NRO EC Meeting Minutes: February 2018

Tuesday, 20 February 2018, 11am UTC.
Attendees

Agenda

0. Welcome
1. Agenda Review
2. Minutes Review
a. 23 January 2018
3. ASO Review Update
a. RIR Consultation Updates
b. Consultations Records (NRO website page)
c. Global Consensus Process
4. ICANN 61 Activities
a. ASO AC f2f Meeting, NRO EC participation
b. Opening Ceremony
c. CCWG Accountability WS2
d. Meeting with Adiel Apklogan
e. NRO Calendar for ICANN 61
5. KSK Rollover
6. IANA RC Call for Public Comments on IANA Matrix Report
7. 2018 NRO Budget
8. CG Input / Consultation
a. CCG 2018 Work Plan
9. Review Open Actions
10. Next Meetings
a. F2F Meeting Friday 16 March 2018 San Juan PR (Right after ICANN 61)
b. Teleconference Tuesday 17 April 2018 (during ARIN 41)
c. Teleconference Tuesday 15 May 2018
d. F2F Meeting Friday 19 & Saturday 20 October 2018 Amsterdam (Right before           ICANN 63)
11. AOB
12 . Adjourn

Resolutions

No Resolutions were passed at this meeting.

New Action Items

• NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-1: GV to call for agenda items for the NRO EC meeting with AA during ICANN 61.
• NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-2: PW to invite ML to give an update on the KSK Rollover and assistance requested from the RIRs during the meeting with AA at ICANN 61.
• NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-3: PW to circulate summary updates from the CCG, ECG and RSCG to the NRO EC mailing list.
• NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-4: GV to circulate the latest version of the ASO Procedures for Empowered Community Powers document on the NRO EC Mailing list.
• NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-5: ALL to review the ASO Procedures for Empowered Community Powers document and subsequently approve it.

1. Agenda Review

PW welcomed the attendees and declared quorum.

2. Minutes Review

a) 23 January 2018

As all had not yet reviewed the minutes, they were sent back to the list for further consideration.

3. ASO Review Update

a) RIR consultation updates

PW noted that a session on the ASO Independent Review Consultations would take place during the APNIC 45 Meeting. The APNIC community has selected IO and Aftab Siddiqui (AS) as conveners.

JC noted that ARIN had opened the consultation via its community mailing list and that the topic would be mentioned at the upcoming ARIN 41 Meeting. He added that there had been little activity on this, with only one comment to date.

AB noted that AFRINIC had opened a call for comments on the mailing list. A session has been planned for the upcoming AFRINIC-28 Meeting.

OR noted that LACNIC was defining the consultation process and had not made any announcements to the community yet. Communication on this is planned for March and an open session will be held during the LACNIC 29 Meeting.

AP added that there had not been much feedback from the RIPE Community when he gave a report on the survey at the recent RIPE Meeting. He noted that he would consult with RIPE NCC staff about the next steps in the process and report back to the NRO EC.

b) Consultations Records (NRO website page)

PW noted that the Secretariat had created a page on the NRO websiteto gather details about the ASO Consultations.

GV explained the page includes announcements and links to each region’s discussions and will be updated on an ongoing basis.

c) Global Consensus Process

PW noted that the NRO EC should discuss the global consensus process for the ASO Consultations.

JC noted that if no feedback were received from the communities, the communities would need to be given direction or told what the NRO EC’s straw man proposal is. He noted that it is also possible that the ARIN community would ask how the NRO EC is going to handle the process and there is not much guidance to give to the community as yet. He wondered whether the NRO EC would finalize any input received or would a team be convened to do this?

PW noted that, if there were no decisions from the community, the responsibility would fall back on the NRO EC to act. He continued that, in the APNIC region, the APNIC EC would probably be the group to draw conclusions from the consultations. If no input were received from the community, the APNIC EC would most likely consult with the conveners and would propose a solution. However, he could not be sure that this would be the process until the APNIC EC decided on a course of action.

JC added that, if no input were received in the ARIN region, the ARIN Board of Trustees would develop conclusions. He added that the NRO EC had previously discussed creating a team similar to the CRISP Team to drive the process.

