Date: Friday, 27 October 2017
- John Curran (JC), ARIN: Chair
- Paul Wilson (PW) (Remote) APNIC: Secretary & Vice Chair
- Alan Barrett (AB), AFRINIC: Treasurer
- Oscar Robles (OR), LACNIC
- Axel Pawlik (AP), RIPE NCC
- Vymala Thuron (VT), AFRINIC
- Pablo Hinojosa (PH), APNIC
- Izumi Okutani (IO), (Remote), APNIC
- Nate Davis (ND), ARIN
- Hollis Kara (HK), (Remote), ARIN
- Mark Kosters (MK), (Remote), ARIN
- Paul Andersen (PA), ARIN
- Hartmut Glaser (HG), LACNIC
- Athina Fragkouli (AF), RIPE NCC
German Valdez (GV), NRO
Susannah Gray (SG), NRO (Scribe)
- Agenda Review
- ASO Review and Next Steps
- ASO Interim Procedures for Use of Empowered Community Powers
- ICANN Engagement Strategy
- Europe’s New Privacy Regulations: GDPR
- ITHI Update
- RPKI, 0/0 Implementation Status and Updates From Each RIR
- Resolution on ICANN Annual Contribution
- 2017 Expenses Report Update
- 2018 NRO Budget first draft
- ICANN 60 Meeting Week Review
- CG Reports
- Open Actions
- Future Meetings
|Resolution 171027-01:||The NRO EC resolves to contribute US$ 823,000 to ICANN in 2018.||PASSED|
New Action Items
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-1:||JC to draft a response to the ASO Review Recommendations and send to the NRO EC mailing list and then onto the ASO AC mailing list for discussion.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-2:||OR to draft requirements for a future ASO and send to the NRO EC mailing list.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-3:||JC to draft the processes for a future ASO and send to the NRO EC mailing list.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-4:||GV to add ‘Overview of NRO EC discussion on recommendations 1-18’ to the agenda of the F2F meeting of the ASO AC during the ICANN 60 Meeting.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-6:||ALL to review what indemnification, if any, their respective RIR provides, or wishes to provide, to its ASO AC appointees in case of lawsuits against them arising from a director removal.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-7:||AF to send the legal team’s response to the questions asked by the ASO AC Subgroup on Empowered Community to the NRO EC mailing list. JC to forward the responses to the ASO AC.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-8:||All to read the legal team’s mark up of the interim procedures and be ready to adopt them during the next NRO EC meeting.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-9:||AP to draft a boilerplate response to decline invitations to participate in ICANN SO/AC activities that do not directly relate to the numbers community and circulate to NRO EC mailing list.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-10:||AB to present the ITIH presentation on Wednesday 10:30am during ICANN 60 instead of JC. > CLOSED.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-11:||GV to check with ISOC whether the NRO will get recognition for its significant contribution to the IGF social event.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-12:||GV to send the draft budget to the NRO EC.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-13:||GV to send slides to AB for him to use in the opening plenary at the ICANN 60 meeting.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-14:||JC to send the agreed upon question to the ICANN Board for consideration during the Board meeting at ICANN60.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-15:||JC to finalise the response regarding informing IANA about the RSCG proposal to reduce the level of detail in the AS registry and circulate to NRO EC list.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-16:||GV to contact PW about moving the January Teleconference to 23 January.|
|NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-17:||SG to circulate new NRO website mock up and proposed menu structure to the NRO EC mailing list and check that URLs are to be copied rather than redirected.|
JC welcomed the participants to the meeting.
1. Agenda Review
Item 12, CG reports, was moved to the beginning of the agenda.
2. ASO Review and Next Steps
The NRO EC discussed Recommendations 1-18 and concluded the following:
|Recommendation 1: ICANN should consider updating its Bylaws to reflect the fact that the NRO will, like the GAC, and according to the ASO MoU, provide its own review mechanism for the review of ASO.
|Recommendation 2: The NRO should consider updating the ASO MoU to reflect the fact that the appropriate section of the New ICANN Bylaws regarding Organizational Reviews is Section 4.4 (previously Article IV, Section 4).
|Recommendation 3: The NRO should adopt a procedure for conducting periodic reviews of the ASO in line with processes used by the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee.
|Recommendation 4: The signatories of the ASO MoU should consider updates to the MoU including i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory, ii) the removal of Appendix B. v) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community.
|Recommendation 5: Upon completion of every independent review of the ASO, the NRO and ICANN should initiate discussions, as per Article 9 of the MoU, to examine results and consequences of their cooperation. The parties should determine if the ASO has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure, and re-evaluate the MoU accordingly.
