Minutes
Teleconference 25 May 2010, 11:00 UTC
Executive Council Attendees:
- RIPE NCC: Axel Pawlik (AP, Chairman)
- LACNIC: Raul Echeberria (RE, Secretary)
- ARIN: John Curran (JC, Treasurer)
- AFRINIC: Adiel Akplogan (AA, Member)
- APNIC: Paul Wilson (PW, Member)
Observers:
- ARIN: Nate Davis (ND)
- LACNIC: Hartmut Glaser (HG)
- RIPE: Andrei Robachevski (AR)
- RIPE NCC: Paul Rendek (PR)
- LACNIC: Ernesto Majó (EM)
- APNIC: Akinori Maemura (AM)
- APNIC: Germán Valdez (GV)
Agenda:
1. Welcome Apologies, Agenda Bashing
2. Previous Minutes
3. Review Action Items
4. Update from the CCG / PCG
5. Update from the ECG
6. Guidance to ASO AC re global policy draft
7. IGF Budget Framework 2010
8. IETF / IAB
9. ICANN / IANA
a. ASO Review ToR
b. Letter of Support
c. Reply to Beckstrom letter
d. RE to report on ICP2 analysis
e. Trusted community representatives
10. ITU
a. CSTD meeting
b. Plenipot attendance
c. NRO membership
11. Preparation of NRO retreat
12. AOB
13. Adjournment
1. Welcome Apologies, Agenda Bashing
The chairman welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 11:05 UTC. No changes were proposed for the agenda.
RE commented that the use of Webex had allowed saving USD 700-900 per NRO EC conference, adding that perhaps during the second half of the year Webex could be used for AC meetings as well. Several agreed. AA said that they had also been trying Webex but had found some serious issues in the AFRINIC region for people to join in, adding that it doesn’t work well because of connectivity issues and that he’s not sure if that would be efficient at ASO level. RE replied that first some tests would need to be conducted.
2. Previous Minutes
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
3. Review Action Items
Action item: 200906-17: CCG to work on an awareness campaign for ASN 2 byte exhaustion.
PR said that he had delivered a report on 27 April and was waiting for feedback, adding that so far no feedback has been received.
New Action item 100525-01: All to read the report from PR and respond to it.
Action Item 2010-R01: AP – RPKI implementation: Prepare Statement of Work, Budget, Timeline for the next 24 months.
AP said this action item is still OPEN. He apologized for being behind on this and said that he hopes to send it by the end of the week.
OPEN
Action Item 2010-R07: Each RIR to report on their formal statements regarding addresses being property/non property.
AP said that this action item is still OPEN for LACNIC and AFRINIC.
OPEN
Action Item 2010-R08: JC – Written material and written PowerPoint slide deck on c29 briefing to be given to NRO.
This action item is done.
CLOSED
Action Item 2010-R09: NRO − Talk to the community & ICANN. The NRO is aware of some proposals in this direction and the NRO is not against. There is a process in place and those that propose this kind of initiatives have to follow that process.
AP said that this action item would be discussed later.
It is considered CLOSED
Action Item 2010-R10: LACNIC – Produce the first draft letter of support to ICANN and distribute to the NRO for feedback and approval.
This action item is done. RE noted that this would be discussed in a separate point of the agenda.
CLOSED
Action Item 2010-R11: PR – Review the PCG & CCG, explore the possibility of both groups merging together.
This action item is done. A report will be presented later on.
CLOSED
Action item 201003-01: JC to work in budgeting process to being used in the NRO in the future.
JC said that he would bring this to the Brussels workshop, sending it out a week prior so that people can look at the proposed process, which involves budgeting for each of the work groups and individual approvals for individual expenditure items.
AP said that he would include this in the agenda for the Brussels meeting.
OPEN
Action item 201003-02: AP to task the Registration Services Manager to work together in the implementation of the new statistics model.
This action item is done.
