18 October 2015

Meeting of the NRO Executive Council – 150915

Minutes of the NRO EC Teleconference meeting held on Tuesday September 15th 2015 at 11:00 AM UTC

Executive Council:

Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Chair
Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC Secretary
John Curran (JC) ARIN Treasurer
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
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC

Invited:

Izumi Okutani (IO)
Nurani Nimpuno (NN)
Steve Crocker (SC)

Apologies
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC

Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO

Draft Agenda NRO EC Teleconference September 15th 2015

0. Welcome
1. Agenda Review
2. CRISP Team Update
3. ICANN CCWG Status
4. Session with Steve Crocker
5. Review of Minutes
a) July 21st
b) August 18th
6. Review Open Actions
7. CG Input / Consultation
8. IANA Stewardship Transition Status
9. RIR Accountability Review RIR Status
10. IANA business process work
11. Next EC Meetings
a) Next f2f meeting – Scheduled – Sunday Afternoon October 18th – Dublin
b) Teleconference November 17th
c) End of year retreat.
12. AOB
13. Adjourn

0. Welcome

AP opened the teleconference and welcomed all participants at 11:05 AM UTC.

1. Agenda Review

AP reminded that the first 30 minutes would be dedicated to CRISP Team topics, followed by 30 minutes discussion on ICANN CCWG status. AP mentioned that Steve Crocker would join the call at 12:00 PM UTC.

2. CRISP Team Update

AP welcomed and thanked IO and NN for joining the meeting.

AP suggested to follow IO proposed agenda:

1.- ICG Proposal
2.- Accountability for RIR
3.- Preparing for US Congress
4.- IPR Status Update

ICG Proposal

IO mentioned that last comments have been supportive of the ICG proposal. IO highlighted that most of the comments from the number community are supportive of the proposal.

IO recommended that the RIR should be ready to answer questions about the possibility of changing the IANA functions operator.

NN asked if the ICG has any plan to support the transition.

AB answered that there is no such plan, as that should have been implemented 18 months ago when the ICG was created. AB said that the ICG is reviewing the comments and would consider any actions in their coming meeting in Los Angeles.

AP said that he would assume that after discussions in the RIR meeting and mailing lists there is support for the transition in the number community.

Accountability for RIRs

IO mentioned about the stress test to ICANN accountability in the CCWG discussions. IO stressed on the importance to be prepared to answer questions from US government or other parties about RIR accountability.

JC briefed about the RIR joint accountability review. JC considered that the RIR would have a public report before the CCWG and the ICANN Board have an agreement on what they have to do for the ICANN accountability.

IO clarified that based on Larry Strickling comments she and NN might be invited to participate in the US Congress hearings and she’d like to be prepared to answer questions on the RIR accountability.

JC said that the stress tests discussed in the CCWG are very dns oriented. JC volunteered to draft a document for public consumption regarding possible stress in the RIR system on how the RIR have covered them.

New Action Item 1506015-01: JC to draft a public document considering stress factors to the RIR system on how the RIR have covered them.

Preparing for Congress Hearing

IO asked if the approach of pushing for a periodical recompete of the SLA and rely on market mechanisms versus sticking with ICANN as IANA functions operator would work better during the US Congress Hearings.

JC considered that the option of changing the IANA functions operator should be a right and not an obligation. JC said that the decision should remain in the RIR boards as they are the recipients of the community command for services and the stability should be more important that a cheaper bidder. JC reminded of the problems in the root zone operators during the bidding process in the early 90s. JC added that the RIR cannot guarantee that the IANA Operator Function will be always in the US.

AP, OR and AB agreed with JC

OR said that the RIR have currently a successful and supported proposal and open new discussions would affect the transition.
Based on discussions during Buenos Aires meeting, IO asked about the RIR to clarify the requirements for the IANA Functions Operator would be based on the RFC currently describing the IANA functions and the NTIA requirements.

