Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 150903

Minutes of the NRO EC Teleconference meeting held on Thursday September 3rd 2015 at 11:00 AM UTC

Executive Council:

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


Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC

German Valdez (GV) NRO

Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC Secretary

DRAFT AGENDA NRO EC Thursday September 3rd 2015

0.- Welcome
1.- ICG Response from NRO and/or RIR
2.- ICANN Board proposal on accountability
3. Status of SLA and RC Charter development, and next steps
4. Status of Accountability reviews
5.- Status of IANA BPMN development
6.- Adjourn

1. ICG response from NRO and/or RIRs – plan needed

PW reminded about the email that he sent to the NRO EC list with the main points of the NRO/RIR response to the ICG.

AP considered that there was rough consensus in PW suggestion. AP said that the communication group could use it as a starting point for a RIR joint statement.

AB agreed in the main points of PW suggestion and in the idea of a joint RIR statement.

PW volunteered to flesh out the response and comeback to the NRO EC with a response draft.

AP thanked PW.

2. ICANN Board proposal on accountability

PW reported on the CCWG and ICANN Board meeting the night before where ICANN Board expressed concerns about the CCWG proposal.

JC confirmed that he was present in the call with the CCWG and ICANN Board. JC said that the ICANN Board agreed with the principles of the reform but they disagree with the mechanisms included in the proposal.

AP asked if the proposal was still open for comments.

GV confirmed that comments are open until September 12th.

JC reminded that the CCWG included the single member model in their last draft so it was until now that the ICANN Board had a chance to comment on it. JC added that the model was introduced a week before Paris meeting and finally incorporated in the current proposal without considering the questions if the proposed model actually improves ICANN accountability.

PW suggested that the RIRs should have a neutral role on the matter as much as possible and focus on the transition.

JC agreed. JC considered that the practical aspects of the single member model are unknown.

AP asked if it was still worthy to comment on the designator model.

AB said that the current CCWG proposal affects the RIR as introduces a new layer for the numbers community in their appointments of their representatives into the ICANN Board. AB added that it’s not clear how ICANN Board in the new proposal is accountable to the number community.

AP agreed with AB. AB asked if the NRO should speak up about the situation.

PW suggested that the RIR should be clear that we are dedicated to the transition and we’d support a model that allows it.

JC agreed with PW.

AP said that NRO should not not fuel any criticism on the CCWG.

JC suggested that the position could be that the number community relies on contractual measures with ICANN as an accountability mechanism so the CCWG proposed reform is not paramount important for our community.

PW agreed.

AB agreed with JC.

AP thanked all for their comments.

3. Status of SLA and RC Charter development, and next steps

AP reminded of the meetings with ICANN to discuss the SLA in Dublin.

PW reported about some discussions with Elise Gerich.

PW said that so far there is no clear picture of what are the ICANN objections to the SLA.

AP said that he was ok in reviewing the NTIA clauses in the SLA and adjusts them to make them more palatable and practical.

PW said that when we started developing the SLA we assumed that all relevant NTIA provisions would need to be covered by the SLA. PW said that the NRO needs to know if there are any particular objections from ICANN to any of those.

JC said that he was ok to review provisions in the SLA however the RIRs should stand strongly on the concepts of the number community proposals. JC added that if there is any particular feedback from ICANN to the SLA, those should be made public.

AP agreed and suggested to be clear to ICANN in such expectations.

AP moved the discussion to the Review Committee

AB suggested to formally adopting the Review Charter before the coming APNIC meeting so all RIR starts their internal process to appoint members to the Committee. AB said that the committee itself could resolve some suggestions made to the charter.

AP agreed. AP asked GV to circulate the current draft for approval in the EC list.

PW clarified that there is no plan to have elections for the Review Committee in the coming APNIC meeting, because there was insufficient time for preparations.

AP asked if there were any thoughts about how each RIR would appoint their members to the committee. AP asked specifically about the idea of requesting current NRO NC members to be part of the Review Committee

PW considered that this option would simplify the process.

AB reminded that the charter mentioned that each RIR would have their own election mechanisms. AB considered that some RIRs might choose to have a single election for both groups.

PR suggested knowing LACNIC opinion in the matter.

4. Status of Accountability reviews

AP reported that they have a document that will be reviewed in October by the RIPE NCC board.

AB mentioned that he has engaged with a firm to do the job but they haven’t started yet.

JC reported that ARIN analysis is underway and it might need a couple of weeks before could be presented to the ARIN board which would review it in their October meeting.

PW said the APNIC process is still underway.

5.- Status of IANA BPMN development

PW thanked all the people that contributed to the project. PW pointed out that there were very productive meetings among RIR staff and as a result there is a good level of alignment and understanding on what we are doing. PW mentioned that the BPMN document still have some blanks that should be filled by IANA.

PW added that the documents represent an accurate customer view of what IANA services should be, and noted the current plan to attach them to the final version of the SLA.

JC suggested explaining to ICANN that the BPMN is a high level explanation of what the RIR are contracting for so they should be able to provide feedback in any blanks or any parts they don’t like.

AP, AB and PW agreed with the approach.

6. Adjourn

AP adjourned the meeting at 12:20 pm UTC

Last modified on 19/04/2016