August 20th, 2014
Teleconference 11:00 AM UTC
Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC Chair
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC Treasurer
John Curran (JC) ARIN
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Neriah Sossou (NS) AFRINIC
Madhvi Gokool (MG) AFRINIC
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Hartmut Glaser (HG) LACNIC
Antony Gollan (AG) RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Secretary
German Valdez (GV) NRO
AA welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 11:0 AM UTC. AA acknowledged that there were no representatives from RIPE NCC but expecting they’d join the teleconference later.
1) Agenda Review
AA asked for any additions or changes to the agenda.
PW asked to add about the GAC proposal to ICANN on GAC advise and which it’s under discussion in the PACG list and the status of the ASO review.
AA accepted PW suggestion. AA suggested adding the GAC item in the CG reports/consultation section of the agenda and the status of the ASO review in AOB.
JC asked to discuss about the next NRO EC face-to-face meeting. JC suggested avoiding last minute arrangements.
AA suggested including the discussion on AOB.
JC advised he had to leave the meeting by 12:00 PM UTC.
2) Review Open Actions.
Action Item 140714-01: AA to send to the RIR board mailing list the information about the efforts for all RIR to run an accountability review.
Action Item 140714-02: AP to draft a public communication to the ICANN board regarding the RIR whois db policies are not subject to ICANN whois policies.
Action Item 140714-03 AP and PR to draft an informative and educational document to be incorporated to the accountability review process on RIR whois db.
Action Item 170614-01: PACG to work in a set of common questions to be used across the RIRs consultation process and bundle them with a commonly shared supporting background document for Number Resource Management.
Status: In progress
PR joined the meeting at 11:12 AM UTC
Action Item 170614-02: AA to finalise the RIR engagement timeline for IANA stewardship transition process document and organise his publication.
AA reminded about the draft RIR engagement timeline. AA asked that the PACG and CCG provide feedback and moved to be published soon.
JC agreed with the publication of the timeline. JC suggested working in the questions to coordinate the process in the coming phases.
AA said that details could be discussed in the IANA stewardship transition agenda item.
PR agreed that the publication of the timeline should be done soon. PR said that all RIRs need to be sure that their particular timeline coincide with the NRO version.
Status: In progress.
Action Item 170614-03: NRO EC to look for a clear view from ICANN about the deadline for the RIR contribution to the IANA stewardship transition process.
Action Item 180214-05: AA and GV to work with the CFO to determine the indirect cost from each RIR in their support to NRO activities.
GV reported that he started to discuss this action in the CFO list. GV said that he briefed the CFO about the discussions in Dubai.
AA suggested to have a timeline on this action and asked to have a report by the next EC teleconference.
Status: In progress.
3) Approval of Pending Minutes
AA asked if there were any comments regarding June 14th and July 14th 2014 minutes.
EM pointed out that his name was duplicated in the NRO EC members and observers list.
JC said he was ok with June minutes but he still he needed to review July one.
AA moved to approve June minutes and postpone July for the next meeting.
JC and PW agreed.
AA asked GV to confirm that draft versions are already published in the NRO website.
GV confirmed that at the moment both minutes are published as draft in the NRO website.
4) CG Input/Consultation
PR reported on behalf of the PACG. PR said they are finalizing their agenda for the PACG f2f meeting to be held on August 31st in Istanbul. PR said that RIPE NCC staff is working in the principles and questions that the RIR should have on place for the IANA transition process. PR mentioned that the PACG should have it ready after the IGF but before APNIC meeting so this is ready for the RIR community.
AA asked PR if the document is including what the RIRs already have in place in terms of documenting IANA oversight.
PR said RIPE NCC is working in three components. PR said that one component includes a preamble text of the process; principles to be followed in the new framework once removed the NTIA oversight and some specific questions related to the transitions process. PR said they are working so the content of this set be generic enough to be used by all RIR. PR added that the second component is an explanation of what is the NTIA and its role which is not very clear in the RIR community and the third component is a group of scenarios of the outcome of the IANA transition process.
AA said that the background should include what the RIR and the NRO have in place right now like the RFC, the letter of intent and the service agreements we have with IANA/ICANN and are yet not visible.