CLOSED
Action item 201003-03: RE to read and analyze the ICP2 and report to the EC.
RE said that the action item is done, adding that he will give an oral report later.
CLOSED
Action item: 201004-01: AP – Contact coordination groups’ chairs and ask for their planning regarding their meetings.
This action item is done.
CLOSED
NEW ACTIONS –
Action 100427-1: All to review the document sent by AA once again, after incorporating PW’s comments, and send comments to the EC list within a week
AP said that this has not been done, that AA has sent the reviewed version of the document but that the rest have yet to comment on it. It was concluded that this action item remains OPEN.
Action 100427-2: RE to send the final version of the incorporation documents with the minor changes that were suggested.
AP said that this action item is still OPEN. RE said he would send them today.
Action 100427-3: Each to send their reasons or justifications for moving forward with the incorporation to the list.
AP said that this action item is OPEN.
Action 100427-4: After AP sends out the corresponding job description, each organization to provide the EC an estimate for adding such an FTE to their respective organizations.
AP apologized for not having done this yet. This action item is OPEN.
Action 100427-5: All of us −except LACNIC and AFRINIC− to send a list of the people they are sending to the WTCD meeting.
JC informed that Cathy Handley is there; AP informed that Roland is there.
AP concluded that this action item has been overtaken by events.
4. Update from the CCG / PCG
PR presented the following CCG update:
– CCG retreat: The CCG would like to have a retreat somewhere after the EC retreat in Brussels. PR will get back to the EC once the date for this retreat is decided.
– IGF workshops: The CCG is still working on these. Three workshops were submitted from the NRO and one formal submission was made from LACNIC −those were the only four submissions coming directly from either the NRO or an RIR. Other RIRs have been dragged into some other workshops and we’re trying to consolidate what those would be, as people are now trying to see how they’re going to fill up their workshops and with who, so we’ll compile that as well. We know that we have two workshops that have been accepted, one of them we have to merge with ISOC India, our v6 proposal has been accepted, the one on transparency has been accepted as well (given that we work with ISOC India I’m sure that will be fine). PR said he’s not aware of the status of LACNIC’s submission for the certification workshop.
– IGF workshops/IGF in general: We considered having our presence at the IGF village this year and there was some talk about having a presence at an internet pavilion stand together with our industry partners, but this has fallen out. ISOC is going on their own,, so we’ll recommend that we have a stand as we’ve always had, focusing on IPv6 and our key messages. We need to produce a budget for this, LACNIC has already reserved a space to have a stand, but we haven’t looked at anything more than that.
– 32-bit ASN project: We’re ready to move, but we’re waiting for your feedback on this, we need your sign-off otherwise we cannot put resources into this project. This was led by Susan Hamlyn and Louis Flynn, I submitted the document they produced to the EC list on 29 April asking for your support. I have not had any feedback on that.
– Messaging: We’re taking a look at the messaging document. One person −Megan− consolidates all the messaging. We’ll update the document and send it to the EC for comments very soon.
– IPv6 communications plan is also something we’ve been working on.
– We’ve been also been working on RPKI together with the ECG seeing what we’re going to be doing regarding the communications for certification. I’m sure that in the next few weeks we’ll be producing a plan.
PR had nothing to report from the PCG. He commented that there had been no activity on that list whatsoever. PR said that he would later submit a written proposal, but verbally he proposed that in order to have a PCG like the EC was requesting, in his opinion the PCG is the NRO EC and unless a large portion of the members of the NRO EC are on the PCG he really doesn’t think this it is going to move. He added that there’s a lot of confusion between the CCG and the PCG and that they can’t seem to find their footing.
RE agreed with PR’s statement, but said that in his opinion this is how things are now but not how they should be. RE added that it would be useful to have a group of people from all the RIRs working in this policy arena with greater independence. In his opinion they should not give up on having a group such as the PCG.
