22 December 2014

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 140923

MINUTES

September 23rd, 2014
Teleconference 11:00 AM UTC

Executive Council:

Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC   Chair
Axel Pawlik (AP)        RIPE NCC    Secretary
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC      Treasurer
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
John Curran (JC) ARIN

Observers:

Madhvi Gokool (MG) AFRINIC
Neriah Sossou (NS) AFRINIC
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Carlos Martinez (CM) LACNIC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC

Secretariat:

German Valdez (GV) NRO

Draft Agenda

0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) Review Action Item
3) Minutes Approval
a) July 17th 2014
b) August 20th 2014
4) CG Input/Consultation
5) IANA Stewardship Transition Update
6) RIR Accountability Review Update
7) IGF Debrief
9) ICANN 51 Preparations
10) AOB
11) Adjourn

0) Welcome

AA welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 11:15 AM UTC.

1) Agenda Review

AA asked for any additions or changes to the agenda.

PW mentioned that he was out of town and with a crashed computer so he was not able to track the movements in the webex platform.

No additions were made and the agenda was adopted as above.

2) Review Open Actions.

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

AP said that RIPE NCC has some documentation in-house where they would base the letter.

Status: Pending

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.

AP. mentioned that the document is ready and it’d be shared to the EC list.

Status: In Progress

Action Item: 170614-01: PACG to work in a set of common questions to be used across the RIR consultation process and bundle them with a commonly shared supporting background document for Number Resource Management.

Status: Done.

Action Item 170614-02: AA to finalize the RIR engagement timeline for IANA stewardship transition process document and organize his publication.

AA said that the RIR timeline needs to be aligned to the one published by ICG.

Status: Done

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 said that the topic would be discussed in the coming CFO meeting.

Status: In Progress.

Action Item 140820-01: GV to draft a letter to ICANN Board and full report of ASO independent review.

GV mentioned that the letter has been drafted and sent to the EC list. GV added that he’d send the letter before the coming ICANN meeting.

Status: Done

3) Minutes Approval

JC moved to adopt both set of minutes July 17th 2014 and August 20th 2014.

All agreed

4) CG Input/Consultation.

PR reported on behalf of the PACG. PR mentioned that the PACG, as agreed in their Istanbul Meeting, in following the consultation process in all RIR communities.

PR reported that the PACG had a meeting with other I* organizations during the last IGF in order to coordinate efforts for the coming ITU Plenipotentiary (PP) meeting in South Korea. PR advised that ISOC committed to produce a matrix document with a description of proposals and documents that have an impact in Internet governance.

AA asked PT how critical is RIR high-level participation in the PP

PR advised the EC to participate in the PP meeting and be part of the process.

JC agreed with PR approach and highlighted the importance of engaging in the meeting. JC added said that ARIN would be participating of the PP.

NS on behalf of the ECG said that there were no major activities to report from the ECG except for the testing and documentation of Inter RIR transfer between ARIN and APNIC.

NH on behalf of the CCG reminded of the recent report sent to the EC list of the CCG activities and outcomes during the last IGF and the following up activities. NH said that the CCG would conduct a teleconference the next day to review their work plan activities. NH said that with GV are coordinating the transfer of secretariat support to LACNIC including a review an update of secretariat documentation.

PR mentioned that based on the report it’s important to keep working in IPv6 information for the IGF community. PR added that the CCG should work in the NRO branding vs RIR branding.

NH thanked PR for the comments. NH added that during the last IGF the CCG work in cooperation with PACG in the use of social media tools to promote RIR/NRO topics.

JC said that in order to go ahead with marketing and rebranding of the NRO, the NRO EC should work first in the NRO accountability mechanisms.

MG on behalf of the RSCG reported on the preparations of their face-to-face meeting in London during RIPE meeting. MG mentioned that IANA staff would be participating of the meeting in order to improve coordination with them on the coming IANA-RIR allocations.

AA reminded of the recent /12 allocation from IANA to the RIR.

5) IANA Stewardship Transition Update

AA asked PW about the results of the recent APNIC consultation session.

PW said that the discussion was based on the straw man proposal shared in the APNIC community in advance of the meeting. PW mentioned that the use of this approach was useful and welcomed by the AP community. PW considered that audience endorsed the proposal as it didn’t receive rejections and comments were positive. PW said that APNIC would follow closely the coming RIR consultations

AA said that AFRINIC would share the result of the APNIC consultation in their community.

JC thanked PW and APNIC for their forward thinking. JC considered that APNIC proposal would help to converge in a single global proposal. JC mentioned that currently in ARIN community they are asking how the global discussion and single proposal will be organized.

PW agreed with JC that the missing part is to define the global process and how the 5 communities would organize to submit a single proposal. PW said that some sort of global committee should be formed to oversee and drive the process and help in the elaboration of the single Number Community proposal to the ICG.

EM said that LACNIC would take APNIC proposal as a point of reference for their discussion in LACNIC region. EM agreed on the need to define soon the global process, including the creation of a new body or to strength the NRO NC to drive the global process.

JC said that ARIN community is concern that their regional proposal has a fair treatment during the single global proposal discussions.

JC advised that the NRO NC should keep their activities according to its mandate.

AA agreed with JC. AA mentioned the possibility of using the NRO as the global repository of the single proposal discussions.

