled document with intersections of strategic activities among the 5 RIR as the basis of a NRO strategic document.
Status: IN PROGRESS
Action Item 140218-05: AA and GV to work with the CFO to determine the indirect cost from each RIR in their support to NRO activities.
Status: IN PROGRESS
New Action Item 1505020-06: GV to coordinate with NRO treasurer the contribution of 100,000 USD to IGF through UNDESA.
GV confirmed TFA documents from UNDESA, next step would be AP to sign the documentation.
Status: IN PROGRESS
4.- CG Input / Consultation
a) PACG f2f meeting report
PR reported that the PACG held their face-to-face meeting on Saturday. PR said that PACG had discussions on ITU DONA developments and enhances relationships with GSMA. PR mentioned about the IPv6 Best Practice Forum during the coming IGF and the importance of giving support to this BPF. PR said that the IPv6 BPF would focus on mobile Internet and Internet of things instead of IPv4 exhaustion. PR said that PACG is working in the theme for a RIR 30 minutes open forum. PR said that the PACG and the CCG had a joint session focus exclusively on IGF, he said that one of the NRO workshops is co-organized with GSMA and it will showcase for first time the partnership. PR said that RIR strategy could focus in social media instead of the traditional NRO Booth, PR added that they could organize a joint booth with I* organizations to answers questions like IANA transition.
NH said that the NRO booth itself was not the main issue but the efficient use of resources for the IGF. NH said that messages during IGF could be a combination of community driven stories inside the RIR, continue cooperation content and capacity building like seed alliance, additionally NH said that the NRO could work in coordination with other I* organizations to address the IANA transition story.
PW stressed on the importance of this 10th IGF edition. PW said that the NRO should not pull resources this time; on the contrary it was a good opportunity to call for continuation of the IGF. PW said that the IPv6 BPF was a good way to move ahead in disseminating practical information on IPv6.
JC recommended that messages during IGF should focus on IPv6 instead of IANA transition.
PW said that messages on the WSIS+10 process should also be considered. PW asked about the status of the IPv6 BPF
PH said that Izumi Okutani, Susan Chalmers and GV were leading the preparation for this forum. PH said that it was a good opportunity to showcase IPv6 best practices to policy makers outside the RIR arena. PH considered that the forum needs more RIR support. PH mentioned that one of the problems is that RIR IPv6 staffs don’t attend IGF and most of the material is technical and it’s not oriented to policy makers.
API confirmed LACNIC interest in supporting the IPv6 BPF
AP suggested moving ahead and the agenda, he requested NH to have a written report of the CCG meeting.
6.- ICANN CCWG Status
FA, IO, AF and JV joined the meeting at 10:00 AM Buenos Aires Time.
AF reported that the CCWG met on Friday mainly to discuss comments during the public period. AF said that the group had concerns about the membership model, as it was not going to be easy to incorporate ICANN as a membership association. AF mentioned that the group opted for a hybrid model that takes the existent SO/AC organizations and ICANN would change to a non-public association where membership is not compulsory. AF explained that the only reason to become a member would be to enforce ICANN to court. AF added that the problem with the designator model is that there is no power to reject or review ICANN budget before court.
IO said they want to double the enforceability inside ICANN mechanisms exist before going to court.
FA stressed on the importance to the NRO EC to have a meeting with CCWG Chair to be clear of the Number Community expectations of the CCWG process.
PW asked if the NRO EC should discuss now and take a stance in issues like budget approval and removal of ICANN Directors.
JC reminded that ICANN has a signed MoU with the ASO and that the DNS groups are still pursuing this. JC said that the NRO EC should observe the CCWG work and act in case of having a destabilizing situation in ICANN. JC considered that the NRO EC should not take a stance right now.
AF said that we should have the models reviewed by a lawyer to be certain that are doable. FA confirmed that the CCWG Chairs are looking for a meeting with NRO EC to clarify aspects of ASO/NRO feedback.
JC said that the NRO EC don’t have a formal position except for observing the stability of the Number Community. JC said that the whole process represent an unknown risk for the Number Community until there is legal review and opinion of the final proposal.
FA mentioned that some individuals of the DNS community don’t understand the current ASO/NRO arrangements with ICANN. FA added that there are concerns in the CCWG on guarantee regional balance representation.
JC said that it’s a problem for the DNS community not the ASO. JC stated that the CCWG challenges reside only in the DNS community.
