Minutes of the NRO EC face-to-face meeting held on Saturday February 20th 2016 at 8:00 AM Auckland New Zealand
Executive Council:
Oscar Robles (OR) LACNIC Chair
John Curran (JC) ARIN Secretary
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC Treasurer
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC
Alan Barrett (AB) AFRINIC
Observers:
Haitham El Nakhal AFRINIC (remotely)
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Paul Andersen ARIN
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC (remotely)
Alejandro Guzman (AG) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Remco van Mook (RVM) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
Draft Agenda face-to-face meeting Saturday 20th February 2016 Auckland New Zealand.
0. Welcome
1. Agenda Review
2. Minutes Review
3. NRO Budget approval
3.1 NRO 2015 Expense Report and Distribution Formula
3.2 NRO 2016 Budget
4. IANA Stewardship Transition Update and Next Steps
4.1 IANA IPR Update
4.2 CCWG Discussion
4.3 SLA Discussion
5. RIR Accountability Review Status
6. ICANN Finances related topics
6.1 ICANN New gTLD Auction Proceeds
6.2 IETF Endowment
6.3 ICANN Budget re CCWG (informational)
7. IGF
7.1 IGF Engagement
7.2 MAG Representation
8. ICANN 55 Marrakech Preparations
9. RIR Material for ICANN Staff/Community
10. ASO AC Attendance Reporting
11. Joint session with ECG
11.1 RPKI Trust Anchor (?)
12. Review Open Actions
13. CG Input / Consultation
14. Next Meetings
14.1 Teleconference scheduled on March 15th
14.2 Next f2f Meeting
15. AOB
16. Adjourn
0 Welcome
OR welcomed all participants and started the meeting at 8:05 AM Auckland New Zealand time.
1 Agenda Review
OR suggested to have the joint session with the ECG as the first point after the lunch break.
All agreed.
2 Minutes Approval
GV said that December and January minutes were pending for approval.
OR asked those pending to review the minutes send their comments to the NRO EC mailing list.
3 NRO Budget Approval.
3.1 NRO 2015 Expense Report and Distribution Formula
GV reported the expenses records during 2015. GV confirmed that the CFO reviewed the expenses and all expenses correspond with the information at the RIR level.
OR asked for approval of the 2015 expense report.
All NRO EC members approved the 2015 NRO expenses report.
3.2 NRO 2016 Budget
GV presented the 2016 NRO Budget. GV confirmed that the CFO reviewed the 2016 budget numbers in their last meeting in Washington. GV reminded that starting in 2016 the ASO travel support would be managed by each RIR with the exception of the ASO AC Chair. GV advised that the budget could have an impact in the ASO AC travel item as the ICANN Panamá meeting was cancelled and the new location was not announced yet, GV said he would report to the NRO EC if the ASO AC Chair’s travel budget needs to be changed.
JC suggested keeping the ASO AC Chair travel support as presented for 2016 but asked to review the support next year for the 2017 budget.
AB suggested that ICANN contribution be clearly added to the budget report.
OR asked for approval of the 2016 NRO budget.
All NRO EC members approved the 2016 NRO budget as presented.
GV asked to review the NRO distribution formula.
GV presented the distribution formula based on the RIR self report on registration services revenue during 2014, which would be applicable to the NRO 2015 expense report. GV mentioned that LACNIC was still waiting information from one of their NIR to submit the amount for registration services for 2015 but in order to make the expense distribution all the information has been submitted.
AB asked that for the 2015 registration services revenue values be reviewed before the ICANN contribution to be made around June.
OR asked for approval of the NRO distribution formula for the expense distribution in 2015.
All NRO EC members approved the 2015 NRO distribution formula.
4. IANA Stewardship Transition Update and Next Steps
4.1 IANA IPR Update
AB reported on the IANA IPR discussions. AB said that there is a small group of representatives of the operational communities discussing on Intellectual Property Rights related to the IANA transition. AB said that PW, Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno and himself represent the RIR community in the group. AB mentioned that the group is making use of a mailing list with public archives and they are having meetings every week or two. AB reported that the group has made good advance, there is an agreement to use the IETF trust and ICANN is ok with transferring some of the operational control to the trust. AB invited the rest of the members of the NRO EC to review the documents discussed in the IPR group.
PW reported that ICANN wishes to maintain operational control of the domain name registration. He added that on the contrary, the CRISP proposal seems to require that the domain name registration be transferred to the IETF Trust.
AB said that ICANN could be registered as technical contacts.
OR asked if the NRO EC needs to approve something now.
AB answered that not for the moment. AB said that there is no deadline set yet but the work should be finished by September as the latest.
OR, JC and AP thanked AB and PW for their time and work in the IPR group.
