Teleconference , 12:11 UTC
Executive Council Attendees:
Raul Echeberria, Chair
Ray Plzak, Secretary
Paul Wilson, Treasurer
Axel Pawlik, Member
Other Attendees:
Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary
Observers:
Nate Davis (ARIN)
German Valdez (LACNIC)
Absent:
Adiel Akplogan
AGENDA
1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Approval of the Minutes
4. Executive Council
5. ASO
6. ICANN
7. Internet Governance
8. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
9. Any Other Business
10. Adjournment
1. Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:11 UTC. The presence of a quorum was noted. It was acknowledged that Adiel Akplogan was not in attendance at this time.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair called for any comments on the Agenda. There were no comments.
3. Approval of the Minutes
Ray Plzak moved that:
“The NRO EC approves the Minutes of the April 18, 2006 NRO EC meeting as presented.”
This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. The motion carried unanimously. The Chair stated that last year it was discussed that the minutes should have a certain level of detail, and wanted to ensure that this was implemented. Ray Plzak suggested the EC provide comments to him clarifying the level of detail they wanted reflected in the minutes. All agreed.
4. Executive Council
A. IANA Contract. (NRO EC 05-102 051122) The Chair had posted the draft contract to the RIR Board’s list, and stated it is currently in review with the Boards. Ray Plzak stated he would like the APNIC EC’s comments sent to the RIR Boards as well, so that those Boards can see these comments. Paul Wilson stated he would send the comments out to the RIR Boards on May 12, 2006. All agreed.
B. Charter for the Engineering Coordination Group. (NRO EC 06-03 060209) The Chair stated comments were received from Ginny Listman, Chair of the ECG, and that he is drafting a response to the ECG. He stated he will send an e-mail to ECG Chair stating that the Charter that is approved is the Charter that should currently being used, but that the EC is considering Ginny’s comments.
C. Charter for the NRO Legal Team. The Chair stated that currently a Charter does not exist for the NRO’s legal team and queried the EC as to whether the team needed a Charter. Ray Plzak stated that he did not know if a Charter is needed, but in lieu of one, the EC could designate a chief coordinator for the legal team. Paul Wilson stated he felt no need for a Charter because the legal team is an external body to the NRO, unlike the Coordination Groups, which are under the management of the NRO EC. Axel Pawlik also agreed.
The Chair stated the chief coordinator Ray suggested could rotate with the SEC on an annual basis. All agreed with this idea. Ray Plzak suggested writing a statement to this affect and the Chair asked him to do so.
D. Management of “Various Registries” Address Space. (05-72 050907) No change from the last meeting.
E. EC Meeting Schedule. (NRO EC 06-04 060209)
Procedures for Calling a Meeting. No change from the last meeting.
F. Harmonizing IPv4 Allocation Practices. (NRO EC 06-05 060209) The Chair proposed to take two actions:
1. Promote a twelve-month allocation period. The Chair stated that he was is in favor of this action, expecting the EC to make a decision on the period time of twelve months, and form a group, based on the Charter proposed by Paul Wilson, to promote the twelve-month period.Ray asked if the EC should send a statement to the various RIRs regarding this decision. The Chair confirmed this, stating that he will draft a statement. All agreed.
2. Analyze the harmony of IPv4 practices, and draft a report according to the Charter of the group. The Chair stated a working group be formed to not only analyze the harmonizing of IPv4, but also should be tasked with the analysis of IP allocation practices, not just v4. Ray clarified by asking if the working group should analyze allocation assignment practices. The Chair confirmed that was correct. All agreed.
Regarding the Charter submitted by Paul Wilson, the Chair stated he agreed with the Charter and supported it. Ray Plzak asked Paul to revise it to incorporate the decision to have the working group analyze allocation assignment practices. Paul agreed to do so.
Ray Plzak moved that:
“The NRO EC provisionally adopts the Charter, pending final revisions with comments by the EC on the mailing list.”
This was seconded by Paul Wilson. The motion carried unanimously.
G. Routing Certification. (NRO EC 06-19 060418) The Chair stated that the EC discussed this topic recently in Istanbul. He stated that the RIRs are moving forward on the project, but need to decide the role of NRO in the project. He suggested appointing a leader in NRO to bring decisions to the table – someone who can facilitate discussion within the NRO EC. He explained that the EC does not have a clear picture on the types of decisions they should make within the RIRs. AP agreed and stated that at the meeting in Istanbul, he and Paul volunteered to come up with a list of technical issues (Paul’s task) and administrative issues (Axel’s task) regarding decisions in these areas that the NRO should make.
It was decided Paul Wilson would be the leader of routing certification within the NRO. The Chair asked Paul provide some information at the EC’s next meeting that could shed some light as to what role the EC should play in the Routing Certification project. Paul agreed.
Ray Plzak pointed out that Adiel Akplogan, although not present, also needed to agree with all the decisions. All agreed.
5. ASO
A. ASO AC Document Review Committee. (NRO EC 06-13 060228) The Chair asked Ray to update the EC on this matter. Ray stated there were two documents, one for the election of the Chair, the other for the election of an ICANN Board member. He reiterated that he and Paul Wilson were the shepherds of these documents, and that he needed to provide Paul some information on the Board selection document.