AP suggested waiting for PR’s written proposal and taking note of the fact that this is not running very well and hopefully take part in that activity.
Regarding the workshops for the IGF on RPKI, RE said that he is in communication with Milton Mueller to coordinate the merge of the 2 proposals. RE said that he’d forward what Milton had proposed and would appreciate it if the EC can comment or propose speakers.
5. Update from the ECG
AR said that he had sent an email and that he was aware that some of the documentation attached to this email might have been overwhelming, so he offered to walk them through this update, which is structured around those documents so comments and feedback are expected. He observed that they had walked out the roll-out plan for phase 2 (also attached to the update), adding that, as discussed in Anaheim, although interoperability and coordination is somewhat limited at this phase, it was necessary to define some checkpoints to monitor the progress and minimize the risk of the process and ensure that they all arrive together on 1st January 2011.
AR said that they’d noted that one of the areas that probably would require coordination relates to the consistent view of the global registry at RIR level and, although on 1st January not all of us are required to certify all the ERX space, we have to expose this ERX space at the RIR level. AR added that in his opinion that kind of exposure should be clear. He noted that the other possibility would be not to expose that space altogether, but that would send the message to the outside world that our registry is not clear. In AR’s opinion this requires some coordination and activities not within the engineering area but within the registration services area. All the engineering teams of the different RIRs are confident that the plan that has been proposed is realistic and achievable, so they can all be comfortable with this milestone (1st January 2011). He added that he’d received updates saying that almost all RIRs had achieved this milestone on 15 May and that AFRINIC plans to complete it by the 15th of June, so we’re good here.
AR said that they’re still working on phase 3, which is a slightly more complex task and added that he believes in the coming two weeks the plan will be crystallized. He said they had received a message from the EC saying that the 1st June 2011 milestone was very important so they’re doing some back planning counting back from this milestone.
AR added that another thing they’d worked on was RPKI global view. He said that it’s important for the ECG to understand their stance on that −what is the final structuring of the model of the RPKI system when we arrive at phase 4. AR said that they had looked at different models and he had done a comparative analysis for the particular model that they’re planning to implement for phase 3. He added that he’s very interested in receiving their feedback on this document (also attached to the update.)
AR said that another thing he wanted to mention was related to the project of arpa and IP6.arpa delegation. All the infrastructure is already there, ARIN is negotiating the terms of this service with ICANN and the Department of Commerce. He said that they’d also got a document, a proposal from ICANN clarifying the expected roles and responsibilities of the organizations. He commented that the ECG had felt that the document was too one way, that it resembled a contract too much and that it was not applicable to the type of service they are providing. He added that he’d attached both the original document as sent by ICANN as well as the version of the document prepared by the ECG. He said that they believe that this matter should also be addressed by the NRO EC as it requires a higher level of negotiation.
AR said that the issue of data escrow had popped up and was discussed at the ECG teleconference in early May. He noted that, while they think they understand the intention of this project, they feel that the goal and the scope of the project need to be more clearly defined, e.g. they’d like to know more about the extent of the data (registry data, routing data, financial data, etc.) and whether it also includes operations and procedures. He proceeded to ask for feedback and clarification.
AR said that the final attachment to the update is the ECG activity plan for 2010. He said he’d like the EC to have a look at this plan and if they are happy with it to sign it off.
JC thanked AR for an excellent update. He added that there are some action items that he wants to make clear on the NRO EC action item list, the first one being the approval of the RPKI roadmap for phase 2. He said he believes the engineering departments have individually approved this roadmap, including dates, but he’d like the NRO EC individual executives to confirm that their organizations are on board.
RE asked whether that had not been done in Brisbane (where they had defined what was expected for 1st January and set a deadline for the next phases), to which JC replied that they had agreed conceptually but at that time no dates had been set. He added that he wants to make sure that the other RIRs are on board with the phase 2 delivery dates.
New Action item 100525-02: All to confirm or not our commitment to the RPKI roadmap for phase 2.
