Minutes of the NRO EC Teleconference meeting held on Tuesday August 18th 2015 at 10:00 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
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Invited:
Izumi Okutani (IO)
Nurani Nimpuno (NN)
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
DRAFT AGENDA NRO EC Tuesday August 18th 2015
0.- Welcome
1.- Agenda Review
2.- Review of Minutes
a) April 21st
b) May 2nd
c) June 15th
d) June 23rd
e) July 21st
3.- Review Open Actions
4.- CG Input / Consultation
5.- IANA Stewardship Transition Status
6.- ICANN CCWG Status
7.- RIR Accountability Review RIR Status
8.- IANA business process work
9.- Next EC Meetings
a) Next Teleconference – Scheduled – 15 September 11:00 AM UTC
b) Next face-to-face meeting – Scheduled – Sunday Afternoon October 18th – Dublin
10.- AOB
11.- Adjourn
0. Welcome
AP welcomed all meeting participants and started the teleconference at 10:05 AM UTC.
1. Agenda Review
AP thanked IO for proposing an agenda to discuss with CRISP Team representatives. AP suggested to adopt the agenda sent by IO for the joint EC – CRISP Team representatives as follows.
Agenda Joint NRO EC – CRISP Team August 18 2015
1. Agenda Review
2. Status update from the CRISP
a. General status
b. RIR Comms plan
c. CRISP Revised Charter
3. Status update from the RIRs
a. Review Committee: Next Step
b. RIR Statement of commitment
c. RIR accountability review
4. ICG proposal
a. CRISP Team status, overview of response
b. RIR status: if any
c. IPR, including Term Sheet with the IETF Trust
5. SLA ver.2
a. CRISP Team Status
b. Next step
6. Other preparation
a. “separability” per function
b. US Congressional hearing
7. AOB
Joint NRO EC – CRISP Team Meeting
2. Status update from the CRISP
a. General status
IO reported that the CRISP Team is working on three activities; the first one is the response to the ICG proposal; the second, in coordination with other communities and the ICG chairs, the definition of the intellectual property rights aspects of the IANA transition and finally the response to the second version of the numbers community SLA.
b. RIR Communications plan
IO reported, that the CRISP Team has been working in coordination with RIR staff on a communications strategy plan that includes improvements in the NRO website and messages for the different stages of the transition. IO mentioned about the creation of a new video explaining the process and the development of long-term political messages. IO mentioned also about the cooperation with ICANN in the development of slides explaining the number community proposal and an info graphic that is now published in the NRO website.
PR said that three videos are in the pipeline, one it’s an explanation of where we are at the IANA transition process, the second is an explanation of the ICG proposal and what means for the numbers community and the third one is a video interview to IO and NN.
NN added that the she and IO are coordinating with ICG comms team and passing all relevant information to the RIR IANA communications team so the information could be pushed out to the regional communities. NN said that from now on communications would be an important aspect of the process as it’s expected that people would speak to the press, the US congress and other parties. NN asked for open channels for a synchronized and collaborative communications efforts with the NRO.
c. CRISP Revised Charter
IO said that based on the last meeting with the NRO EC, the CRISP Team is working in a revised charter for the CRISP Team, this would allow them to help in communication and consultations after the proposal is submitted by the ICG. IO mentioned as example the case that the NTIA would comeback for clarification about the number community proposal.
AP invited IO to submit the text to the NRO EC once it’s ready.
3. Status update from the RIR
a. Review Committee: Next Step
AP reminded that there were no substantive comments for the review committee and the EC should agree in the next steps.
PR said that Athina is working in the comments matrix and depending on this we could have a second version out for comments.
IO said that it would be helpful to have the members of the review committee appointed by the time of the congressional review of the proposal.
NN mentioned that the NTIA could sell the proposal easier to the congress if the RIR proves the lack of governmental control in the review committee,.
PW pointed out that there are time constraints for APNIC in order to appoint Asia Pacific region representatives to the review committee before the next APNIC meeting, which it’s in three weeks time.
AB suggested going ahead and try to establish the members of the review committee as quickly as we can.
AP asked PW if APNIC could do their appointment before the coming APNIC meeting.
PW said he might need to consider it for the next couple of days. PW said that if they cannot do it then the appointment would be made in late February 2016.
