NRO EC Meeting Minutes: March 2018

Friday, 16 March 2018, 09:00 AST (13:00 UTC)
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Attendees

Agenda

1. Welcome
2. Agenda Review
3. Minutes Review
4. ASO Review
   1. Update on consultations
   2. Global Consensus Process
5. CCWG Accountability WS2
6. ASO Procedures for Empowered Community Powers Next Steps
7. ITHI Project
8.  KSK Rollover
9. IANA AS Number Registry
10. 2017 NRO expenses report
    1. NRO EC to Approve NRO Expense Report
    2. NRO EC Decision on 2017 NRO Distribution Formula
11. ICANN Contribution Timing
    1. EC Decision on Payment of ICANN Dues Before End of the Year
12. 2018 IGF Contributions
13. CG Updates
    1. ECG 
    2. RSCG
    3. CCG
14. Review Open Actions
15. Next Meetings
    1. Teleconference Tuesday 17 April 2018 (during ARIN 41)
    2. Teleconference Tuesday 15 May 2018
    3. Teleconference Tuesday 19 June 2018
    4. f2f Meeting Friday 19 & Saturday 20 October 2018 Amsterdam (Right before ICANN 63)
16. AoB
    1. AFRINIC Internal Complaint
    2. Review of Appointments to the IGF MAG
    3. Emergency Back End Registry
    4. IANA RC
    5. ARIN Staff Update
    6. ICANN 61 Recap
17. Adjourn

Resolutions

The following resolutions were passed during this meeting:

New Action Items 

The following action Items were assigned during this meeting:

1. Welcome

PW welcomed the attendees and declared quorum.

2. Agenda Review

The following items were added to the agenda under AoB:

• AFRINIC Internal Complaint
• Review of Appointments to the IGF MAG
• Emergency back end RIR registry
• IANA RC
• ARIN Staff Update
• ICANN 61 Recap

3. Minutes Review

• January 2018: Approved.
• February 2018: Approval pending.

4 ASO Review

• Update on Consultations

PW asked for an update on the ASO Review Consultations in each region.

OR noted that LACNIC is working on a communication plan, which will be reviewed by the LACNIC Board. The idea of creating a coordination team to manage the discussion will be suggested. A webinar will be held in April and there will two separate sessions held in Panama. One will be an informational overview and the other will be a discussion session.

AB noted that AFRINIC had opened a call for comments a few months ago and a session will be held during the upcoming AFRINIC Meeting.

PW noted that there had been a proposal from one of the APNIC conveners, which is a re-development of the ’two house model’ suggested in the ASO Review. He explained that this proposal is more of a renaming exercise rather than a substantial structural change. He added that he had written a blog post about this, which the NRO EC may find interesting.

AP noted that the RIPE community would open discussion on the ASO Review at the upcoming RIPE Meeting in May. An overview of the ongoing discussions in the other regions will be given.

JC explained that ARIN had opened the consultations on the mailing list and two comments had been received to date. One noted that it is time to end the ASO’s relationship with ICANN as it does not serve any purpose; the other noted that it is not clear what value is being added to the number community by the current relationship and that it may be time to re-think the structure. A session will be held at the upcoming ARIN Meeting in April. The community will be asked to give comments during the Open Mic session.

• Global Consensus Process

The NRO EC discussed the ASO consultation consensus process.

JC noted that, once all five RIRs had consulted their communities, it was doubtful that there would be a converging path forward in all five regions. He believed that a community-powered team would need to be created to look into what the global community needs to get out of its relationship with ICANN and then propose a future structure.

PW noted that if something similar to the CRISP Team could be created, the APNIC conveners could take part in this. He asked the NRO EC to ask their respective communities to consider the process/mechanisms of how consensus would be formed during discussions.

OR noted that the process by which consensus is converged upon would depend on the level of engagement in the communities: it should be up to the EC to then decide what the best way to implement this would be.

5. CCWG Accountability WS2

PW explained that the CCWG Accountability WS2 was still in the process of reviewing ICANN’s accountability procedures.

AB noted that he had been approached about the requirement in the ICANN Bylaws for ICANN to consider human rights in all of its decision-making. This requirement will apply to all SO/ACs so the NRO EC should expect a request for it to revise its procedures to include clauses about human rights.

JC wondered if this would apply to all ASO/NRO activities or only those activities undertaken as the ASO i.e. global policy development and appointment of ICANN Board members.

GV added that, during the ASO AC meeting, Fiona Asonga (FA) noted that the CCWG Acc. WS2 would shortly publish its recommendations and would request public comments. She had asked for clarification on whether the ASO AC or the NRO EC would be making those public comments.

JC noted that, as it is ultimately the ASO AC that would need to operate according the CCWG Acc. WS2’s recommendations, he has no issue with the ASO AC publicly commenting upon them. As the Bylaws only refer to how the ASO operates within the ICANN framework, then the RIR communities should not be affected.

PW thought that it was clear that the recommendations suggested by the CCWG Acc. WS2 would be subject to the RIR communities’ agreement. He noted that, during the discussions on diversity for example, it had been reiterated that the ASO did not feel that it was unilaterally bound by any of the suggested recommendations. He wondered whether the NRO/ASO might want to make a formal statement noting that the RIR communities determine the ASO’s policies and procedures.

JC noted that it would be good to get a reminder of the scope of these recommendations.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-1: GV to keep NRO EC updated of any developments form the CCWG Accountability WS2

6. ASO Procedures for Empowered Community Powers Next Steps

PW noted that the ASO Procedures for Empowered Community Powers document had been revised and approved by the NRO EC.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-2: GV to publish the updated ASO Procedures for Empowered Community Powers on the ASO and the NRO websites.

The NRO EC discussed who should be designated as the Empowered Community Representative and resolved that the NRO Secretary would take this role.

R-20180316-1: The NRO EC resolves to appoint the NRO Secretary as the designated representative to the ICANN Empowered Community for the ASO.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-3: PW to advise ICANN of the change in the designated representative to the empowered community (to NRO Secretary)

R-20180316-2: The NRO EC resolves to inform ICANN that the designated representative to the ICANN Empowered Community for 2018 is Alan Barrett (NRO Secretary).

PW noted that the NRO Secretariat would need to ensure that the details of the NRO Secretary are updated with each rotation.

AB asked if there were any objections to forwarding mail sent to the secretary@nro.net to ceo@afrinic.net rather than to his personal account. There were no objections.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-4: GV to update the forwarding of the secretary@nro.net role account from AB’s personal email address to ceo@afrinic.net. 

7. ITHI Project

PW noted that he had circulated the updated document on ITHI for the NRO EC’s consideration and subsequent approval. He added that, once approved, this document would be published on the NRO website.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-5: All to review the ITHI document for discussion during the next NRO EC Meeting. 

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-6: PW inform the RSCG that the NRO EC is considering the ITHI document and that it should continue its coordination with the ECG.

8. KSK Rollover

JC explained that once the KSK Rollover process begins, it couldn’t be undone. ICANN has identified around 250,000 IP addresses as being potentially problematic once the Rollover starts. He wondered if there was anything the NRO can – or should – be doing about this. The Rollover would affect those doing DNSSEC reverse validation and DNS queries for lookups in the .in-addr.arpa domain, for example.

PW wondered if the NRO should take this list of IP addresses and contact the holders.

AB noted that, during the session on the KSK Rollover at ICANN 61, he had volunteered to help by comparing the list against the AFRINIC database and contacting affected members. He was not sure whether anyone at ICANN had been doing whois lookups and noted it would be easier for the RIRs to do this as they have access to back end.

OR noted that LACNIC had been working with Matt Larsson (ML), ICANN, on this matter. At the last update, he believed that ICANN was still working on gathering the list of IP addresses. From the LACNIC side, Carlos Martinez would be following up directly with ML.

PW suggested that the ECG could coordinate going forward to ensure that duplicate work was not being carried out.

JC noted that once the data was aggregated, the next step would be a communications issue.

PW added that once aggregated, a mail should be sent out to inform affected IP address holders that they need to act.

AB added that he had advised ML that the NRO could assist him with an announcement or press release if necessary.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-7: PW to contact ECG to discuss working with ICANN to help identify holders of IP addresses that are defined as problematic for the KSK Rollover. 

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-8: PW to ask CCG to keep in contact with the ECG regarding the KSK for any necessary communications support.

9. IANA AS Number Registry

PW suggested that a formal note is sent to Kim Davies (KD), IANA/PTI, regarding reverting to the former level of granularity that was in the AS registry prior to its last change.

JC noted that this request to revert had already been sent and he suggested that KD be informed that, after the NRO EC’s recent meeting with him, it would like to proceed with this request.

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-9: PW to contact Kim Davies, IANA/PTI, regarding reverting to the formal level of granularity that was in the AS registry prior to its last change and to check when this will be implemented.

10. 2017 NRO Expenses Report

• NRO EC to Approve NRO Expense Report

GV gave an overview of the NRO Expense Report, noting that all five RIRs had submitted their NRO expenses. The report had been validated by the ARIN, APNIC and LACNIC CFOs and is awaiting validation by RIPE’s and AFRINIC’s CFOs.

PW noted that once all CFOs had validated the report, the NRO EC should formally approve it.

New Action Item 20180316-10: GV to follow up with CFOs regarding the expense report to get approval from all five RIRs. 

• NRO EC Decision on 2017 NRO Distribution Formula.

OR noted that the 2017 NRO Distribution formula is based on the income derived from IPv4 address space in 2016 and asked if the 2016 figures will also be used for this year’s budget.

PW noted that the previous year’s IPv4 income is used for the upcoming year’s distribution: 2016’s IPv4 income was used to calculate the 2017 distribution.

New Action Item 20180316-11: ALL to review and subsequently approve the NRO expense report and the 2017 NRO expense distribution formula. 

AB noted that it had been agreed by the NRO EC to split the NRO’s US$ 823,000 contribution to ICANN into two line items: one line item for the US$ 650,000 contribution to ICANN as called for in the IANA Numbering Services SLA and one line item for the voluntary US$173,000 contribution for on-going ICANN activities. He asked that this be reflected in the 2018 budget/expense report.

11. ICANN Contribution Timing

• NRO EC Decision on Payment of ICANN Dues Before End of the Year

AP explained that an email had been received from the ICANN CFO asking the NRO to pay its contribution in February: the NRO usually paid its contribution in Q3 each year. The ICANN CFO explained that the ICANN fiscal year closes in June and explained that, if the NRO paid its contribution in Q3, it will be received after the financial year closes. AP noted he believed this to be a reasonable explanation and request and suggested that the contribution be paid in Q2 just before the end of ICANN’s financial year.

There were no objections.

R-20180316-3: The NRO EC resolves to change the payment schedule of the NRO contribution to ICANN from Q3 to Q2 so that it is received before ICANN closes its financial year.

12. 2018 IGF Contribution

PW noted that the NRO contributed US$125,000 to the IGF in 2017 and would contribute the same in 2018. He suggested that the contribution be split in the following manner:

• US$75,000 to UN-DESA
• US$50,000 to the IGF-SA.

There were no objections.

R-20180316-4: The NRO EC resolves to contribute US$125,000 to the IGF in 2018, to be split in the following manner: $75,000 to UN-DESA and $50,000 to the IGF-SA.

PW noted that the NRO is the biggest contributor to the IGF-SA and wondered if there was a report on how its contribution had been spent.

AB noted that, two years ago, the NRO had asked for better reporting on how its contribution was used.

OR noted that there are financial statements for 2014 and 2015 but nothing for 2016 or 2017.

PW proposed that the NRO does not make its contribution until satisfactory reports regarding how funds were spent in 2016/17 were received. All agreed. 

NEW ACTION ITEM 20180316-13: AP to inform IGF Secretariat that before the NRO Secretariat will make its contribution for 2018 (see action 20180316-12 and resolution R-20180316-3), it would like to see a report on how the NRO contributions from 2016 and 2017 were spent. 

13. CG Updates

• ECG

PW gave an overview of the ECG report. The ECG is working on:

• Delegated-extended files
• Transfer logs
• RPKI- Validation Reconsidered
• RPKI – Reporting
• ITHI reporting
• RDAP – Consistency and interoperability
• RDAP – Future extensions

JC noted that the statement in the ECG’s report stating “The ARIN board currently prohibits ARIN from doing any RPKI development” is incorrect. He added that the RIRs were the initiator of RPKI Validation Reconsidered and the improvement is a general one that should be included in RPKI.

PW noted that the ECG is seeking guidance from the NRO on how to proceed on RPKI Validation Reconsidered.

AB asked that the ECG should provide more details about this, including links to relevant IETF documentation.

New Action Item 20180316-14: JC to draft a note to the ECG correcting the ECG’s statement that the ARIN Board forbids any development on RPKI, adding that the NRO EC has noted its report and believes that work on RPKI Validation Reconsidered should continue. The NRO EC would like to see more information on this matter, including links to relevant IETF documents.

• RSCG

PW outlined the RSCG Work Plan. The RSCG is working on:

• ITHI
• Whois accuracy
• Registry accuracy
• Inter-RIR transfer procedures
• Best Practices for Resource Transfers document
• Updating the NRO Statistics presentation
• RDAP consistency
• RPKI
• RSCG collaboration and meetings

PW suggested that a designer is contracted to improve the NRO statistics slide deck’s design and graphics.

New Action Item 20180316-15: PW to inform the RSCG that the NRO EC has approved a $5,000 spend for design work on the NRO Stats slide-deck.

R-20180316-5: The NRO EC resolves to assign a total of $5,000 from the 2018 ASO website revamp budget to the NRO Stats Slide Deck revamp project.

• CCG 

PW outlined the CCG Work Plan. The CCG is working on:

•  NRO website redesign
• ASO support
• ITHI outreach and communication activities
• RPKI trust anchor status report
• PTI implementation support
• Reference doc on NRO versus RIR collective activities
• Maintenance activities
• Information and publications
• Community events
• Coordination with other CCGs
• Community Events

PW noted that the CCG is awaiting direction from the NRO EC regarding which community events need CCG involvement. He wondered whether the CCG should continue its input into ICANN and IGF activities.

OR wondered if the NRO’s presence at the IGF meetings is required going forward and whether a booth is necessary.

AB agreed and suggested that the CCG could report on how many people visited the booth during the IGF-2017, what kind of information they were asking for, how many follow up meetings were held etc.

GV noted that the booth gives the NRO and the RIRs a strong presence at the IGF.

OR noted that many people do not recognise that the RIRs are the NRO.

GV explained that the IGF offers the opportunity to have contact with people who are not part of the numbers community: newcomers come to the booth to learn about the Internet ecosystem and this is valuable outreach.

OR noted that he does not believe that the NRO EC should keep doing something just because it has been done in the past. If the NRO EC wants to have a strong presence in the IGF community, it should question whether a booth is the best way of doing so and establish clear guidelines about its goals and outcomes. He suggested that the CCG should be informed that the NRO EC would like to have a strong presence at the IGF and it should investigate and suggest the best ways to achieve this.

New Action Item 20180316-16: PW to ask the CCG to report on the success of the IGF booth in 2017 and to make recommendations about the future presence of the NRO at the IGF events.

• NRO Website Redesign  

PW asked for clarification on the NRO website budget for 2018: is this an additional request or is it carried over from 2017.

New Action Item 20180316-17: PW to request clarification from the CCG regarding the budget requests for NRO and ASO website revamp projects in the current version of the CCG Work plan (currently they are unclear). 

• Reference Document on NRO versus RIR Collective Activities

PW explained that the CCG has proposed to create guidelines for instances where the NRO is the appropriate actor or where the RIRs are the appropriate actor(s).

JC noted that there are a few occasions where it is correct to use the NRO and a few where it is correct to use the RIRs but in many cases it did not matter.

OR noted that this could be a good exercise in preparation for the ASO Review Consultations.

GV noted that an example for this is the IGF booth: it was originally an NRO booth that was then changed into an RIR booth.

PW noted that he was surprised that the representation changed: the NRO EC did not get to consider whether it took part in the IGF as the NRO or as individual RIRs. He added that the CCG could explain what representation they feel is best to have at the IGF.

• CCG F2F Meeting

GV noted that the CCG still hope to hold an F2F meeting but is waiting to hear where/when the IGF will take place before finalizing the logistics.

PW added that the NRO EC has noted the CCG’s request for a F2F meeting but would wait until it proposes a location and date before approving it.

14. Review Open Actions

15.  Next Meetings

• Teleconference Tuesday 17 April 2018 (during ARIN 41)

The April teleconference was moved to 24 April 2018.

• Teleconference Tuesday 15 May 2018
• Teleconference Tuesday 19 June 2018
• F2f Meeting Friday 19 & Saturday 20 October 2018 Amsterdam (Right before ICANN 63)

The 16 October teleconference was cancelled in lieu of the 19/20 October F2F Meeting.

16. AoB

• AFRINIC Internal Complaint

The NRO EC noted that an internal complaint had been made within AFRINIC and had become a matter of public discussion.

AB explained that the matter was being handled according to established mechanisms by AFRINIC’s standing Governance Committee.

The NRO EC expressed its trust in AFRINIC’s processes and noted its confidence that a timely and satisfactory resolution would occur.

• Review of Appointments to the IGF MAG

PW noted concern that some representatives included in the IGF MAG 2018 list as affiliated with the technical community do not match our communities’ nominations.

JC noted that this matter had not been brought to his attention as a serious issue but that he had no objection to the NRO raising this issue if all agreed.

PW noted that he would report this concern on the next Internet Collaboration call.

New Action Item 20180316-18: PW to note concerns about some of the technical community appointments to the IGF MAG on the next Internet Collaboration call. 

GV added that Civil Society also had concerns that the balance between different sectors is uneven: there is now a large group of government representatives and former IGF organisers are automatically added to the mailing list and can participate.

•  Emergency Back-End Registry 

OR explained that he believed the NRO EC should discuss the creation of an emergency back end registry in case of catastrophic failure in the system: for example, a registry could suddenly disappear due to natural disaster or political instability. He suggested that a solution be developed and asked which critical services should be included in such a back up system.

JC suggested that the ECG should be asked to define critical registry services that need to be mirrored in the event of an RIR failure.

OR wondered if a separate organisation should be set up for this purpose.

JC believed that it would be sufficient if eventually each RIR had a back up plan that would work in conjunction with two other RIRs. Plans would need to ensure that if an RIR failed operationally, the global organisations that relied on that RIR’s public facing services would not suffer.

JS added that in addition to business continuity, the NRO EC should consider the failed RIR’s recovery: it may need funds for buying new equipment and hiring interim staff.

PW agreed that the NRO EC should discuss where funds for recovery efforts would come from: the RIR stability fund?

JC suggested the NRO EC should first be clear about which services would need to be rapidly restored, and could then seek a restoration plan which worked with one other RIR, and eventually aim for ability to recover with either of two different RIRs.

AB suggested that the ECG should define what should be backed up in 2018 and then plans on how to set it up should be developed in 2019.

New Action Item 20180316-19: PW to discuss the idea of an ’emergency back-end registry’ with the ECG and ask it to provide an overview of what should be included as critical registry services in case an RIR is no longer able to function due to natural disaster, political crisis etc. 

• IANA RC

ND gave an overview of the IANA RC’s recent activities:

• The IANA RC published a summary matrix report of IANA/PTI’s performance against the SLA.
• The community was given 30 days to comment and no comments were received.
• The IANA RC is drafting the final report, which would be released on 20 March.
• The report is expected to note that IANA/PTI has met the SLA as defined and there have been no failures since December 2017.

ND added that the IANA RC recently elected Nurani Nimpuno as Chair and Jason Schiller as Vice Chair.

PW asked the NRO Secretariat to add the IANA RC as a standing report on the NRO EC Teleconference agenda.

• ARIN Staff Update

JC informed the NRO EC that ND, ARIN’s COO, has announced that he will retire in Q4 2018. Richard Jimmerson (RJ), ARIN’s CIO, will take over as COO. He asked that RJ be added to the NRO EC list already to ensure a smooth handover.

There were no objections.

The EC congratulated ND on his retirement and thanked him for all his work and support of the NRO over the years.

New Action Item 20180316-20: GV to add ARIN staff member Richard Jimmerson to NRO EC mailing list.

• Recap of ICANN 61

PW noted that three public ASO sessions were held during ICANN 61:

• ASO AC Meeting
• Joint Session with the ICANN Board
• ASO open session

He added that there was considerable overlap in content between these sessions. The joint session with the ICANN Board was quite well attended but there was little attendance at the other two sessions.

He believed that the open ASO session could have instead been used as an opportunity to inform the audience of ASO/NRO activities rather than using the standard passive informational approach. He wondered whether the CCG could be asked to come up with ideas for improvement for the next session and to see if it could be approached differently.

JC noted that ICANN should be thanked for including the ASO open session in the agenda and it should be noted that it would like to be included in future meetings.

New Action Item 20180316-21: PW to send a note to Adiel Akplogan thanking him for ensuring the ASO’s slot on the ICANN Meeting agenda: the ASO may not use the slot each time but would like it to be included in the schedule at future meetings.

• ASO Review Report

JC asked if there was a list of actions related to the Joint Response to the ASO Review

PW asked the Secretariat to add the report to the NRO wiki.

JC volunteered to annotate the Joint Response to the ASO Review with current statuses and pending actions.

New Action Item 20180316-22: JC to add the Joint Response to the ASO Review to the wiki and annotate with current statuses and pending actions.

PW added that he was very pleased with how the wiki is working.

17. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 AST (15:50 UTC).

Last modified on 08/05/2018