The Chair stated the documents needed to be reviewed and decide on what actions to take. He explained that Ray Plzak was asked to lead this effort because he was very involved. Ray stated he and Paul would work on the documents and will provide guidance to the ASO AC on what the documents should look like, and what features they should contain. The Chair stated the ASO AC should have a more active role in developing the procedures, and providing guidelines to the ASO AC Chair is the right direction. All agreed.
B. Reimbursement for Address Council Members. (NRO EC 06-08 060209) RP stated that he still owed Paul information on this matter. The Chair reiterated that the current criteria in place in sending the ASO AC Chair to ICANN Meetings were to reimburse all business-related expenses. All agreed that this was the current mode of operation.
6. ICANN
RIR COI Posture. (NRO EC 05-56 050809) The Chair and AP will work together to follow up on the RIR Conflict of Interest posture, and prepare a consistent statement to the ICANN Board regarding this topic. Item to be discussed on the EC’s list.
Chair stated that there was no update at this time.
7. Internet Governance
A. ITU.
1) Letter to ITU-T regarding ITU Liaison. (NRO EC 06-24 060418) The Chair stated that he did not send the letter yet, because the sentiment of the letter was to express that the EC accepts the establishment of a liaison, but that that is only one of the issues that the EC feels they need to be involved in. The Chair stated that the letter as currently written does not express this sentiment. The Chair requested that the EC review one last version that he will send to the EC’s list today. All agreed.
2) Korean IPv6 Paper. (NRO EC 06-20 060418) The Chair stated that Paul had sent a response d document to the EC, but the Chair did not have time to read it yet. Paul stated that Study Group 2 had apparently met and referred the matter to the relevant, responsible organizations.Axel stated, in his opinion, Study Group 2 made a reasonable decision, and no further steps needed to be taken. Paul suggested the EC send the document to Study Group 2, the benefit being that it could be published as the EC’s additional response on the NRO website, and could be a useful document. Axel also suggested sending the document with a cover letter asking Study Group 2 to forward the document to the relevant organizations, and that NRO would take up the matter.
Paul Wilson moved that:
“The NRO EC Chair submits, as the NRO, the EC’s response to the ITU discussion.
This was seconded by Axel Pawlik.
The Chair stated he wanted to read the document before making a comment. He also suggested a document no longer than two pages. Due to the technical nature of the subject matter, he felt it would be difficult for people to understand and shortening the document would be helpful.
Axel suggested summarizing the major points of the document, and keep the long version for those interested in the finer points. The Chair agreed with a long and shorter version of the document. All agreed to send a summarized document. Paul requested the EC send him their detailed comments so that an executive summary could be drafted. All agreed.
The Chair asked Paul if the e-mail from the Japanese stated that no decisions would be made at the meeting in progress. Paul stated that their meeting ends today and it appeared on the website that they were deciding not to take further action, but he stated he would look at the audio version of the meeting to confirm this, and would let the EC know.
The Chair stated that Richard Hill will circulate the EC’s comments to Study Group II. Paul stated the EC can comment based on what was said in the audio version of the meeting, and would report back to the EC in the next few days.
The Chair reiterated the action items: 1) EC to send comments to Paul regarding the response document. 2) Paul to issue new version of document after reviewing the audio version of Study Group 2s meeting within the next week at the earliest.
3) ITU Telecom World 2006. (NRO EC 06-21 060418) The Chair stated it was the sense of the EC that they agreed on exhibiting at this meeting.
AP moved that:
“The NRO EC agrees to participate on a similar level as we did in Tunis, and needs a lead person to discuss details. ”
This was seconded by Ray. Ray stated he would be the lead, because the Chair of the CCG resides in ARIN. The Chair requested including NRO CCG work in this motion. Ray suggested adding that information in Item 8, and suggested the following motion instead:
“The NRO EC approves participation by the NRO in an exhibition pavilion at the ITU Telecom World 2006 in a manner similar to the participation at the WSIS summit in Tunis in 2005.”
This was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.
Paul then stated that he had looked at exhibition space on website for the World Telecom conference and there was very little left. It was not like the space the NRO had in Tunis at WSIS. He felt exhibiting was not looking good at this point and expressed disappointment that there was no prior action taken. Ray stated that he had sent a message to ISOC that the NRO was interested, but did not commit to it since the EC had not discussed it at the time.
Axel noted that ISOC was looking for firm commitments of a financial nature before they would proceed, and felt that ISOC had not coordinated properly. The EC was surprised ISOC could not commit the funds up front, and get the funds back through contributions.
Paul suggested letting ISOC know the EC was ready to go forward and that they expect ISOC to take the lead. Ray stated he would send a message to ISOC. Axel agreed and stated that RIPE could supply funds if needed immediately if the NRO wanted.
Ray stated that ARIN has committed hotel rooms for some staff and there is a risk of going to Hong Kong and not having the booth and there are substantial penalties for canceling the hotel reservations, which were partially paid for already.