PW asked that given the 12 months extension to the IANA contract the RIR need to rush the appointments to the review committee.
AP said that congress review might come at the first months of 2016.
PW said he would check if this could be done in the next APNIC meeting.
JC suggested avoiding to have any open items by the moment of the congress review in February 2016.
AP agreed with JC and suggested to have the review committee members in place in a reasonable time, preferably before the end of the year. AP suggested discussing further about this later during the EC part of the agenda.
b. RIR Statement of commitment
IO reminded about the discussions in Buenos Aires about the preparation of a RIR statement assuring that in the case the IANA changes operator the RIR would commit to the NTIA criteria of selecting a non-intergovernmental organization.
AP said that there is no progress in that matter. AP added that the NRO EC would need to discuss the form of the statement.
NN suggested keeping consideration the ICG timeline. NN reminded that the deadline for comments are September 8th.
c. RIR accountability review
AP briefed about the RIR independent accountability review lead by ARIN consultants.
JC reminded that each RIR should decide what information could be released to the public.
IO thanked the information. IO said that it was important to prepare for this as she was expecting questions about RIR accountability from US congress or the NTIA
PR asked IO and NN if they have heard someone pointing to the RIR accountability issue.
NN said that the ICG have questions about accountability and if ICG have questions, the NTIA will have and eventually the US congress. NN recognized the importance of the sensible issues around the RIR accountability review but she strongly asked that something be presented according to the transition timelines.
AB asked if the NRO EC could publicly say that we are conducting a review.
AP confirmed that RIPE NCC has publicly revealed they are taking the review.
JC agreed that the NRO EC should be able to state publicly the RIR accountability review. JC considered unlikely to have the independent accountability review ready by ICANN meeting in Dublin. However, JC pointed out the importance to have the final report before the end of year so the GAO could assess it and include it in their conclusions. JC agreed that this activity is key, as will have the attention from GAO and US congress.
AP agreed.
PW reminded that the RIR engaged proactively and as a preventive measure in a review of their accountability mechanisms in a form of a matrix that has been announced and published in the NRO website. PW considered that the accountability review is an ongoing process where improvements could be made in any moment. PW said that the internal review might resolve not to produce a particular public summary. PW added that this issue is not under CRISP role or that they should feel forced to answer questions about this.
NN said that it was clear it was not the role of the CRISP, however she said that questions have come up when she and IO are explaining the number community proposal. NN mentioned it was important to answer questions in a satisfactory manner to those who have an opinion. NN added that she and IO would need to answer questions in the US congress so they need to answer questions in the most competent manner and pointing to actual documents.
JC agreed with PW that the RIR accountability review it’s an ongoing process. JC said it was important to establish the right expectations, as the final wrap up could be a communication of the status of the review with no many details on it. JC said that a first draft of the accountability review could be a roadmap for someone who want to harm the RIR system.
IO mentioned that it’d be important to work together with the NRO EC on having clear messages on the RIR accountability.
AP invited IO to send any questions that needs answers from the RIR.
OR suggested to try to separate the accountability and the capture risk parts in order to have something to publish.
AP sympathized with OR suggestion, but he said we should wait for the reports and the authorizations at the board levels on what can be made public.
4. ICG proposal
a. CRISP Team status, overview of response
IO said that the CRISP team would send their response to the ICG proposal consultation this week. IO said that they would look for wider number community support so this can be documented for the NTIA and US congress review.
PW considered that direct responses to the ICG proposal from the number community was an unrealistic task as there is a lot of content to digest that it’s not relevant to our community. Instead, PW suggested that the numbers community focus and support CRISP analysis and run a campaign around that.
IO agreed with PW on the approach. IO said she would like to have some sort of endorsement from the community on the CRISP analysis.
NN pointed out the importance of having explicit support from the community, as this would facilitate the evaluation process. NN asked if the EC is planning to answer the ICG consultation questions.
AP said that the EC has not considered yet the matter but he suggested doing it along the lines of the community feedback.
b. RIR status: if any
No RIR status was discussed.
c. IPR, including Term Sheet with the IETF Trust
IO reported that the CWG is still discussing based on what they have in the table and the recommendations from the lawyers. IO said that there are concerns that the number community proposal on IPR could cause a delay in case of inconsistencies with the ICG proposal. IO added that based on dialog with ICG chairs, CWG and IANA plan they would try to agree in a direction consistent with the number community proposal on moving it from ICANN to the IETF Trust or an independent entity agreed by the community. IO reminded that ICANN Board has publicly supported this.