JC then mentioned the RPKI Global View document, saying that there’s a recommendation implied in the conclusions of this document. There’s an assessment of two different ways to handle transfers, and then a recommendation from the ECG on how to proceed.
New Action item 100525-03: All to read the RPKI Global View document and respond to the ECG on how to proceed.
JC continued with the Reverse Servers Responsibility document, which also needs to go through the NRO EC because it has some implied contractual relationships between us and ICANN and in his opinion each member of the EC should read it and come back with comments.
New Action item 100525-04: All to read the Reverse Servers Responsibility document and provide comments and feedback to the ECG.
To conclude JC mentioned data escrow, saying that the ECG has asked them for the extent that we want them to explore data escrow.
New Action item 100525-05: JC to try to draft a message that describes the scope of the initial data escrow project.
RE commented on item 4, thanking AR for an excellent report. He observed that it could be the ECG who came up with some proposals in reply to the question that is being addressed to the EC, but if the question is addressed to the EC he thinks that they can discuss this more carefully in Brussels and added that in his opinion the ECG is better positioned than the EC to say what kind of information would be necessary. RE said that he believes that they should do everything but that they should do it in phases. He added that the most important information would be registry data, but if the idea is to continue billing the organizations they would also need previous billing information and other data.
AR agreed with RE in that this is a possible way to develop this proposal, but he thinks it might take a long time if the ECG continues wondering about the ultimate goal of the whole project −for instance if it means recovering an organization from scratch that will be able to serve a certain community or if it means something different (e.g. recovering the entire RIPE NCC from scratch to be able to serve the RIPE NCC community). In this case the data that is subject to escrow will need to include different details. Depending on the size and the content of the data set, non-technical issues such as privacy and data protection issues might be encountered, which is why the ECG is asking what is the ultimate goal.
In view of RE’s suggestion that the ECG prepare a phased approach and after AP had volunteered to prepare it, the following action item was decided:
New Action item 100525-06: AP to put together a straw man for the NRO EC and get it to the ECG before Brussels.
6. Guidance to ASO AC re global policy draft
JC said doesn’t think they’ve given the ASO AC very clear guidance about how to go about handling the circumstance of a global policy proposal where one of the RIRs has text which doesn’t’ match, we’ve ever told them how to handle cases where it doesn’t match. He added that normally this doesn’t matter but that now that the case has presented itself we need to think, generically, what needs to be done when this occurs −with complete independence of the global policy that is currently stuck in the system.
It was mentioned that part of the PDP says that the RIR staff will resolve the differences and give the AC a single policy to consider, to which JC replied that if that’s what we wish to do we should send a simple message telling them that’s how this is handled and that we’re now going to start that for the global policy for equitable IPv4 recovery and assignments.
AA fully agreed with JC and said that in AFRINIC their formal approval of that policy is still pending until they have a clear understanding of how things are going about, as this is a global policy that is mainly generated by the RIR CEO and board members not by the communities. He added that it would be good to have a clear message not only at the ASO level but also at the EC level.
AP agreed and volunteered to take on the following action item:
New Action item 100525-07: AP to write a message to the ASO AC chair saying that the NRO EC has looked at the global PDP the NRO has not handed the policy over yet to the ASO AC formally yet and that we don’t expect to do so in the current state of discussions. They can of course discuss it as concerned members of the community, but not as the ASO AC formally.
7. IGF Budget Framework 2010
AP mentioned that JC had sent an email regarding this issue. RE agree with JC’s recommendation that no action is needed from our side, simply to say we got it and agree with the framework.
As nobody objected, JC said that he would sign it and return it on behalf of the NRO as its treasurer.
8. IETF / IAB
It was established that there was nothing to discuss under this agenda item.
9. ICANN / IANA
a. ASO Review ToR
There were no comments on this item.
b. Letter of Support
JC said that a letter was drafted and added that he’d suggested a very small changes.