|Recommendation 6: The ASO AC should ensure that procedures are developed for Steps 12, 15 and 16 of the GPDP as described in Attachment A of the ASO MoU.
|Recommendation 7: The ASO should consider the adoption of a single, authoritative description of the GPDP for global numbering policies. The same description of the GPDP should appear in Attachment A of the ASO MoU and the relevant section of the Operating Procedures of the ASO AC (Currently Section 6).
|Recommendation 8: With a view to increasing awareness regarding the mission, main operations, and separation of roles between the ASO AC and the NRO EC within the ASO, the NRO should consider the use of more infographics on its website.
|Recommendation 9: The ASO AC should implement term limits for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair.
|Recommendation 10: The ASO AC should ensure that the duties of the Address Council Chair and the Address Council Vice-Chairs need to be added to the ASO AC Operating Procedures.
|Recommendation 11: The ASO AC should ensure that its internal procedure for the removal of an ICANN Board Director is consistent with Section 7.11 of the New ICANN Bylaws.
|Recommendation 12: The ASO should establish the NRO Executive Secretary as the ASO Point of Contact (PoC). The ASO AC should establish procedures for forwarding communications to appropriate parties within the ASO.
|Recommendation 13: The ASO MoU should be updated to reflect the new reality of the Empowered Community and specify that the roles and responsibilities within the ASO must be clearly defined.
|Recommendation 14: The ASO AC should either confirm that the designated representative of the ASO on the Empowered Community Administration will be the Chair of the NRO EC, or develop a procedure for appointing another representative.
|Recommendation 15: ASO AC meetings should be open to the public, except for discussions regarding the selection of individuals for ICANN roles.
|Recommendation 16: For its internal communications, and for most matters related to the operations of the ASO, the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list. In exceptional circumstances, for issues (e.g. Board appointments) that cannot be discussed in public, a non-publicly archived list should be used.
|Recommendation 17: In the interests of transparency, the ASO website should be updated with recent presentations, contact details and an archive of the activities of both the ASO AC and NRO EC.
|Recommendation 18: The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO.
JC noted that the NRO EC would consult with the ASO AC to come up with a definitive response to the ASO Review Recommendations.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-1: JC to draft a response to the ASO Review Recommendations and send to the NRO EC mailing list and then onto the ASO AC mailing list for discussion. > CLOSED
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-2: OR to draft requirements for a future ASO and send to the NRO EC mailing list.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-3: JC to draft the processes for a future ASO and send to the NRO EC mailing list.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-4: GV to add ‘Overview of NRO EC discussion on recommendations 1-18’ to the agenda of the F2F meeting of the ASO AC during the ICANN 60 Meeting. > CLOSED.
3. ASO Interim Procedures for use of Empowered Community Powers
JC explained that the ASO had adopted interim procedures for use of the Empowered Community Powers and had sent them to the legal team for review. These interim procedures call on the ASO AC to act on certain things. He added that a Subgroup of the ASO AC is developing procedures for the ASO AC’s role and that it had several questions for the legal team. He asked AF for an update.
AF noted that she had sent JC the legal team’s edits and comments on the interim procedures.
JC confirmed that he had received them and would forward them to the NRO EC.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-5: JC to send the responses from the legal team on the ASO interim procedures to the NRO EC mailing list.
JC noted that the legal team thinks that the procedures are fine in general. There was some concern about notice.
AF noted that most of the edits made by the legal team were for consistency or to clarify that the NRO EC is the decisional body of the ASO. She said that the two comments made were on the ASO’s obligation to inform the community and to what extent the community is obliged to follow ICANN discussion. It is the legal team’s understanding that it is an SO’s responsibility to make sure it communicates with its communities and not the other way around.
JC said that it seems the ASO has an obligation to proactively notify the community. He explained that, in the interim procedures, it stats that the communities should follow ICANN mailing lists in case they are not notified by the ASO. He asked AF if this part should be removed.
AF said that if this clause were left in the interim procedures, it would not override the ASO’s responsibility or the ICANN bylaws. It may also create doubt about transparency.
JC said that the legal team had received questions from the ASO AC Subgroup. He noted that is important that the NRO EC understands what the Subgroup is asking.
AF gave an overview of the ICANN Good Faith guidelines (GFGs) and indemnification: there is the possibility that Directors who are removed by an SO/AC might sue individuals for damage of reputation. If the removal is in line with the GFGs, ICANN offers indemnity to the proposers or supporters of the removal.
- The Subgroup asked: Is the ASO AC bound by the ICANN GFGs.