PW noted that this had been discussed, and it was agreed that it was premature to convene such a team when the process for reaching consensus had not yet been defined.

AB noted that the NRO EC should wait to see what feedback is received from the communities before deciding what to do with it.

AP thought that it might be helpful to have a straw man process to present to the communities so that they have some direction.

PW noted that the APNIC meeting would happen within a week and getting an NRO EC-agreed proposal to present to the community by then would be difficult.

AP noted that the NRO EC probably couldn’t come up with something fully agreed in the timeframe but some ideas could be presented to the community.

PW agreed this would be useful.

PR noted that the communities are generally not active or involved in ASO matters and are probably going to want to hear the NRO EC’s ideas and what guidance it will offer. He noted that if no structured way of moving forward were presented, the communities would come back with a lot of questions.

PW noted that he was open-minded about putting forward something that is clearly a straw man proposal: either an NRO EC-endorsed proposal or something without endorsement but there would be no time to do this before the upcoming APNIC meeting.

AB suggested that the NRO EC could produce some rough proposals to guide the community rather than asking open-ended questions, perhaps taking in feedback received from the next few RIR meetings.

PW agreed that catalyzing the process might be useful. He added that, as the APNIC community will be discussing this imminently, it would be good if any community statements or outputs from this meeting were taken into consideration if proposals are subsequently drafted.

JC noted that the ARIN community would most likely ask what will be done with the input and how the input would become global consensus. He wanted to ensure that the answers given are consistent across all regions.

PW suggested that the APNIC community could be asked what the preferred mode of consensus forming would be and it could be suggested that the existing conveners be available to join a group like CRISP.

JC noted that the message should be that the NRO EC is now soliciting feedback on the process of gathering consensus: it does not currently have a default position and would be amenable to something similar to the CRISP Team if there are no other suggestions.

AP agreed, noting that the CRISP Team had worked well.

4. ICANN 61 Activities

a) ASO AC F2F Meeting, NRO EC Participation

GV asked if the NRO EC is planning to participate in the ASO AC F2F meeting taking place during the ICANN 61 Meeting:

APNIC: PW, PH and one observer.
AFRINIC: AB and one staff member.
ARIN: JC and one observer.
LACNIC: OR.
RIPE NCC: AP and one observer.

b) Opening Ceremony

PW noted that the ASO had been offered a slot in the opening ceremony and explained that he was waiting for more details on what is expected.

JC noted that the invitation should be respected but given the limited amount of interaction between the communities there’s not much that can be said in a short introduction but whatever is said should be representative.

c) CCWG Accountability WS2

PW explained that IO, the ASO’s representative on the CCWG Accountability WS2, has changed jobs and is stepping back from a number of commitments with the APNIC community and would withdraw from the CCWG Accountability WS2 work. He noted that there had not been much activity or any reports from this group recently and asked who should replace IO.

GV noted that while the last report from the CCWG Accountability WS2 was published several months ago, it was important to keep track of the ongoing discussions.

JC explained that there were two parts to the accountability work: one stream is working on follow-on items like jurisdiction and ICANN staff accountability and the other is working on accountability items for individual SO/ACs. He noted that he did not fully support cross-community work that is working to establish guidelines for ASO AC efforts because the NRO NC charters these efforts. Regarding general accountability measures, he noted that, as long as ICANN adheres to the contract, he has no comment on how ICANN governs itself. He believed that these discussions were not relevant to the ASO’s activities and were therefore low priority.

OR agreed.

AP agreed. He noted that sentiment from the RIPE community is that these discussions should be followed but there is no need to engage too strongly.

PW concluded that this would need further discussion and added it to the agenda for the upcoming NRO EC F2F meeting in Puerto Rico.

d) Meeting with Adiel Apklogan 

PW explained that he had extended an invitation to Adiel Akplogan (AA), Vice President for Technical engagement at ICANN, to meet with the NRO EC during the ICANN 61 Meeting (18:30, Tuesday 13 March).

JC thought that this was a good idea: the NRO has committed to several ICANN projects, such as ITHI, and it would be good to discuss them.

NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-1: GV to call for agenda items for the NRO EC meeting with AA during ICANN 61.

e) NRO Calendar for ICANN 61

PW reminded the NRO EC that the NRO calendar had details of all relevant NRO/ASO sessions at the ICANN 61 Meeting.