JC said he understood the desire of this but it was difficult for the RIR to commit to such requirements as these could change in the future.

NN said that while she understood the issue of having a permanent statement or commitment, she considered that for political reasons it was better to have a statement that having nothing.

AP said he wouldn’t object to have such statement.

JC said that he had no problem in doing such statement if this brings reassurance to some people but knowing that the RIR position could change in the future.

AP suggested discussing such statement during the EC part of the agenda.

IPR Status Update

IO mentioned the public statement prepared by the IETF trust people about expressing the conditions on which the IANA IPR would come under the IETF trust. IO said that she and NN were ok with the statement. IO added that the draft was sent to the RIR legal staff and she would like to confirm if they are also comfortable with it.

AP thanked IO and NN for joining the NRO EC meeting.

IO and NN left the meeting at 11:55 AM UTC

3. ICANN CCWG Status

Due to time constraints the topic was postponed for the next meeting.

4. Session with Steve Crocker

SC joined the meeting at 11:55 AM UTC

AP welcomed SC to the NRO EC Meeting.

The NRO EC and SC had an informal exchange of views on ICANN CCWG, SLA and challenging issues for the RIR.

5. Review of Minutes

a) July 21st

b) August 18th

GV reported that there were some pending approvals but he would follow up directly with the EC members.

6. Review Open Actions

AP

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.

Status: CLOSED

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.

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.

Status: IN PROGRESS

GV

New Action Item: 150821-01: GV to compile a list of URL pointing to RIR strategic plans and publish them in the NRO website.

Status: IN PROGRESS

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

Status: CLOSED

7. CG Input / Consultation

CCG

NH reported that the CCG is working in updating online materials for the coming IGF. NH said that they are waiting for cost estimates of a coffee barista but final decision might depend on the dimensions of the booth. NH added the CCG is waiting from PACG the final set of speakers and agenda for the RIR Open Forum.

8. IANA Stewardship Transition Status

AP said he was ok in drafting a statement about IANA functions operator based on NTIA principles even though this is not for eternity.

JC agreed that it was worthwhile doing it.  JC suggested preparing a statement on how we are going to handle the stewardship duty that has been transition to us.

New Action Item 1506015-02: JC to draft a NRO statement on how the RIR would manage the IANA functions operator considering aspects of the IETF RFC and the NTIA principles.

9. RIR Accountability Review RIR Status

AP reported that they’d present their findings to RIPE NCC Board in their October meeting.

AB said that he had engaged with a local law firm but they haven’t started yet with the analysis.

OR reported that LACNIC has completed the analysis and the results were discussed by LACNIC Board last week.

JC said that the initial analysis has been completed and he is expecting to review the results this week before be presented to ARIN Board next month.

OR said that the analysis was very relevant and they have identified some risks and there will be concrete actions to minimize them. OR added that in term of public information they cannot give much information of the results, as it was expected. OR considered that given the amount of restricted information a public report might not be considered valuable for the IANA transition or CCWG Accountability review.

JC said that all RIR are in the same situation. JC said that writing a page describing the process; the external assessment and the projects post analysis in each RIR could be good enough. JC reminded that this would be an ongoing process.

10. IANA business process work

AP asked PH for any status.

PH said that he understands that after the meetings in Jakarta there is an agreement in the principles by IANA staff but he might need to corroborate this internally.

11. Next EC Meetings

a) Next f2f meeting – Scheduled – Sunday Afternoon October 18th – Dublin

AP reminded that next f2f meeting would be in Dublin in October 18th, Sunday afternoon.

b) Teleconference November 17th

AP said the meeting would be right in the middle of RIPE meeting. AP said that he could join the call.

c) End of year retreat.

AP asked about the need of the end of the year retreat. AP considered that it’d depend on external factors and it could be reviewed during the f2f meeting in Dublin.

12. AOB

No other topics were added to the agenda.

13. Adjourn

AP thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 13:28 UTC

Comments are closed.