PR advised that the NRO EC should avoid participating in the drafting process as this could send the wrong message to the community.

PR asked PW what would have change of their proposal after the experience of the consultation session in APNIC and what topics of discussions should other RIR to watch out.

PW said that the APNIC proposal was intentionally general in order to allow the community to develop further into the details. PW acknowledged that the original idea of stressing that no new oversight body was needed could be added to the proposal.

PR thanked PW and added that people are monitoring the discussions in other RIRs and we can expect that regional discussions would have impact among each other.

JC agreed with PR. JC advised that the definition of the body to draft the global proposal should be done a.s.a.p. in order to bring certainty and clarity to the community. JC suggested that the drafting team could be made of 2 representatives of each RIR community.

AP agreed with JC proposal and that the new body should be independent and community based.

AA welcomed JC proposal. AA agreed that the NRO NC should keep their focus in the global policy development process and have a different group to draft the single proposal to the ICG.

EM said that in LACNIC region they have a team made of one representative of LACNIC board, one from the NRO NC and one from the community who are driving and moderating the consultation process. EM said that 2 member of this team could be appointed to the proposed new body.

AA suggested adding the new body to the RIR timeline and moving forward in the creation of it. AA said that the charter details could be finalized in the coming EC face-to-face in Los Angeles.

GV advised that PW disconnected from the call.

PH said that PW was having problem with his phone line. PH said he’d report to PW on the outcome of the meeting.

AA asked PH if APNIC agreed with the creation of the ad-hoc group.

PH said the idea is not incompatible on what APNIC discussion has been so far. PH said that more scoping and details need to be developed.

JC offered to write a proposal for the NRO EC and making clear the scope and the activities to be performed of this ad-hoc group for the development of the single Number Community proposal for the ICG.

6) RIR Accountability Review Update

AA reminded of the work done by RIPE NCC staff on this. AA asked PR or AP to update on this matter.

PR reported on the development of Q&A document pointing to the accountability matrix and this should be ready to go. PR asked about the next stage of this effort.

AA said that the next step is to analyze the RIR accountability framework and propose improvements where is needed.

PR said he’d discuss with RIPE NCC staff on that

EM suggested starting thinking in the NRO accountability in this review process.
JC considered that the accountability matrix is a living document. JC said he was ok to have the document published but we could expect constant reviews and updates. JC said he’d like to suggest new information to be added like how the budget is developed and approved, board elections, etc.

JC advised that before looking for improvements we should provide full and detailed information on where we stand.

JC said that he was not ok in including the NRO in the accountability analysis, as the NRO is purely a coordination function with the each RIR taking any NRO-initiated actions thru their accountability to its own community.

AA mentioned that the NRO remains as coordination body only and the accountability aspects exist only at the RIR level.

PR suggested that the NRO EC review the ICANN accountability process and decide the level of participation in this process.

AA concluded that the accountability matrix document is to be considered a living document. AA asked RIPE NCC to work in its enhancement. AA considered that the NRO accountability should not be considered in the analysis, as it’s just a vehicle for RIR coordination.

JC agreed with AA on the matter of the accountability of the NRO. JC said that if the NRO is used only for better communication and coordination between the RIR, the NRO accountability is not an issue. JC said that if the NRO moves to a decision making body then the accountability aspects should be a concern.

7) IGF Debrief

AA thanked NH for the CCG report on their activities during IGF.

AA said that the NRO EC should follow up the MAG renewal process and nominate RIR staff to it.

AA mentioned that during the last IGF the RIR accountability efforts were positively mentioned in workshops and also the communication around the IANA stewardship transition information was welcomed.

PR asked to the NRO EC to discuss in the next face-to-face meeting what would be the RIR position about the IGF evolution, where the IGF should be going and the MAG renewal as PW and PR are leaving the MAG.

8) ICANN 51 Preparations

GV reported on the confirmation of the meeting with ICANN board and ICANN Regional Vice Presidents (RVP) on Wednesday October 15th. GV mentioned that he was in contact with Fadi’s staff to set up a meeting with him on Thursday. GV asked the NRO EC to discuss the topics to be brought to those meetings.

AA reminded he sent to the list the topics of the discussion with ICANN Board and advised to conclude the list of topics in the list by the end of the week. AA highlighted the importance of the meeting with ICANN RVP in order to improve RIR and ICANN coordination.

AA asked GV about any specific ASO activity during ICANN week

GV said that the ASO AC would have a teleconference next week and the topic was part of the agenda. GV mentioned that they could have activities related to the ICANN Board selection process that would formally start after ICANN meeting.

PR suggested discussing with Fadi about their plans on NETmundial initiative and about ICANN strategies on the regional relationship with the RIR

EM said that the RIR should not pursue to have a role in the NETmundial initiative. EM said that the topic has been discussed sufficiently with ICANN now. EM agreed with PR on the importance to enhance regional coordination with ICANN RVP. EM mentioned that in the case of LACNIC they have strong and clear relationship about their roles with ICANN LAC VP.

AA suggested that coordination with ICANN should be focus at regional level. AA said the RIR should be proactive and establish clear expectations with ICANN RVP. AA agreed to bring to the meeting with Fadi these points.

9) AOB

No AOB were discussed.

10) Adjourn

AA adjourned the meeting at 12:20 PM UTC

Comments are closed.