15 September 2015

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 150721

Minutes of the NRO EC face to face meeting held on Tuesday July 21st 2015 at 11:00 AM 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) Minutes Approval

  1. a) April 21st 2015
  2. b) May 2nd 2015
  3. c) June 15th 2015
  4. d) June 23rd 2015

3) Review Open Actions
4) CG Input / Consultation
5) IANA Business Process Work
6) IANA Stewardship Transition Status

  1. a) SLA Implementation, next steps
  2. b) Review Committee Charter

7) ICANN CCWG Status
8) RIR Accountability Review RIR Status
9) Joint RIR Stability Fund Update
10) IGF IPv6 Best Practice Forum Update
11) Next EC Meetings

  1. a) Next Teleconference
  2. b) Next face-to-face meeting – Confirmation

12)AOB
13)Adjourn

0) Welcome

AP welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 11:02 AM UTC.

1) Agenda Review

AP asked for any changes in the proposed agenda.

No changes were suggested.

AP reminded that ASO liaisons in the ICANN CCWG would join the meeting at 12:00 PM UTC so item 7 of the agenda would be discussed at that time.

2) Minutes Approval

AP asked for the status of minutes approvals

GV reminded that April 21st, May 2nd, June 15th and June 23rd were pending for approval. 

JC clarified that ARIN approves all four pending minutes.

AP asked GV to confirm in the NRO EC who was pending to approve past minutes.

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.

GV reminded that OR sent the latest version of the RIR Stability fund to the list.

AP suggested closing the action and move ahead with the publication of the fund.

AB asked to include the information of the pledge that each RIR will provide to the fund.

JC agreed with AB

OR asked to hold the publication of the amount of the pledges until LACNIC can confirm their contribution. OR expected that LACNIC would have the information be available in two weeks. OR suggested that only the agreement be published for the moment.

AP was ok with the approach.

PW reminded that APNIC’s pledge is not fixed. He said he would send to the list the current approximate figure.

Status: CLOSED

AP

Action Item 150421-01: AP talk to ISOC and find out how their IGF contributions will be used.

AP mentioned he was traveling to IETF in Prague where he was expecting to clarify the issue with ISOC representatives.

Status: OPEN

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.

Action taken by events

Status: CLOSED

CCG

Action Item 150623-01: CCG and GV to draft a public announcement on the creation of the Joint RIR Stability Fund.

GV said this action was subject to Action Item 150213-05

Status: OPEN

PACG

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 reported that the action was on progress.

AP asked to put some priority on this.

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.

PR said that this action would be subject to the current RIR accountability review.

Status: IN PROGRESS

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: OPEN

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 PROGESS

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

GV mentioned he sent to AP a Transfer Fund Agreement from UNESCO. GV said he would follow up with AP the signature of the TFA and the subsequent transfer of funds from ARIN to UNESCO.

Status: IN PROGRESS.

4) CG Input / Consultation

PACG

PR mentioned that PACG was working in coordination with CCG on communications strategy on IANA transition.

AP asked to discuss the details as part of the agenda item.

CCG

NH reported that that CCG in coordination with other I* comms representatives are working in documentation to support communications on the IANA transition.

5) IANA Business Process Work

PW reminded that he sent to the EC list five documents describing the business process model between the RIR and IANA. PW suggested that the RSCG should have a meeting or a set of meetings with the consultants to review and jointly agree with the documents before being presented to IANA for further review. PW said that the idea was to attach the agreed business process document to the SLA.

AP supported the approach.

JC suggested Leslie Nobile to join the group to review the documentation.

PW said that the document would need a high level signoff by all EC before attaching it to the SLA. PW volunteered APNIC to present this to the RSCG.

6) IANA Stewardship Transition Status

6.a) SLA Implementation, next steps

AP suggested to have a conference call with the RIR legal team to review the comments received during the comment period and try to move ahead quickly with the publication of the second version of the SLA.

PW agreed with AP. PW pointed out that the deadline for the publication of the second version of the SLA is passed so the EC needs to take expedient action on the matter.

AP asked GV to make arrangement for a teleconference with the RIR legal team

6.b) Review Committee Charter

AP thanked GV for the report and comments summary sent to the EC list. AP said that based on the report the Review Committee Charter could be adopted.

GV said that most of the comments were positive and there were no strong objections to the charter. GV confirmed that the CRISP Team stated that the charter is aligned with the content included in the number community proposal.

PR agreed with GV, he confirmed that CRISP Team review the content of the charter and made a public statement about the alignment with the number community proposal.

AP suggested to recirculate the latest version of the charter in the EC list and proceed with his publication.

PR stressed in the importance to maintain the appropriate paper trail on all discussions on the SLA. PR reminded that the reports of discussions of SLA in RIR meetings are recorded in the NRO website and asked for any missing reports be submitted briefly.

7) ICANN CCWG Status

JC stated that the ASO liaisons in the CCWG are doing a great job. JC considered that the ASO representatives in the CCWG could do, as much coordination is necessary. JC observed documents discussed in Paris meeting were not sent out publicly until the very end of the meeting so any coordination with the community of the ASO/NRO was impossible.