AF noted that the legal team responded that the ASO AC is not bound by the ICANN GFGs. The removal of a Director is a decision that must be taken by each SO/AC’s decisional participant and this is the NRO EC. She cautioned that the GFGs are only guidelines: ICANN may say it will not offer indemnification even if the GFGs have been followed.
- The Subgroup asked: What indemnification and/or coverage does the NRO and/or individual RIRs provide to ASO AC members irrespective of any ICANN protections?
AF noted that the legal team responded that ICANN indemnification does not extend to the ASO AC because it is not the decisional participant. An individual can sue anyone at any time. It is therefore up to each RIR to define indemnification for ASO AC representatives.
JC noted that each RIR should then consider whether it wishes to indemnify its ASO AC representatives.
OR said the step that calls for the NRO EC to ask for advice from the ASO AC could be removed from the interim procedures.
JC said that this is possible but this step was added as the ASO AC is the body that appoints the Director, not the NRO EC. The NRO EC is not bound by the ASO AC’s recommendation and has to act whether or not it gets input from the ASO
AC. This step could be removed to reduce risk to the ASO AC.
AF said that the legal team’s response could note that having the ASO AC involved in Director removal increases its liability and to counter this, the ASO AC could be removed from the process.
AB noted that the ASO AC still has a role in appointing Directors and thought that this also posed a risk.
AF said there is always a risk as anyone can sue anyone at any time.
JC asked if any of the RIRs currently offered indemnification to ASO AC representatives:
- AFRINIC: Currently does not but is investigating options.
- LACNIC: Coverage may apply.
- ARIN: Uncertain, looking into it.
- APNIC: Doubtful the insurance would cover voluntary positions.
- RIPE NCC: No indemnification.
JC noted that the ASO AC should be informed that, currently, the NRO EC does not believe the RIRs offer any indemnification but can explore this if the ASO AC considers it a priority.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-6: ALL to review what indemnification, if any, their respective RIR provides, or wishes to provide, to its ASO AC appointees in case of lawsuits against them arising from a director removal.
- The Subgroup asked: is the ASO AC bound to Article 3 of the ICANN Bylaws,
Specifically, in the context of the ASO AC providing advice to the NRO EC about exercising Empowered Community Powers per the NRO EC Interim Empowered Community Powers procedures.
AF explained that this question was referring to the three-quarters majority. The legal team’s answer is no, it is not applicable because the ASO AC is not the decisional body.
- The Subgroup asked: Is it possible that ASO may receive and have to consider a petition
initiation request from a member of our number community to remove a
Board member that the ASO did not select.
JC said that the ASO could receive a request from anyone to remove any NomCom appointed seat or any ASO appointed seat but not another SO’s seat.
AF said that the decision is vested with the SO/AC that made the appointment.
- The Subgroup asked: Is there possibility that another SO will receive and consider a
petition initiation request to remove a Board member was selected by the
JC said no, except in the case of a petition to remove all Board directors.
AF said that she would check this.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-7: AF to send the legal team’s response to the questions asked by the ASO AC Subgroup on Empowered Community to the NRO EC mailing list. JC to forward the responses to the ASO AC.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-8: All to read the legal team’s mark up of the interim procedures and be ready to adopt them during the next NRO EC meeting.
AF left the meeting.
4. ICANN Engagement Strategy
JC explained that the NRO EC should discuss how to handle the frequent requests for engagement coming in from ICANN. He gave an overview of several activities that ICANN has invited the ASO to be involved in. He asked the NRO EC how he should respond to such requests, including a recent invitation to be part of the ICANN Priority and Financial Planning group.
OR said that the NRO EC already defines how it engages with ICANN and that should be enough.
AP suggested that the NRO EC could just say no.
OR suggested responding that participation in the Priority and Financial Planning session exceeds the resources available to the ASO at this time.
PH said that participation could be decided by each RIR.
AP noted that this would be confusing.
JC noted that these meetings are not public and only a limited number of seats are available to the SO/ACs. The ASO could not have someone standing in unless it is clear they are standing in on behalf of the entire numbers community.
OR noted that there were currently 62 projects documented in the ICANN Strategic Plan.
PW said that there should be an overview of the ASO’s interface points with ICANN in order to track what is happening, the relevant people involved and the mailing lists used so that the NRO EC can be more informed of engagement activities. He said that the NRO EC should also keep track of what it declines to engage in too. He noted that he agreed that the ASO should not be participating in most of the ICANN groups and activities, and it should not be enrolled automatically if it does not respond to an invite. He added that it should be the Secretariat’s responsibility to keep track of the ASO’s activities.
JC supported having a register of what the ASO agrees to participate in. ICANN is building a database of work efforts called the Community Secretariat Services Inventory. He noted that the ASO’s column is blank.