4.2 CCWG Discussion
OR reminded that ICANN is requesting to the NRO to send the approval for the CCWG process. OR said there were questions about the timeline, if the ASO or the NRO would approve and if the
RIR boards should be involved, etc.
JC suggested that the ASO Liaisons in the CCWG propose in the CCWG mailing list that the NRO EC would review the proposal for approval, unless there are any objections for the NRO to do it.
All agreed.
4.3 SLA Discussion
OR suggested to share the last version of the SLA sent by ICANN with the RIR legal team so they can highlight the aspects that require the attention of the NRO EC. OR asked to have a meeting with them in the morning of February 22nd.
AB suggested to contact IANA and asked them to send the last version of the SLA to the public mailing list.
OR agreed to ask Elise to do so.
5. RIR Accountability Review Status
JC said that ARIN has ready the summary of their review and invited other RIRs to submit their summary to the legal firm to compile all RIRs information.
OR reported that LACNIC finished their review and as a consequence they are suggesting around 9 changes to the bylaws during the LACNIC members meeting in Cuba. OR said that LACNIC Board will review in their next meeting the LACNIC summary of the accountability review, OR said that the report is similar to what ARIN produced. OR added that once they propose the changes they’ll refer to the document and the accountability review project explaining the motivation and the necessity of the changes.
AP reported that RIPE NCC did not find relevant functional issues during the review and they would work in producing the public summary.
PW said that APNIC public report is in production
AB reported that the review was underway and expected to have a report from the local firm after Marrakech meeting.
JC expected to have everything published prior ICANN mid year meeting, along the same timelines of IANA stewardship transition. JC stressed on the importance to have the accountability review before the IANA transition so the RIRs could show they are ready to evolve and improve by themselves. JC clarified that the RIRs reports should show the regional accountability, as the NRO is only a point for RIR. coordination.
6. ICANN Finances related topics
6.1 ICANN New gTLD Auctions Proceeds
JC suggested following the developments of the ICANN New gTLD proceeds so the output is not exclusive of the benefit of the names community. As an example, JC said that this initiative could support the IETF endowment,
JC volunteered to serve in the committee once the charter and the scope is defined.
6.2 IETF Endowment
JC said that according to ICANN they would not able to contribute to the IETF endowment until the new gTLD auctions procedures is defined.
AB said that AFRINIC board is ready to contribute.
AP said that RIPE Board is ready to contribute but they requested more clarification to ISOC on how the money would go to the endowment and they are waiting for such clarification.
JC confirmed that ARIN board is ready to contribute with but, similarly to RIPE Board, they require clarification from ISOC
PR suggested adding this to the next I* meeting agenda.
6.3 ICANN Budget re CCWG
OR reported that ICANN budget on CCWG process has been overrun, apparently ICANN staff and the board didn’t have enough visibility of the expenses. OR said that according to ICANN the initial budget was for 7 million USD and the final expenses are expected to be 25 million USD, where 5 million went to lawyers and 20 million to the community.
OR said that the names community is asking for clarity and there is a proposal to create a committee to review this.
OR asked if the NRO should follow up on that.
JC suggested that the NRO should limit its participation in ICANN Budget to verify that is attached to their strategy plan and only on those topics affecting the number community.
AP agreed.
7. IGF
7.1 IGF Engagement (IGFSA)
The NRO EC discussed the option to contribute a percentage of the IGF contribution through the IGFSA
The NRO EC agreed to contribute 25,000 USD out of the budgeted 100,000 USD through the IGFSA based on the good faith and that the support would go to a wider community through the national and regional activities.
The NRO EC agreed to request the IGFSA the expectation of a detailed expenses report of their 2015 budget.
7.2 MAG Representation.
JC proposed to support GV continuation in the MAG in the understanding that such activity has lower priority than the NRO secretariat duties and reports are delivered to the NRO EC.
All agreed.
11. Joint session with ECG
Daniel Shaw (AFRINIC), Anton Styrdom (APNIC), Tom Harrison (APNIC), George Michaelson (APNIC), Mark Kosters (ARIN), Andrew Newton (ARIN), Guillermo Cicileo (LACNIC), Carlos Martinez (LACNIC), Tim Briuijnzeels (RIPE NCC) joined the meeting.
11.1 RPKI Trust Anchor
The ECG presented to the NRO EC the alternatives for TA alignment, these considered three options:
Have 0/0 certificates at all RIR in Option A and B
Option A: Use 0/0 to sign members, here the RIRs trust each other to only use the space they actually manage.
Option B: Have an intermediate certificate reflecting extended stats, here the RIRs prove they only use this space, but this introduces some operational risks
Option C: All RIRs sign each other. However this option needs more work and interoperability testing, increases operational overhead/expense, needs SLAs and monitoring and ARIN RPA affects other regions.