PR confirmed that they are working on those aspects as well.
AA asked to have the questions document and the one mentioned by PR submitted together to the EC for approval.
PR summarized the work currently done by RIPE NCC staff, as first component is the NTIA explanation, second what the RIR have in place and the third is the framework to have in place once removing the NTIA oversight.
PW asked if RIPE NCC works it’s in coordination with the PACG. PW advised to avoid work in different directions.
PR agreed and confirmed that so far only RIPE NCC staff has worked on the initial documents described before. PR said that they’d share the document into the PACG list in the coming days.
AA advised PR to share with PACG and CCG to avoid duplication of work.
PR agreed in sharing sooner rather than later.
PW asked PR if the PACG have discussed about the ICANN public comment call on how ICANN board should process GAC advises.
AA said that the PACG haven’t discussed on the topic yet. AA suggested that the topic be moved to the EC for discussion. AA mentioned that it’s an important issue to discuss and review its impact on the RIRs.
JC asked that the information be shared in the EC list.
AA asked GV to circulate the information.
AA continued by mentioned that the ICG was planning to have a session in the coming IGF. AA advised that the PACG keep on eye on the agenda of the sessions, as they might need to provide input on the RIR consultation timeline plans.
GV advised AA to discuss IGF matters in the point 8 of the agenda.
AA agreed and moved for the ECG to provide their input or consultation.
NS reported on behalf of the ECG. NS said that the ECG met in the last IETF in Toronto. NS mentioned that the ECG would like to recommend placing the cross-RIR certification process on hold and continue with the current TA structures. This would be reviewed at the point in time when the work on the testing of a GTA resumes.
NS reported that The APNIC – ARIN tests have so far confirmed that the DNS coordination requires some operational care. The outstanding issues relate to RPKI-mediated movement. NS said that the objective of a comprehensive technical procedure to support business operations and scenarios for RPKI has yet to be undertaken.
NS said that a workshop was held at APNIC’s office from July 7th – 18th. The main objective was to work on an operational process to follow on the development of open source software of the WHOIS. RIPE NCC, APNIC and AFRINIC participated in this workshop given that they use the same WHOIS codebase. NS pointed out that the exercise was quite fruitful as all problems experienced were identified and solutions proposed. NS suggested that a second workshop should be organized to pursue this activity before the end of 2014
NS reported on RPKI Statements of Commitment or Expectations and how the RIR measure/cross-monitor and report issues on various repos. NS said that LACNIC uses a script to monitor RPKI repositories, using the RIPE NCC validator and secondly performing a timed “rsync” fetch. NS added that the RIPE Atlas anchors that are located close to RIR repository publication points could be a useful correlation of network performance to RPKI repository sync operation. NS mentioned that LACNIC and APNIC are looking at a distributed repository solution.
On RESTful API for hosted CA functionality NS reported that ARIN has a deployed interface and other RIRs have looked at and do not think it is compatible with their models. NS said LACNIC has a proposal, which was presented and each RIR will keep each other informed of their efforts.
AA thanked NS for the report.
AA asked MG to give a report on behalf of the RSCG.
MG reminded the EC the request to meet f2f in RIPE NCC meeting in London.
AA asked the EC for approval for the RSCG f2f meeting in London.
All EC members in the call approved the meeting.
AA asked GV for any report.
GV reported on the launch of the new ASO website on August 14th 2014. GV Thanked the CCG and specially RIP NCC staff who worked on the new website. GV mentioned that the ASO AC members reviewed the new website in their London meeting and provided feedback for one month. GV added that based on the feedback received there are more work to do in the ASO website but that would be left for a second phase. GV reminded that the launch of the website was the last piece to complete the ASO review recommendation.
5) IANA Stewardship Transition Updates
AA reported that the ICG is working in the organizational documents that will guide the work of the group. AA mentioned that a draft charter has been shared for comments and some of the inputs have been incorporated in a second version. AA said that ICANN would provide the ICG secretariat support.
PW added that a request for proposal (RFP) is under discussion in the ICG. PW said that the ICG is aiming to release the RFP for comments before the IGF.
AA asked for any questions on the last discussions on the ICG.
No questions were raised.