JC continued that it is generally assumed that the Chairs of the SO/ACs will participate in ICANN activities. For the ICANN Priority and Financial Planning Group, the NRO EC was not asked if an alternate could be appointed, and it also has no way to empower someone to speak on ICANN priorities.
JC noted that the ASO is not engaging well with ICANN: it is being asked to participate and the request is either being ignored by the NRO EC or he responds that the ASO won’t participate in an activity if it is irrelevant to the numbers community.
JC suggested creating a boiler plate response that notes “The ASO welcomes your invite but at this time does not see the need to be engaged as it is not appear to be critical to number registry system.”.
AP agreed. AB also agreed and said that the Chair should be empowered to send the boilerplate response whenever they feel the activity is irrelevant.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-9: AP to draft a boilerplate response to decline invitations to participate in ICANN SO/AC activities that do not directly relate to the numbers community and circulate to NRO EC mailing list.
5. Europe’s New Privacy Regulations: GDPR
The NRO EC discussed the new GDPR regulation and its impact on the RIRs, Whois and Whowas.
JC noted that ARIN is conducting a privacy review.
AB noted he was concerned that Whowas will need to be redacted or censored and this may cause issues for law enforcement.
JC noted that that recognised law enforcement entities acting by jurisdiction can request information and providers of such information wouldn’t be in violation of the GDPR. However, organisations dealing with DDoS and spam cannot be provided with information and this is an issue.
PW suggested that the comparative policy matrix could be extended to cover each region’s privacy practices and concerns.
6. ITHI Update
JC noted that the RSM group had come up with a list of metrics it could produce regarding the health of the number registry system. He said that there is an ongoing community consultation on this, which is to be completed Q4 2017. A final document will be released in 2018.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-10: AB to present the ITIH presentation on Wednesday 10:30am during ICANN 60 instead of JC. > CLOSED.
7. RPKI, 0/0 Implementation Status and Updates From Each RIR
JC recapped that AFRINIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC had completed 0/0 implementation in Q3 2017 and APNIC and LACNIC will complete this by the end of November 2017. He noted that once all RIRs have completed this, the CCG should send an appropriate announcement.
JC noted that there were comments from the community that the RIRs had embarked on this without sufficient coordination. He said that the response to this is that the RIRs had tried to coordinate with the IETF on this for five years and then, in the interest of stability, the RIRs’ engineering teams recommended this change.
8. Resolution on ICANN Annual Contribution
The NRO EC discussed the annual contribution to ICANN for 2018.
JC proposed that the NRO EC agrees to make an annual contribution of US$ 650,000 to ICANN as called for in the IANA Numbering Services SLA. In addition, he proposed that the NRO EC agrees to make a voluntary contribution of US$ 173,000 for ongoing ICANN activities. This totals US$ 823,000, which is the same amount contributed in previous years.
There was full agreement. The resolution passed.
Resolution 171027-01: The NRO EC resolves to contribute US$ 823,000 to ICANN in 2018. PASSED.
9. 2017 Expenses Report Update
The NRO EC discussed the 2017 Expense Report and the proposed budget for 2018.
GV explained that, as per the estimated costs for Q4, the year would close around 5% under budget. He noted that the travel budget had been exceeded in 2017 due to the extra costs associated with supporting the travel for the ASO review.
JC asked if the ECWG2 project was still providing value.
PH gave an overview of the project and said that he believed it did still provide value.
GV noted that budget for a revamp of the ASO website had been included as this may be required as part of the Review Recommendations.
AB noted he was concerned that the NRO is contributing to the IGF’s technical community reception but did not receive recognition for this.
GV noted that the funds had not yet been committed as the IGF takes place in December.
JC noted that the NRO would like to have recognition: if not, it will be unable to make a contribution.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-11: GV to check with ISOC whether the NRO will get recognition for its significant contribution to the IGF social event.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-12: GV to send the draft budget to the NRO EC.
10. 2018 NRO Budget First Draft
The NRO EC discussed the NRO budget for 2018.
11. ICANN 60 Meeting Week Review
The NRO EC discussed the agenda for the ICANN 60 meeting week.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-13: GV to send slides to AB for him to use in the opening plenary at the ICANN 60 meeting > CLOSED
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-14: JC to send the agreed upon question to the ICANN Board for consideration during the Board meeting at ICANN60 > CLOSED
12. CG Reports
Note: this agenda item took place at the beginning of the meeting.
MK gave an overview of the ECG’s work:
- The ECG met with RSM during ARIN 40.
- RPKI 0/0 implementation: Root Server Certificates have been updated for ARIN, RIPE and AFRINIC. LACNIC and APNIC hope to complete in November.