The Chair agreed with the discussion and that ISOC needed to be contacted. Ray suggested that he would draft a letter from the Chair to Lynn St. Amour at ISOC expressing the EC’s concerns and what the EC expects. All agreed.
The Chair expressed his preference for working with global organizations, rather than regional organizations, because the Boards are more familiar with the global organizations and do not need to deliberate over who the organization is, and whether or not to work with them.
B. IGF.
1. Representative for IGF Advisory Group. (NRO EC 06-23 060418) The Chair asked if there was any more information on this topic. He received names from Markus Kummar but no new news. He stated it was not good for a process to start two weeks before the Advisory Group meeting, and no one knows who the members are yet. He stated the EC can only wait at this point.
The Chair let the EC know that there were interesting comments on the IGF website, and that there are comments on what topics should be discussed at the upcoming meeting.
2. NRO Contribution to IGF SEC. The Chair stated this was a difficult decision because he did not want to become part of the people that suffer the process, while others take advantage of it. He stated the EC’s relationship however would benefit by contributing. Discussion ensued with the EC agreeing to contribute $25,000 to the IGF SEC and to apportion the shares of the contribution between the RIRs. The EC will express its willingness to contribute for future years, but would not commit to a five year contribution plan.
Ray Plzak moved that:
“The NRO EC will contribute $25,000 to the IGF SEC pending approval by its respective Boards in an apportioned amount.”
This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. There were no further comments.
The motion carried unanimously.
8. Communications Coordination Group (CCG)
A. CCG Work Plan. (NRO EC 06-14 060228) The work plan has been submitted to the EC Chair from the Chair of the CCG and is awaiting the EC’s approval. The Chair asked if the EC had reviewed the work plan and all members present stated they had reviewed the document.
Ray Plzak moved that:
“The NRO EC accepts the CCG Work Plan as presented.”
This was seconded by Paul Wilson. The Chair stated he would like the work plan to include the NRO’s participation at Telecom World 2006, and the issue of relationships with the media. He stated the CCG should create an updated list of press contacts. This list would be available for RIRs to use. The Chair also wanted to include updating of the general presentations given at various meetings for anyone needing to make a presentation at a meeting at any time. Ray stated that the one given at the ICANN meeting should be included as well. All agreed with these suggestions.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ray then moved that:
“The NRO EC adds the items that the Chair has commented on to the CCG work plan, and directs the Chair of the CCG to add this to work plan.”
This was seconded by Axel Pawlik.
The motion carried unanimously.Ray requested the Chair e-mail the items to be included in the work plan to him, and that he would compose a message for the Chair of the CCG. The Chair agreed to do so.
B. ASO Website. (NRO EC 06-11 060228) Ray stated that, as the SEC, he attended a meeting in Istanbul between Louis Lee (ASO AC member who was tasked to revise the ASO website) and a member of the CCG. Ray explained that if the CCG is tasked by the NRO EC to revise ASO website the NRO’s participation would be the part that only involved the NRO website.
Ray then moved that:
“The NRO EC directs the CCG to add the revision of the ASO website to the CCG Work Plan.”
This was seconded by Paul Wilson. There were no further comments. The motion carried unanimously.
C. IP Addressing Webpage. The CCG Chair submitted a document to the EC’s Chair in March. The Chair stated he will check to see if it was sent to the EC list. If so, he will lead a discussion on their list.
Ray asked if the EC would be exhibiting a booth at the IGF Forum in Athens later this year.
Axel Pawlik moved that:
“The NRO EC directs the CCG explore the issue of exhibiting a booth at the IGF Forum in Athens.”
This was seconded by Ray Plazk, and the motion carried unanimously.
9. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business.
The Chair requested revisiting Item 4. F. Harmonizing IPv4 Allocation Practices. (NRO EC 06-05 060209). The Chair stated he had sent an e-mail to the EC during this meeting with text that he proposes for the motion. The EC members stated they had received the text.
The Chair moved that:
“The NRO EC approves promoting the harmonization of the allocation period that is used in all of the RIRs, and suggests adopting the criteria of a 12 month allocation period as the common criteria as soon as possible.”
This was seconded by Axel Pawlik. The Chair stated that the NRO has no power over the RIRs and that this is a “promotion” of the 12 month period. All agreed and the motion passed unanimously.
The Chair then requested further discussion of the IANA Contract. The Chair stated he had read the e-mail that Paul Wilson sent to the EC’s list, and asked him to explain the origin of the e-mail – specifically why Bart Boswinkel was saying what he was saying? Paul responded that he did not know, but thinks that Bart thought that Axel and Paul were involved because Bart had spoken to them separately about the contract in Wellington. Paul stated that he told Bart to share his comments with the NRO EC, but Bart’s e-mail came directly to Paul and made reference to a discussion with Axel that he wasn’t privy to. Axel agreed with this stating Bart approached him and Axel had told him the same thing.
Ray stated this was not a good means of communication and that people should communicate with the EC Chair and not individual members.
Axel suggested Paul reply to Bart requesting that Bart please speak to the EC Chair. All agreed.
10. Adjournment
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 12:24 UTC. Chair moved to adjourn and this was seconded by AP. The motion carried unanimously.
Last modified on 11/05/2006