JC reminded that ARIN legal review on the designator model was submitted as discussion document so the CCWG could have all facts in hands. JC said that CCWG legal team disagreed in the legal assessment of the document and suggested to move towards the members model. JC said it was important to have written records of why and when the CCWG was taken such direction.

AP suggested to comeback to this point once the ASO representatives join the meeting at 12:00 PM UTC.

8) RIR Accountability Review RIR Status

AP reported that RIPE NCC started the process with an independent firm and they are filling the information at the moment.

JC said they deferred the work for two weeks as the firm on charge was the same that did the California Corporate law review but he would redirect the efforts now.

PW said that APNIC has a firm doing the work right now and it’d take two weeks to have the first results.

AB said that he is contacting a second firm this week, as he didn’t receive reply from their first choice.

OR confirmed that the LACNIC Board chose a local firm, OR expects to have results in three weeks.

AP thanked all reports.

9) Joint RIR Stability Fund Update

AP considered all the discussion on the matter was done during the open action review and suggested to move to the next topic.

10) IGF IPv6 Best Practice Forum Update

JC said he received a request to fund the IGF IPv6 best practice forum. JC expressed concern in creating a precedent of funding panels as NRO expenses could increase fast.

PW clarified that APNIC is supporting Susan Chalmers to work in the IPv6 Best Practice Forum.

AP asked who was owning this project within the NRO.

PW said that the ownership was not clear. PW added that with more resources more work could be done and for that reason APNIC was supporting Chalmers role in the project.

AP suggested that someone from the NRO should take up the coordination with Susan Chalmers, AP suggested Paul Rendek for the role. AP said that also staff time could be a good way of supporting the Forum in addition to financial support.

AP asked if there were other commitments from other RIR.

OR confirmed that LACNIC received information from Susan Chalmers but they haven’t committed yet.

PR confirmed that RIPE NCC is involved with two members of the staff that are involved since the drafting concept of the forum.

JC asked PW if the IPv6 best practice forum was important enough for the NRO to formally support the project by assigning a budget and specific goals.

PW answered it’d be great if the IPv6 best practice forum in the IGF were a NRO project as it requires a substantial amount of work. PW reminded that in Buenos Aires meeting he stressed in the importance to support this particular edition of the 10th anniversary of the IGF. PW pointed out that at the beginning of the IGF people wondered if the IPv6 was going to be successful so this IPv6 best practice forum could bring results of what happened in the last 10 years.

PR suggested that support should start with more RIR staff in the project.

AP asked PR to coordinate with Susan Chalmers and other RIRs on how to support the IPv6 Best Practice Forum

JC asked PR to comeback with a revised proposal for the NRO on required resources, objectives and distribution of tasks.

Being 12:00 PM UTC AP suggested moving back to item 7 of the agenda.

7) ICANN CCWG Status (Second Part)

AP welcomed JV, FA and AF to the teleconference and asked AF to give a report of the outcomes of the CCWG meeting in Paris.

AF reported in summary the following points.

  • CCWG agreed in a single membership model where a sole big member will be part of ICANN, being this one the current AC and SO groups.
  • GAC expressed concerns, as they wont be able to become members and have the same enforceability rights of other members.
  • Enforceability rights was really important for some members of the CCWG
  • The designators model was not supported because according to CCWG legal advisors doesn’t provide enforceability rights to members,
  • ICANN didn’t like the single membership model.
  • CCWG is waiting for a more detailed description and legal analysis from the lawyers
  • Regarding the ASO, we can keep the procedures that we have
  • The appointment and removal of Directors could be described in the ASO procedures and it only needs the approval of the ASO for its implementation.
  • The ASO might have to review his accountability procedures.
  • IRP procedures won’t include the numbers part.
  • New proposal is due to be published by July 31st and it’d be open for consultation for eight days.
  • About ARIN memo it was sent to the list as informative material.

AP thanked AF for her report and asked JV and FA if they wanted to add anything to the report

FA added that there are discussions on giving to the GAC more weight on their recommendations having in mind that there will be no USG oversight of ICANN/IANA.

JC asked to the ASO liaisons in the CCCWG to enquire during the comment period the details of the implementation aspects of the single membership model. JC stressed about the importance to fully understand the operational impacts for the numbers community of the proposed model.

FA mentioned about the importance of having a coordinated position from the NRO EC at the moment to send contributions to the CCWG. FA said the submission of the legal memo from ARIN brought confusion as it was interpreted by the CCWG as a position of the number community.

JC said the rules of engagement established by the CCWG make impossible for their members to work in a common position in coordination with their communities. JC mentioned the example of the single model proposal was presented eight days before Paris meeting, which not give enough time for any consultation with the community. JC reminded that CCWG mailing list is closed, only for the submission of CCWG members.

AP thanked AF, IO, FA and JV for joining the meeting.

11) Next EC Meetings

11.a) Next Teleconference

NRO EC agreed that next teleconference would be on Tuesday August 18th at 10:00 AM UTC, one hour earlier than the normal time.

11.b) Next face-to-face meeting – Confirmation

After considering ICG meetings in Dublin the NRO EC agreed to meet face-to-face on Sunday October 18th 2015 afternoon, before the start of ICANN Meeting.

11) AOB

No AOB was presented.

12) Adjourn

AP adjourned the meeting at 13:30 UTC

 

 

Comments are closed.