PW reminded that if the CCWG doesn’t propose the required accountability changes for the NTIA, the whole IANA transition process won’t succeed. PW advised to work in contingency plan for that scenario.
AF said that the ASO liaisons in the CCWG would express their concerns in the progress of the CCWG proposal and the negative impact in the IANA transitions process. AF asked that NRO EC to make a similar statement.
JV reminded that NTIA comments have been to focus on main issues in order to comply with the timeline.
AP thanked FA, IO, AF and JV.
4.b) CCG f2f meeting report
AP asked NH to send a written report to the EC on the results of the CCG f2f meeting.
NH said he’d bring to the table any important matter for the PACG/CCG/EC meeting tomorrow.
5.- IANA Stewardship Transition Status
a) SLA implementation, next steps
AP reminded that in the case the NRO EC agrees, there is an expectation to have the second version of the SLA published this week and then call for another 2 weeks comment period.
JC said that the second version could be the last version to be subject to comments for the community. JC considered that comments for this second version could be incorporated to the version to be brought to ICANN for negotiations.
AP asked what would be the plan B in case CCWG group doesn’t succeed.
JC said that could be two type of failure, one would be that CCWG proposes an unpredictable ICANN that could be easily captured by any particular group and the second would be no have a transition plan accepted by the NTIA.
7.- RIR Accountability Review
JC reminded that he sent to the NRO EC list a project proposal for the RIR accountability assessment. JC said that each RIR should hire its own independent firm to run the review. JC pointed out that the first step would be a fact review that could be shared between the RIR. JC added that a second step would be a risk assessment where naturally the content of this review should be handle carefully as this could provide information on how attacks a particular RIR. JC said that the RIR could produce for the public a short summary of the areas for improvements.
JC said that 4 documents describing the project proposal, the data collection, the evaluation questions and the public summary have been sent to the EC list.
JC reminded that there is a shared NRO cost for production of the data collection template and collation of the RIR responses.
AB said that the EC is agreed in principle.
8.- Joint RIR Stability Fund Update
OR advised that the fund should have clear requirements and conditions for its use so the EC is not creating a lifesaver without consequences.
JC reminded about the last version of the stability fund edited by PW. JC said that in the case of ARIN the pledge committed to the fund still requires ARIN Board of Trusteed approval before any RIR could make use of it. JC said that according to the fund procedures the affected RIR board must document his request to the NRO EC in order to have access to the fund and the final decision to grant the access could only be done by the EC unanimous approval.
OR advised that some conditions should be applied to the recipient of the resources on how they would spend the money.
PW said that the CFO group could be the one to oversee the management of the fund.
AB said that the fund could be constraint for the use of core business activities only.
JC asked OR to adjust the RIR stability fund document accordingly.
9.- ICANN 53
a) Meeting with ICANN Board
JC said that the NRO EC could be clear in the expectation that the community drives the IANA transition process. JC added that the EC could inform about the coming version of the SLA. JC also said the EC should remind to the ICANN Board that CCWG should not affect the current ASO ICANN relationship established in their MoU and the process should not produce a destabilized ICANN.
AP said they could request ICANN Board to instruct their staff to start negotiations with the RIR as soon as the last version of the SLA is ready by mid July. AP said that the future is unclear regarding the creation of PTI or not so he advised that the NRO should continue consider ICANN as the negotiator party. AP said he would not mind to sign a contract with ICANN before the contract with NTIA expires.
AP observed that technical Internet organizations report was not scheduled in the plenary session as agreed by ICANN
AB said that ICANN committed to place the technical Internet organizations report one per year in the plenary.
b) Meeting with NTIA
JC request GV to inform NTIA that ND and PA would be ARIN in the meeting.
GV confirmed that CRISP chair and co-chair will be in the meeting.
JC recommended requesting to the NTIA to facilitate preparatory conditions to implement the IANA transition.
10.- Next EC Meetings
a) Next Teleconference
AP confirmed that the next teleconference would be July 21st 2015 at the usual time of 11:00 AM UTC.
b) Next face-to-face meeting
AP said that next NRO EC face-to-face meeting could be around ICANN meeting in Dublin.
After some discussion the EC agreed to meet before ICANN Meeting in Dublin.
AP suggested having the meeting in Friday or Saturday the week before ICANN meeting (16 and 17 October)
11.- AOB
No other agenda topics were discussed.
12.- Adjourn
AP Adjourned the meeting at 12:30 PM UTC Buenos Aires Time.
Last modified on 27/10/2015