Some changes were discussed and RE said he sent an updated version to the list.
It was proposed to send the letter to the Boards’ list.
All agreed with this reasoning.
Action item 100525-08: Once the letter is finalized on the EC mailing list, AP to send a letter to the RIR Boards list for their information.
c. Reply to Beckstrom letter
AP clarified that this item was about the letter from Beckstrom to them and other stakeholders asking their opinion on the security of the various parts of Internet infrastructure and the addressing/routing system. He added that Beckstrom is waiting for a reply and that they should provide one soon as it is already late. AP also remembers that PW sent a couple of paragraphs on this which he would be happy to adopt.
JC said that PW’s paragraphs should be turned into a letter of response. RE proposed discussing it on the list before sending it. All agreed and the following action item was decided:
New Action item 100525-09: AP to draft a letter of response based on PW’s paragraphs and circulate it to the list for discussion before sending it.
d. RE to report on ICP2 analysis
RE noted that this is a very good document, he congratulated those who wrote it ten years ago and added that, although some things could be added, introducing changes would not be a good idea.
RE presented a detailed report about ICP-2 and all agreed that the document is still valid.
Action item 100525-10: JC to write a position paper or a white paper on the above and bring it to Brussels.
e. Trusted community representatives
There were not comments on this agenda item.
10. ITU
a. CSTD meeting
RE said that he had included this agenda item just in case anyone had anything to share on what had happened, but no comments were heard at this time.
b. Plenipot attendance
AP basically he wanted to say that they are sending Roland and otherwise they haven’t decided and asked what the others were going to do.
JC said that Cathy is planning to be there for the duration and that he’s supposed to fly there when he’s not in other places over the three and a half weeks of the meeting, adding that he has two speaking engagements in the middle and the ARIN NANOG meeting overlaps with the beginning of the start of the Guadalajara meeting.
RE said that he plans to take advantage of the efforts of those who will be attending, as did AA.
c. NRO membership
RE said that he had included this item in the agenda because he has insisted on the idea of the NRO joining the ITU as a member. He added that it had been said that it would not be possible to join the ITU without being incorporated but they have never actually tried to do it. He added that in his opinion it would be very good to have the NRO become a member of the ITU instead of the individual RIRs, and that they could try to join the ITU without being incorporated.
AP agreed and said he’d be happy to give it a try and see what they say.
RE clarified that this is a formal proposal from the LACNIC board. The LACNIC board formally proposes that the NRO join the ITU as the NRO instead of individually. He asked the others to consider this formal proposal.
JC said he’d like to discuss this with Axel to see if it’s possible. If it’s possible I think we should do it and if it’s not possible I think we should do it after incorporation.
New Action item 100525-11: AP to inquire about NRO membership in the ITU in its current, not incorporated form.
11. Preparation of NRO retreat
AP said this task is ongoing. He said that efforts were being made to try to keep everyone in as few hotels as possible and added that he’s also working on the agenda.
RE asked if everyone already had their hotel reservations, to which JC and AP replied that they do. AP said that he would ask his staff for a status update which he will later share.
12. AOB
AA and AP had no other business to propose for discussion.
JC commented that back in March their Registration Services team had come forth regarding the finalization of the registry split and was looking for us to concur that they should proceed with that. He said he’d told Leslie that he did not see that on the NRO EC action list and she was surprised. He said there was an open question AA raised regarding the number of /16s being allocated, a question about how many /16s ended up in each region. JC said he’d asked Leslie on their behalf if she could come up with a final recommendation as to what needs to be done and transmit to them that we would review and approve it, but that we needed to be sure that it was refreshed, that it addressed AFRINIC’s concern, and that we had a fresh copy to consider.
RE wanted to confirm that the next meeting would be the one in Brussels. All agreed.
13. Adjournment
There being no further business to discuss, AP adjourned the meeting at 12:45 UTC.
Last modified on 02/12/2010