AA asked about the idea of organizing global discussion under the NRO umbrella instead of focusing in regional discussion. AA stressed also in the importance on publishing the RIR consultation timeline.
PW said that regional diversification is important. PW expressed doubt in a global would be the right approach.
PR said that the process is advanced to consider a global approach for the consultation.
AA welcomed the input and said that regional discussion would show the dynamics of the RIR communities.
EM reported that the LACNIC have open discussion on the transition for the last 2 months. EM said that LACNIC would create a committee of 3 members to moderate, promote and consolidate the regional input. EM mentioned that as planned in the timeline they would include consultation session in the coming LACNIC meeting in Santiago de Chile. EM asked AA how the regional input would be consolidated.
AA referred to the information in the timeline. AA suggested that the PACG and CCG would consolidate the regional input once all 5 consultations are completed before the final document is sent to the ICG. AA stressed again in the importance of publishing the timelines as soon as possible.
PR asked what body would sign off the consolidated input.
AA agreed it was a good question that deserves further consideration.
6) RIR Accountability Review Update
AA thanked the PACG for the preparation of the comparative RIR governance matrix. AA said that the EC has submitted changes to the document.
PW said that the matrix should not be a static document and should be subject to periodical reviews. PW said it was a good survey document but some work should be done to offer more clarity and maybe use it as a map of the accountability process in all RIR including the IANA consultation process. PW
AA said that tend to agree with PW. AA mentioned that the document should be a first step to bring more clarity in the accountability process to the RIR community.
PR said that the comparative governance matrix document was not the end of the road and it could be used as a foundation for further steps. PR suggested that the EC elaborate the next phase to develop by the RIR staff.
PW said that the document is ready for publication as snapshot and state of current situation. PW suggested that, as a next there should be a harmonization of terminology and measurements. PW added that the RIR should be in the position to offer in complete clarity that they have full accountable and transparent to engage with an independent IANA/ICANN services.
AA agreed with PW. AA mentioned that current accountability and transparency framework could include community and peer reviews.
ND agreed with PR on the EC should discuss more on the specific steps to be taken in the development of the RIR comparative governance matrix.
EM agreed with PW. EM reported that LACNIC is currently engage in improving accountability and transparency processes.
PW suggested exploring more the peer review idea suggested by AA.
AA suggested to continue the discussion online and publish the document in the NRO website. AA said that the RIR should be advised about the publication of the document.
7) NETmundial Initiative
PW said that unfortunately there no much information on the NETmundial initiative. PW suggested that the NRO EC review the documentation around the NETmundial initiative and discuss the proposal. PW expected that after the launch in Geneva there would be more information to be discussed.
AA said that the NRO should focus in the principle and objective and each RIR establish his approach to NETmundial. AA said the NRO could take the opportunity to make comments on the report on the High Level Panel in Internet Governance.
AA asked who was attending the launch of NETmundial Initiative in Geneva. AA confirmed his participation.
PW confirmed he was attending.
EM said he had no plan to participate.
AA suggested resuming discussion after August 28th, in order to have better element to determine a clear NRO position.
8) IGF Preparations
GV reported on the preparation for the NRO. GV mentioned that the CCG have worked in a set of three documents that would be included in the delegation bag in the event. GV said the NRO brochure, IPv6 around the world and an IANA oversight postcard were printed on time to be included in the delegation bag. GV said that logistics as the NRO booth were on track. GV added that there was plans to re-launch the NRO twitter account during the IGF in Istanbul. GV reminded about the requested information on RIR staff participation in workshops so they could be covered and CCG staff and include their contribution in the NRO twitter account. GV asked the EC to review a doodle poll intended to organize a NRO EC f2f meeting in Istanbul.
ASO Independent Review
GV reported that with the launch of the ASO website all recommendations from ITEMS report are now completed. GV would prepare a letter and full report to be sent to ICANN board on the completion of ASO independent review.
Action Item 140820-01: GV to draft a letter to ICANN Board and full report of ASO independent review.
NRO EC f2f meeting
AA suggested to review the doodle poll for the second EC f2f meeting and decide the time and venue as soon as possible.
AA adjourn the meeting at 13:30 UTC
Last modified on 22/12/2014