MINUTES
December 1st, 2014
Face-to-face meeting Mauritius
Executive Council:
Adiel Akplogan (AA) AFRINIC Chair
Axel Pawlik (AP) RIPE NCC Secretary
Ernesto Majo (EM) LACNIC Treasurer
Paul Wilson (PW) APNIC
John Curran (JC) ARIN
Observers:
Gaelle Fall (GF) AFRINIC
Sunday Folayan (SF) AFRINIC
Ernest Byaruhanga (EB) AFRINIC
Nate Davis (ND) ARIN
Michael Abejuela (MA) ARIN
Craig Ng (CN) APNIC
Akinori Maemura (AM) APNIC
Andres Piazza (API) LACNIC
Paul Rendek (PR) RIPE NCC
Remco van Mook (RM) RIPE NCC
Secretariat:
German Valdez (GV) NRO
Draft Agenda
0) Welcome
1) Agenda Review
2) IANA Stewardship Transition
a) ICG Last Updates
b) CRISP Team Work
c) Regional Proposal Review
3) ICANN CCWG
4) RIR Accountability Matrix Next Steps
5) RIR Stability Fund
6) Policy Document Comparison Review
7) NETmundial Initiative
8) I* Relationship
9) AOB
10) Adjourn
0) Welcome
AA welcomed attendees and started the meeting at 9:10 AM Mauritius Time.
AA asked for a round of introductions for all people present in the meeting.
1) Agenda Review
PR suggested adding the ICANN CCWG and I* Relationship in the agenda.
AA agreed and the points were added as number 3 and 8 respectively in the agenda.
2) IANA Stewardship Transition
a) ICG Last Updates
AA reported that the ICG is finalizing their FAQ and there is a 1st draft published and available for input.
AA mentioned that ICANN Board agreed to review and pass the final report produced by the ICG without any changes to the NTIA but the ICANN Board would reserve the right to attach comments or reservations if necessary once the documentation is sent to the USG. AA said that the ICANN Board expect to consult with the ICG any doubts or need for clarification before the document be submitted to the NTIA.
AA reported that the ICG is about to finalize the selection of an independent secretariat to support ICG process and meetings. AA stated that the item remaining to be resolved is regarding conflict of interest.
PW mentioned that the ICG is working in a process to incorporate the three proposals from the communities.
PW mentioned that the CRISP Team should also consider that they might have a role after the proposal is submitted in case the ICG have to communicate with the different global communities. PW advised to review the proposal finalization process draft document prepared by the ICG.
JC advised that the CRISP team should assign liaisons to others communities group to receive and share information on what other communities are discussing.
PR said that the staff assigned to the CRISP Team could discuss about the idea during lunchtime.
AA reminded that the next ICG face-to-face meeting would be held in Singapore during ICANN meeting.
b) CRISP Team Work
PR presented the draft timeline and agenda for the first CRISP Team meeting. PR highlighted that the challenge ahead was to reach the 15th January deadline, given the time constraints they have.
PR said that one of the first activities of the CRISP Team is to define the scope of the group. PR said that the IETF example is a good reference.
PR mentioned that the chair should be from the community. PR suggested that the vice-chair be one the staff appointments. PR said that the CRISP Team should have a mailing list.
AA said that the mailing list should have public access to the archives.
AP agreed that the mailing list should be accessible from the public but discussion must happen in the global mailing list.
PR said that one aspect to resolve is the definition of quorum in order to conduct meetings.
API asked about expectations of decision-making mechanisms.
GV said that decisions would be based on rough consensus otherwise supermajority criteria, as described in the chapter.
PW suggested that quorum should be flexible maybe having one representative from each RIR.
CN said that in some organizations if quorum is not established the next meeting takes place regardless the number of participants.
AA suggested that meeting should take place regardless the number of attendees and decisions should be made in the global IANAxfer mailing list.
JC agreed with AA. JC suggested to keep record of the attendance anyways so we are sure people is able to cope with the workload.
PR stressed that the CRISP Team has only 10 days to produce a workable document before the start of the holiday season. PR said that the criteria of supermajority of reaching 8 out 10 are difficult to comply given the holiday season ahead. PR asked if the CRISP charter should be the first point of the agenda of the first teleconference.
API reminded that one of the criteria for the selection of the CRISP Team members was their availability during these holidays.
JC said that the CRISP chapter is under NRO EC control no the CRISP Team. JC said that supermajority apply to the final decision only. JC mentioned that the group should run the rest of their work based on rough consensus.
AA summarized the discussion stating that the CRISP Team would run their meeting regardless participation, decision should be made in the IANAxfer@nro.net mailing list, supermajority criteria apply to the vote for the final proposal and any changes in the CRISP charter should be approved by the NRO EC.
AA reminded that in case of disagreements with the process or the content of the proposal the ICG is prepared to consider such feedback.
PW suggested that CRISP team teleconferences be opened to observers.
GV asked about the secretariat approach and support to the CRISP Team. GV assumed that the NRO Secretariat would give such support.