5. KSK Rollover

PW noted that the ICANN KSK Rollover had been postponed. He asked if the NRO EC wanted to have any coordinated support for this process and noted that there was a loose agreement on this in the past. He asked whether the NRO EC would like to hand this over to the ECG to coordinate.

JC said that the RIRs had been relaying KSK updates to their communities, and while he was happy to have a higher level of coordination, was there anything else that needed to be done?

PW suggested that nothing else needed to be done other than communication efforts. He added that he had asked, during ICANN 59, if the RIRs could help the KSK Rollover efforts and one activity identified was sharing information with the communities. Geoff Huston identified another one, which was a project identifying those ASNs using DNSSEC to see if any would be subject to potential problems when the rollover occurs. PW noted that none of this had been coordinated and he wondered whether the NRO EC would like to have the ECG coordinate this going forward.

JC agreed.

JC added that Matt Larson (ML), Verisign, had sent a message to the NRO EC about the plan to delay the KSK Rollover: ML had asked for assistance to track down the administrators of resolvers that might not be prepared for the KSK Rollover. JC noted that ML had said that he would get back to the NRO EC with a list of IP addresses and background information about what is needed. JC suggested that the ECG should deal this with together with Geoff to make sure the list is valid before members are contacted.

PW suggested that the ECG is asked to include this in the agenda at its next F2F meeting at the IETF.

JC suggested that ML give an update in the meeting scheduled with AA during ICANN 61.

OR agreed: an update from ML on the current status of the KSK Rollover would be useful.

PW concluded that this would be added to the agenda for the meeting with AA and ML would be invited to give an update.

NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-2: PW to invite ML to give an update on the KSK Rollover and assistance requested from the RIRs during the meeting with AA at ICANN 61.

6. IANA RC Call for Public Comments on IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report

PW noted that a call for comments on the 2017 IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report had been published.

GV explained that the IANA Review Committee (IANA RC) would hold a teleconference by the end of March to consider any input they have from the community before sending its advice to the NRO EC.

7. 2018 NRO Budget

The NRO EC discussed the 2018 NRO Budget.

GV noted a change to the current version to be approved: the budget for ASO AC Chair Travel had increased by US$15,000 to US$45,000. He explained that the ASO AC had elected a new Chair for 2018. The new Chair resides in Australia and would need to take long flights to the three ICANN meetings. The previous budgeted amount of US$ 30,000 was based on the previous ASO AC Chair’s location in Europe.

There were no objections.

JC noted that while the budget has increased materially, this was mainly due to the wise decision to extend SG’s consultancy.

The NRO EC subsequently approved the 2018 NRO Budget.

8. CG Input / Consultation

a) CCG 2018 Work Plan

PW noted that the CCG had asked the NRO EC to approve its 2018 Work Plan and explained that the CCG is already working to this draft plan.

There were no objections and the CCG’s 2018 Work Plan was subsequently approved.

PW noted that he had summary updates from the three coordination groups, the ECG, CCG and RSCG. He reminded the NRO EC that he had excused all three CG Chairs from the NRO EC teleconferences, which are scheduled late at night in the APNIC time zone, unless they are critical to the discussion.

AP suggested that the updates were sent to the NRO EC mailing list.

NEW ACTION ITEM 180220-3: PW to circulate summary updates from the CCG, ECG and RSCG to the NRO EC mailing list.

9. Review Open Actions

10. Next Meetings

a) f2f Meeting Friday 16 March 2018 San Juan PR (Right after ICANN 61)

b) Teleconference Tuesday 17 April 2018 (during ARIN 41)

c) Teleconference Tuesday 15 May 2018

d) f2f Meeting Friday 19 & Saturday 20 October 2018 Amsterdam (Right before ICANN 63)

PW proposed that the NRO EC begins its F2F meeting in the afternoon on Friday 19 October and continues in the morning on Saturday 20 October if necessary. This is to enable those attending the ICANN 62 Meeting in Barcelona to get there in time.

There were no objections.

11. AOB

There were no AOB items.

12. Adjourn

Meeting adjourned 12:12 PM (UTC).

Last modified on 08/05/2018