After extensive discussion the NRO EC suggested the following:
Opt for option A (that is, 0/0 without any intermediate certificates). Considering that the stakeholders need to be engaged on the matter.
Option A should be seen as an intermediate step, needed to mitigate fragility in the current model and to remove barriers to deployment, and that if validation-reconsidered moves forward, a move to the pure model should be re-evaluated in terms of resources and executed if this is approved.
The first stakeholder to engage is the IETF. The ECG should write and present an ID with an ‘Applicability Statement’ where the ECG would tell to the community why we are going with 0/0. This would provide fair warning.
No development on 0/0 should be executed right now, but further evaluation of the situation should be done after the Buenos Aires IETF
All ECG participants left the meeting after the conclusion of the agenda item.
8. ICANN 55 Marrakech Preparations
GV reported on the activities scheduled at the moment for ICANN 55 Meeting in Marrakech.
Regarding the workshop with law enforcement and the GAC on IP Whois, PR suggested that RIR staff and not necessarily RIRs CEO assist the session.
PR said that this session is a continuation of a similar workshop held in Brussels. PR said he would coordinate with PACG and other RIR staff to prepare the session. PR pointed out that one of the main messages is that they’d need to engage with the RIR community in case they want to make changes in Whois DB policies.
JC suggested adding to the agenda to the meeting with Adiel Akplogan the expectations of his role scope with the RIR. JC suggested requesting Adiel a documentation of the relationship’s scope. JC mentioned that each RIRs may have different interest and expectation in the relationship with ICANN. JC suggested having a meeting with ICANN new CEO in Marrakesh, Göran Marby. JC stressed in the importance that Göran has a quick understanding of the number community and its relationship with ICANN.
OR agreed with JC, he said that this was discussed with Adiel previously. OR said that such understating should be about the nature of the number community, where the authority come from, that the RIRs precedes ICANN and how we fit in the ICANN realm where 99% activities and budget come from domain names.
OR confirmed he would work with the CCG in preparing the NRO report material for the opening session on Monday.
GV reported that there would be a dedicated room for the ASO and the NRO from Sunday to Thursday. GV advised that the ASO AC would be running face-to-face interviews to ICANN Board candidates in Marrakesh and the meeting room won’t be available during the interviews. GV said, he’d include the details of the interviews schedules in the shared NRO calendar.
9. RIR Material for ICANN Staff/Community
OR said that he’d like to discuss more about this with Adiel before be brought to the NRO EC for consideration.
10. ASO AC Attendance Reporting
JC suggested that the NRO EC requests to the ASO AC/NRO NC, to keep an accurate attendance record of their meeting for public consumption.
All agreed.
New Open Action 20160220-01 GV to produce and publish a public record of ASO AC / NRO NC attendance to ASO Meetings and Teleconferences.
12. Review Open Actions
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: Pending
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: Pending
PR said that Athina was driving these actions internally in the RIR, PR suggested to establish new deadlines.
OR suggested May 31st right after publication of the RIR accountability summary.
OR asked PR to send pending activities to the NRO EC list so each CEO would follow up internally in each RIR.
13. CG Input / Consultation
GV reported that the CCG and ECG submitted their work plan. GV said that he RSCG would meet next week to define their work plan and the PACG would meet in Marrakesh to define theirs.
JC asked that the CCG work plan should be clear on the venue of the second meeting.
JC suggested that the CCG should include the ASO in the definition of when to mention the RIRs versus the NRO.
14. Next Meetings
14.1 Teleconference scheduled on March 15th
The NRO EC agreed to keep the next scheduled teleconference on Tuesday after ICANN Meeting. (March 15th)
14.2 Next f2f Meeting
The NRO EC agreed to have their next face-to-face meetings during ICANN Meeting in Marrakesh on:
Sunday March 6th from 4 – 6 pm, followed by dinner
Wednesday March 9th from 4 – 6 pm.
Additionally the NRO EC agreed to meet on Saturday 21st May before RIPE meeting.
15. AOB
PR asked OR to participate in the OECD ministerial meeting in June 21, 22 and 23 in Cancun Mexico on behalf of the RIRs. PR said that RIPE NCC could help preparing the statement for the meeting.
OR said he would coordinate with PR his participation.
RVM asked if the ICANN new gTLD auction procedures could contribute to the RIRs stability fund as a third party
JC said he was neutral to the idea but there was no pressing need
AP liked the idea in principle
PW suggested to keep an eye on the discussion of the gTLD auction procedures
16. Adjourn
OR thanked the participants and adjourned the meeting at 5:30 PM local Auckland time.
Last modified on 30/06/2016