- Transfer logs: ARIN has the current version, LACNIC is still working on this, and AFRINIC hopes to have this completed by end of year and APNIC will complete an upgrade at the end of October.
HK gave an overview of the CCG’s work:
- Met with GV and SG to prepare for handover of Secretary role.
- Preparing for the IGF 2017 in Geneva: there are strict restrictions on items that can be taken into the venue and left overnight in the booth. There will not be any coffee or barista, no display monitors or literature racks so the NRO presence will be streamlined.
- Met with GV and SG regarding the NRO website update and this is moving along.
- Waiting for all 0/0 updates to be completed to do some PR and announcements on this.
GV added that increased security would be in place at the IGF due to high-level representatives in attendance.
GV noted that the RSM met during the ARIN 40 Meeting and developed its work plan for 2018, which will be submitted to the NRO EC list shortly. The RSM will request to meet during the next APNIC meeting.
HK and MK left the meeting.
13. Open Actions
Action Item: 170919-01: JC to ask the ASO AC Subgroup on ICANN Empowered Community whether information about the group should be added to the ASO/NRO websites.
Action Item: 170919-02: GV to follow up with LACNIC regarding approval for the RIR team to initiate dialog with PTI regarding the PTI Service Level Reporting Requirements.
Action item: 170919-03: NRO EC members to submit any questions or topics to be discussed with ICANN Board to the NRO EC list by September 26th
Action Item: 170919-04: PW to come up with phrasing for the question regarding auction proceeds to be addressed to the ICANN Board during the joint session at ICANN60.
Action Item: 170919-05: JC to come up with phrasing for the question regarding the ASO Review Final Report to be addressed to the ICANN Board during the joint session at ICANN60.
Action Item: 170919-06: GV to update OR’s initial document listing the NRO/ASO’s current appointments/liaisons to the various ICANN groups and committees.
Action Item: 170919-07: JS to prepare a short presentation to update the ICANN60 community on the RIRs’ work on ITHI.
Action Item: 170919-08: GV to prepare a 2-3-page presentation on the ASO Review for the Numbers Community to give during ICANN60.
Action Item 170718-01 AF and RIR legal team to give a legal review to the interim procedures for use of ASO empowered community powers document and proposed changes, if any.
Action Item 170620-04 JC to draft a message for the approval of the NRO EC informing IANA about the RSCG proposal to reduce the level of detailed in the AS registry.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-15: JC to finalise the response regarding informing IANA about the RSCG proposal to reduce the level of detail in the AS registry and circulate to NRO EC list.
14. Future Meetings
The NRO EC discussed where and when to hold the next F2F meeting and its upcoming teleconferences.
a) 21 November Teleconference: will take place as planned.
b) 19 December Teleconference (during IGF): will be discussed on the November call.
c) The next F2F meeting will be held in Puerto Rico after ICANN 61.
GV noted that the Secretariat would like to propose a change to the scheduled 16 January 2018 Teleconference, moving it one week later to 23 January.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-16: GV to contact PW about moving the January Teleconference to 23 January.
- ICANN New gTLD Auction Proceeds
JC asked the NRO EC to propose positions on how the New gTLD Auction Proceeds should be used.
OR explained that there is a request for ICANN to use part of the auction proceeds to recover the ICANN reserves that were used for the IANA Oversight Transition. The proceeds should not be used for ICANN operations but for strategic projects and asked if this is in line with what the NRO EC believes.
JC noted that he could not take a position without consulting his Board and the ARIN community.
HG said that the proceeds could be used for more promotion of IPv6 deployment and for training and capacity building.
- NRO Wiki
GV gave an overview of the new NRO Wiki and suggested that NRO EC documents and minutes be uploaded to it. Logins will be created for each CEO, the plus-1s and the designated Board representative.
- NRO Website Revamp
GV gave overview of the NRO website revamp project.
AB asked if the URLs would be kept stable.
OR asked if the URLs were being copied or whether they would be redirected.
SG noted that she believed they were being copied but would check this.
NEW ACTION ITEM 171027-17: SG to circulate new NRO website mock up and proposed menu structure to the NRO EC mailing list and check that URLs are to be copied rather than redirected.
- Work of the NRO
HG asked whether there was any way of promoting the hard work of the NRO: most of the community has no idea what the NRO is doing. He believed there was a lack of information and the community could be better informed.
There was some discussion on this.
JC noted that the NRO’s work is just part of normal operations and does not need to be specifically highlighted.
OR noted that allocating more resources and efforts to communication might impact the effectiveness of the NRO.
JC noted that if the NRO EC thinks there should be more promotion on this, there could be further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned.