MINUTES
March 5th, 2014
Face to Face Meeting Dubai UAE 9:00 AM Dubai Time
Executive Council Attendees:
Chairman: Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC
Secretary: Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC
Treasurer: Raul Echeberria (RE) LACNIC
Member: John Curran (JC) ARIN
Member: Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
Observers:
Anne Rachel Inne (ARI) AFRINIC
Babusha Radhakissoon (BR) AFRINIC
Paul Andersen (PA) ARIN
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Cathy Handley (CH) ARIN
Hollis Kara (ARIN)
Susan Hamlin (SH) ARIN
Pablo Hinojosa (PH) APNIC
Tony Smith (TS) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC – Remotely
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC
Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Remco Van Mook (RV) RIPE NCC
Nick Hyrka (NH) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
Draft Agenda
0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) NRO Distribution Formula
3) 2014 Roadmap
0) Welcome
AA welcomed and opened the meeting at 9:12 AM local time in Dubai, acknowledging full NRO EC quorum.
1) Agenda Review
AA suggested discussing the NRO contribution to NETmundial and add it as the first point of the agenda.
All agreed.
0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) NRO Contribution to NETmundial
3) NRO Distribution Formula
4) 2014 Roadmap
2) NRO Contribution to NETmundial
AA suggested projecting the draft NRO contribution document for a thorough by the PACG and EC group.
A new version of the document was produced as a consequence of the review. It was assigned to the PACG to refine the draft and send a final version to be reviewed by the EC so could be distributed to RIR boards. Deadline for submission was March 8th.
3) NRO Distribution Formula
AA suggested reviewing the budget first and then move to the discussion of the distribution formula.
GV presented and explained the content of the budget. GV reported that based on last NRO EC feedback the budget was reduced on meeting expenses.
AA mentioned that after last review the budget was reduced on 50K.
RE and JC were ok with the budget.
JC added that activities in the work plan would still need to be approved by the EC.
RE suggested discussing the formula before proceeding to formally approve the budget.
AP explained that RIPE NCC has a membership registration fee, which covers a significant set of activities other than registration services. AP proposed to submit a number that relates to registration activities.
GV said that CFO have made the calculations of 2013 expense distribution based on a self declare registration services activities but waiting for formal approval from the EC to execute the transfers. GV added that 2014 Budget distribution is based on the same formula.
AP suggested that the principle of the formula be adopted but actual amounts and percentages be annually review by the NRO EC
RE volunteered to work with the CFO to determine the values for early review of the EC each year.
AA suggested that the NRO should have a set of procedures to manage the budget.
GV reminded that the he distributed a draft document of NRO administrative procedures including budget elaboration, reporting, purchasing, etc. GV would send the document again to the list.
AA moved to adopt NRO Budget 2014 as presented for the Executive Secretary. JC seconded. AP, PW, RE agreed.
JC mentioned that the CG work plan should be review to determine what activities are worthwhile.
PR pointed out that are expenses not reflected in the NRO budget like RIR staff travel expenses to NRO related activities.
4) 2014 Roadmap
AA opened the discussion of the NRO 2014 roadmap asking the PACG their feedback on what is ahead in the year and what activities should be perform by the NRO
ARI reported on the main meetings scheduled during 2014. ARI including in his report a summary of aspects to monitor and follow up during WTDC, NETmundial, IGF and ITU Plenipot those including in WTDC monitor member state resolution and proposals, in NETmundial to promote and defend IG principles and IGF the organization of a NRO booth and the proposal of workshops,
PW reminded that critical Internet resources is back in the themes, he suggested that this should be keep in mind at the moment of NRO plan and activities in the IGF
PH said that the PACG will meet after the EC to work in the details but he asked if the EC had any expectation on the PACG planning for the coming meetings.
PW suggested having a plan with the people attending the different meetings and the aspects to be coordinated.
AA said that an aspect to consider is to review and propose where the NRO could produce content for the audience of the meeting.
PR said that the only place we brand the NRO is during the IGF. He added that the NRO brand is not known in others forums.
AP pointed out that the issue of NRO versus RIR is recurring and starting to become confusing. AP suggested working with PACG and CCG on what should be the approach and stick to it.
JC agreed with AP. JC stressed that if we want to give the NRO more exposition, the NRO, as organization should harmonize with the same values promoted by the RIR like accountability, transparency and bottom up
RE stated that it’s not good idea assign resources to the NRO and not making use of the organization.
JC mentioned that the NRO serves only 5 organizations and there is no membership beyond the RIRs.
PW reminded that the formulation of the vision and mission of the NRO was elaborated just 4 months ago.
AA said that the question might be where we want to position the NRO. He stated that for example NRO was a very well known in IGF.
PR stated the constraints of speak on behalf or in representation of the NRO. He added that there were not proper directions of the EC in regards the new vision and mission after the Montevideo retreat.
AA said that the NRO needs to map out on what forum is relevant his participation.
PW stated that the PACG and CCG should work in filling those gaps.
AP said it was an open issue and recommended that the PACG and CCG work in a explicit recommendation.
RE agreed with AP. RE added that the EC needs to resolve because in order to work as NRO must be a unanimous decision. RE believes that NRO and RIR promotion are compatible.
ARI summarized some of the discussion by saying that the EC wants a NRO out there but at the same time there is more need of institutional direction in regards the NRO strategies and objectives. ARI agreed that the PACG and CCG would work in a recommendation on what forum is more efficient to use the presence of the NRO.
AA asked that this issue and the recommendation be properly reviewed so the decision can be made and no come back with the same question again.
AA called for a break and continues with the discussion of the roadmap afterwards.
CH continued the discussion of the roadmap. CH reported of the activities of the NPP meetings that work as a bridge of WSIS +10 and ITU plenipot.
ARI mentioned also that the UN General Assembly has been talking about digital divide and the continuation of IGF and the WSIS process, ARI indicated that such input will reach ITU plenipot meeting.
API reported on the activities of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. API said that the expected recommendations from the WGEC 3rd meeting were not met. API said there were no agreements in the scope neither on the definition on what is enhance cooperation.
ARI clarified that the report of the WGEC via the CSTD will feeds into the UN GA. She added that in lack of consensus the definition of Enhance Cooperation might remain at intergovernmental levels.
CH mentioned that given the lack of progress and agreements in the WG reviewing the ITU constitution, there are no expectations of big changes during plenipot. CH clarified that ITU resolutions are not binding so any country who want to have an impact in current Internet stability can still do it.
AA thanked PACG for the input provided. He mentioned there were a lot to follow up with so many meetings in the year. AA acknowledge the need to improve communications and guidance internally in the NRO between EC and PACG and CCG and suggested to talk more about that aspect in the joint session during the afternoon.
5) AOB
AA closed the meeting at 12:30 PM Dubai Time
Last modified on 14/07/2014