PW said that like the ICG an approach could be the selection of an independent secretariat but the CRISP Team should make the decision.
JC mentioned that the process might take a while and reminded the time constraints.
JC asked if all regional consultation processes are completed so the CRISP Team could start consider the input.
PR said that some work in parallel could be made on the less controversial aspects
PW considered that the CRISP Team should think ahead and detect possible inconsistencies or contradictions and prepare for those cases.
AA said that the CRISP Team should start as soon as possible to define their timeline and produce material for discussion in the ianaxfer mailing list.
AA asked if the information of the CRISP team was published in the NRO website.
GV confirmed that the chapter, members and RIR consultations results are published. GV said that he’d keep the NRO website to record the meetings and share documents of the process lead by the CRISP Team.
EM asked if the NRO EC should discuss their role in the development of the Number Community single proposal.
JC agreed with EM on having the discussion.
AA asked what would be the NRO EC approach during the process so if they are going to provide input or wait until the end.
AP advised to allow the CRISP team to do their work until the end and in case of any negative impact in the RIR system the EC should intervene.
c) Regional Proposal Review
AA said that a starting point could be to understand the commonalities of the regional proposals
CN said that all RIR have agreed in SLA but there are questions marks of having a AoC or MoU. CN said that some of the agreements might end up in the ICANN bylaws.
Following JC and CN input AA suggested that discussion should cover SLA, IANA contracting parties, community accountability, termination, fee and successor.
JC said that having an SLA with IANA shouldn’t be problematic as the RIRs have few requests but it was important to be clear on the fact that in the IANA – RIR relationship, the RIRs are the one to representing the community.
AA mentioned that for the part of the reverse dns and zone file would be good to have someone from CRISP team as liaison to follow the process.
JC clarified that IETF process is almost completed.
AA reminded that currently IANA is accountable to the NTIA. AA mentioned that IANA send their operational report to them. AA asked how the new accountability scheme would work after the IANA transition.
JC said that is important to have clear, transparent and contracting relationship with the IANA operator. JC considered that the IANA operator must be accountable in implementing global policies and to the RIRs.
AA asked to discuss about different outcomes scenarios of the Number Community consultation.
JC said that plan A was to have a successful process leaded y the CRISP team. Plan B was not having the endorsement of ICG because the single proposal doesn’t comply with the requirements.
JC considered that in case of plan B there would be a one-year extension to comply with the RFP.
JC mentioned that exists the possibility that NTIA accept one or two community proposals and give extension to those who doesn’t full fill the requirements. JC commented that one option was to replicate IETF proposal.
EM said that the EC should have faith in the CRISP team to complete the task.
JC advised that the CRISP Team should reach other groups and establish liaison if that help to advance in the Number Community single proposal.
All agreed.
3) ICANN CCWG
PR made a description of the 2 groups that are part now of the ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group. PR praised the work done by Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli. PR said that the idea of the separation of the groups came from them and that the proposed charter was accepted without changes.
GV said that the ASO AC discussed the charter in the last November teleconference and they were ready to make a decision in 2 days during their December Teleconference.
PR mentioned that the next step was to coordinate with the NRO NC who would be the representatives.
PR reminded that there are three candidates Izumi Okutani, Athina Fragkouli and Fiona Asonga. PR pointed out that there were two groups to cover and the commitment is for two o three years. PR suggested to identify one more representative so there could two in each group.
AA said that the NRO EC should move quickly to review the ASO AC comments on the chapter and appoint the representatives.
The NRO EC resolved to confirm Izumi Okutani, Athina Fragkouli and Fiona Asonga to the ICANN CCWG and appoint a fourth member.
JC stated that ARIN has no position on this matter as ARIN Board is still reviewing the value of participating of ICANN accountability processes.
AA said that the RIR experience on membership structure could be an input in the process. AA added that the RIR should monitor the group and evaluate possible impact in the own RIR accountability.
Action Item 011214-01 NRO EC to appoint fourth representative to ICANN CCWG
4) RIR Accountability Matrix Next Steps.
AA reminded that the RIR accountability matrix is now published. AA said that there are some new aspects that need to be added and aligned and also find possible harmonization between RIR practices.
PR said that the items that were commissioned by the EC are in progress to be incorporated during December. PR added that there were other missing aspects that could be delivered by January.
AP suggested looking after the holes and what is currently missing. AP said that the Board must review any new governing documentation in RIPE NCC.
AA suggested completing as much as possible the matrix and afterwards run the analysis.
PW commented that the RIR matrix efforts could be aligned with those made in ICANN
AP said he was in favor of running peer reviews; share recommendations supported by legal and show it to the community.
JC agreed that the RIR should show efforts in this area.
PW commented that the NRO EC could commission an independent team to run the review and the analysis and report back recommendations.
PR added that there is a Q&A document ready to publish. PR expected that a second iteration of the document might receive more difficult questions and it should be ready for publication at the end of December.
AA concluded that the matrix should be filled by December, that each RIR should fill the holes so the RIR matrix could be fully completed by the 1st quarter in 2015. AA said that the next step would be to run the analysis.
5) RIR Stability Fund
JC mentioned that it’s been directed by ARIN Board to bring to the meeting the proposal of establishing a RIR stability fund.
AP said that the topic has been informally discussed in RIPE NCC board. AP mentioned that RIPE NCC could potentially support the fund.
EM stated he’d need to review it with LACNIC board.
RM said that contributions could be in kind and not necessarily money.
EM stressed that it was important how the fund would be define.
AA said that risks are not only financially. AA added that it was important to assurance the stability of the system. AA pointed out that the analysis of the accountability matrix would help to identify weaknesses.
JC asked if the matrix includes BCP info.
RM said that the aspects to protect were the continue operation of the registry and the ongoing support of the community.
AP considered that current matrix doesn’t describe the resilience of the system.
Action Item 011214-02: AP to draft a definition of the joint RIR stability fund
Action Item 011214-03 JC to draft a proposal for a RIR risk management matrix
6) Policy Document Comparison Review
PW suggested that the policy document comparison document be reviewed and updated with information regarding inter regional registration and some related questions.
PW said that some questions could be related to RIRs accept membership from outside the region, provide services to organizations inside or outside their region, register resources that are used inside or outside the region, etc.
PW said that some answers depend on the interpretation.
AA said that the matrix could be updated with something around policy administrative related questions.
PW offered to draft some questions related to inter regional registration activities and discuss the topic in the EC list.
Action Item 011214-04 PW to draft questions related to inter regional registration activities that could be use to update the Policy Comparison document.
7) NETMundial Initiative
AA reminded that the current position was to take a neutral approach to the NETmundial initiative debate. AA asked if there is need to change the approach and make a statement.
JC said that the NRO should not release any statement.
EM said that something the NRO could state is that the most important issue is the IANA stewardship transition and the priorities should be in this process.
PW suggested exchanging views aon known and unknown of the initiative. PW said that would be useful to articulate an answer in case of questions.
RM said that it’d be good to develop qualifiers or disqualifiers for any organization that want to own the NETmundial initiative.
JC said that regardless the organizations behind the NETmundial Initiative share or not the RIR principles, if they discuss about Internet number policies the RIR should participate.
AA agreed that a statement from NRO is not necessary at this stage.
AA said that he understands that the NETmundial initiative try to raise awareness about the decentralized Internet governance model to governments and highly influential groups like the WEF.
PW said that he’d be interested to develop some questions to Fadi regarding NETmundial Initiative.
JC agreed that it’d be good to have more information of the Initiative but he considered that engaging with questions might raise the assumption of the NRO interest to participate of the Initiative.
AA said that the starting point would be if the RIR recognize themselves in the objectives stated in the Initiative.
PW said that the risk of sitting back completely was to allow the process to derail and diverge more. PW said that a statement with clear expectations of coordination with current actors and forums would help.
PR reminded that NETmundial was meant to be a one edition only activity. PR suggested that the NRO EC discuss and review his commitment with the IGF.
JC considered that NETmundial Initiative is trying bringing solutions of the problems that are discussed and analyzed in the IGF.
AA considered that the NRO needs to understand better the objectives and scope of the Initiative before express their position. AA said that it’s clear that are concerns on the processes. AA asked if the processes problems were fixed the RIR would be willing to participate.
GV said that the public debate on NETmundial Initiative could give the wrong impression of lack of cohesion in the Internet community that could end impacting the IANA transition process.
AA said that the NETMundial Initiative debate is affecting the I* collaboration.
JC said he wouldn’t have problems is sending questions to ICANN if it’s clearly stated that each RIR would discuss their own positions regarding the Initiative.
PW offered to draft a potential correspondence or public statement.
AA said that raising questions would imply that one answered the NRO or the RIR should take a position. AA mentioned that at least some position should be made internally.
PW said that instead of questions the correspondence could be a set of observations or concerns.
Action Item 011214-05 PW to draft a communication to ICANN with expectations, observations and or concerns on the NETmundial Initiative.
AA suggested digesting the information about the NETmundial Initiative and discussing the topic again in the next teleconference.
8) I* Relationship
EM considered that the dispute between ICANN and ISOC is a distraction for the IANA Transition process.
JC agreed that the dispute is not good for the Internet ecosystem. JC considered that in order to resolve differences both parties should develop their views on the NETmundial Initiative.
JC pointed out that there is no I* meeting schedule. JC considered that such meeting is necessary.
EM suggested being proactive and attach topic for the I* meeting agenda.
AA offered to send a reminder to convene the next I* meeting and include some of today point of the agenda.
Action Item 011214-06 AA to send a reminder to convene the next I* meeting and ask to include the following points to the agenda: IANA Stewardship Transition, ICANN CCWG, NETmundial Initiative, I* Relationship
9) AOB
No other points were discussed.
10) Adjourn
AA adjourned the meeting at 16:30 Mauritius time.
Last modified on 19/08/2015