AP confirmed what IO said based on conversations with Elise during last IETF.
PW said that these discussions have taken two tracks, one on what it needs to be decided before the transition and the second one on what could be resolved afterwards. PW said that the agreement of moving the Intellectual Properties rights has been made by ICANN Board. PW confirmed that Steve Crocker included iana.org on this transfer. As part of the second track, PW said that now they need to agree where it goes but this could be done after the transition.
5. SLA ver.2
a. CRISP Team Status
IO said that the CRISP Team would prepare their comments on the second version of the SLA. IO said that the CRISP Team would comment on the following aspects.
1.- Comments made in the first version were adequately considered
2.- Changes from the first versions don’t produce any inconsistencies with the original number community proposal
3.- Clarification of next steps in the consultation process.
4.- The expectation of the CRISP Team that after ICANN negotiations, the resulting SLA won’t have inconsistencies with the original number community proposal.
b. Next steps
AP reminded that the second version of the SLA is open for comments until August 31st. AP confirmed that he sent an invitation to ICANN to send comments on this second version and stated the expectations that future negotiations would remain open and transparent to the community.
6. Other preparation
a. “separability” per function
IO asked about the scenario of having a separation of the IANA services and having the number services in a different organization of the other two functions.
IO said that she anticipates questions about this issue from the NTIA and the US Congress. She suggested being prepared and give reassurance that in case of separation this wouldn’t cause instability.
AP considered that the current understanding of the number community is to keep the functions together now without precluding that this could be separated in the future in case is needed.
PW confirmed that the ICG consider the IANA functions essentially separable.
PW said that the separation of the functions it’s not an invention of the RIR but it’s been widely recognized by the ICG early in the process.
IO said that it’d be important to demonstrate that the separation of functions is not a disaster. IO suggested starting collecting facts and preparing arguments for these messages.
AP suggested incorporating this in the communications plan.
b. US Congressional hearing
IO said she would like to coordinate and communicate closely with the NRO EC for any intervention with the US Congress.
7. AOB
No topics were discussed under AOB.
AP thanked IO and NN for joining the NRO EC Teleconference.
IO and NN left the meeting at 11:45 AM UTC
Regular NRO EC Teleconference
1.- Agenda Review
AP asked for any additions to the agenda.
No new items were added.
2.- Review of Minutes
a) April 21st
b) May 2nd
c) June 15th
d) June 23rd
e) July 21st
AP asked about the last status of the minutes approvals.
GV confirmed that all NRO EC members have approved April 21st, May 2nd, June 15th and June 23rd minutes. GV said that July 21st is only missing JC feedback.
3.- Review Open Actions
AP
Action Item 150421-01: AP talk to ISOC and find out how their IGF contributions will be used.
AP confirmed the completion of the action item. AP reminded about the email he sent on this matter to the EC list.
Status: COMPLETED
CCG
Action Item 150623-01: CCG and GV to draft a public announcement on the creation of the Joint RIR Stability Fund.
GV confirmed the publication of the announcement in the NRO website and social media.
Status: COMPLETED
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.
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 suggested to have a deadline from the EC on the second phase.
Status: In Progress.
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.
PW considered very difficult to produce the compiled document as such commonalities might have different strategic values in the different RIR.
PW suggested having in the NRO Website a list of URL pointing to the different RIR strategic plans.
GV said he would redraft the action.
Status: CLOSED
New Action Item: 150821-01: GV to compile a list of URL pointing to RIR strategic plans and publish them in the NRO website.
Action Item 1505020-06: GV to coordinate with NRO treasurer the contribution of 100,000 USD to IGF through UNDESA.
GV confirmed that the required documents have been signed and authorized by AP and now the information are with ARIN finance staff that will process the bank transfer soon. GV would confirm to the EC list once the action is completed.
Status: In Progress.
4.- CG Input / Consultation
CCG
NH reported that the CCG has been updated the IPv6 content in the NRO website. NH mentioned about the preparation work for the coming IGF, NH said that the CCG is working in the NRO continuing cooperation document and IPv6 Around the World document which will be used as supported document in the IPv6 BPF. NH mentioned that the CCG would be sending a proposal to the EC about the RIR open forum during the IGF.
GV reminded the EC about the communications plan mentioned in the previous meeting with the CRISP Team and asked the EC to provide any input if any asap.
PACG
PR reminded about the second draft report of the CCWG would be open for comments until September 12th. PR mentioned that RIPE Legal staff is running a review and a report would be available for the EC later. PR requested the NRO EC to support the IPv6 BPF through the involvement of IPv6 staff. PR added that the PACG is looking for a date and venue for the second meeting of the year.
5.- IANA Stewardship Transition Status
AP asked if there is any action as consequence of the recent announcement of the NTIA to extend ICANN contract by one year.
JC said that the extension could be interpreted by some to go back to the scenario of having a single transition of the three communities. JC suggested having a new face-to-face meeting with NTIA in Dublin to follow up on the discussions from Buenos Aires. JC said that the number community should not be penalized because the names community didn’t put a good proposal forward.
PW asked if all were happy with the ICANN proposal transition of the IPR to an independent neutral organization.
AP confirmed he was ok with the plan.
JC confirmed he was ok with the proposal and asked what would be the format to communicate the support of the ICANN’s statement on IPR.
AP suggested to reply Steve Crocker email and cc global IANA transfer mailing list.
New Actions Item 150818-02: AP to reply to Steve Crocker email’s (cc global IANA transfer mailing list) and support ICANN statement about the IPR transition proposal.
AP asked about the next steps on the review committee formation. AP asked PW if APNIC would be in the position to appoint their members during next APNIC meeting.
PW expressed concerns of being able to do the appointments by the time of APNIC meeting in Jakarta in three weeks. PW stressed that it was important for the community to understand the purpose and scope of the review committee and then give weeks time for nomination and selection process. PW mentioned it could be possibly to make the introduction of the topic during Jakarta meeting and run an online election but he had to think about it and consult with APNIC board.
6.- ICANN CCWG Status
AP asked if the NRO should comment now that the second draft is out for comments.
JC stated that the primary approach of the proposal is the single member structure where a community council will have super powers to change bylaws and remove directors. JC said that in this model the ASO would have a certain amount of votes but won’t be able to designate directly directors to the board.. JC said a way to comment could be trough questions like if the 5 votes for the RIR could be submitted independently or as block as NRO. JC said that if the NRO objects we need to comment.
7.- RIR Accountability Review RIR Status
AP asked for a round of reports on the status of this project in each RIR.
AP reported that RIPE NCC has received the first draft from the independent firm and it has been presented to the Board for their review.
JC briefed that ARIN put in hold the project as the firm was working in the CCWG analysis. JC said that they are working back into this project and expects to have first results in one-month time. JC said he would request the point of contact of the responsible of each project in each RIR so they can coordinate with the ARIN independent firm the next steps of the review.
OR said that he received the first draft from the independent firm but it could require revisit the work as it’s mostly focus in the capture risk part. OR expressed concerns that a joint report could be produce due to different levels of information.
AP suggested continuing with the plan, as it was still early in the process to determine the possible results.
PW said that the report will be discussed with APNIC board in the Jakarta meeting and he would be able to have more information after that point.
AB reported that that he has identified a legal firm in Mauritius and he would meet with them to define the details of the work.
8.- IANA business process work
PW reported that the RIR staff involved in the project are working well and have a clear picture on how the IANA number functions works. PW expects to pass soon the information to the IANA staff for their review. PW mentioned that Elise Gerich would be in Jakarta so he would take the opportunity to advance on this matter there. PW reminded that the objective was to have a full BPM process map attached to the SLA.
OR asked PW if there is another round the conversations among the RIR.
PW answered that it might require another round so all parties are confident with the map. PW said that there is enough time to make more consideration if needed.
9.- Next EC Meetings
a) Next Teleconference – Scheduled – 15 September 11:00 AM UTC
b) Next face-to-face meeting – Scheduled – Sunday Afternoon October 18th – Dublin
Both meetings were confirmed.
AP suggested to review a possible face-to-face meeting before IGF meeting.
10.- AOB
No other topics were discussed.
11.- Adjourn
AP adjourned the meeting at 12:45 PM UTC.
Last modified on 19/04/2016