RIPE 48 Plenary Minutes
Date: Tuesday 4 May, Thursday 6 May and Friday 7 May 2004
Location: Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Scribe: Rob Allen
The RIPE 48 presentations can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html
A number of RIPE 48 sessions were webcast live. Archived recordings can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/sessions-archive.html
- Opening and Welcome
- Agenda RIPE 48
- Minutes RIPE 47
- From the Chair
- Number Resource Organization (NRO) Update
- Reports from the RIRs:
- AfriNIC
- APNIC
- ARIN
- LACNIC
- ICANN Update
- Evolving the Core: Deployment Challenges and the Internet
- RIPE and RIPE NCC Open Discussion:
- NRO
- NRO/ICANN MoU
- Reports from the Working Groups
- Next RIPE Meetings
- AOB
- Close
1. Opening and Welcome
Presented by: Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair
The Chair welcomed the attendees.
2. Agenda RIPE 48
The agenda was reviewed and adopted as published.
3. Minutes RIPE 47
The Chair noted that the RIPE 47 Report and minutes have been published.
He mentioned that, as usual, the community has a week after RIPE 48 to make any final comments before the RIPE 47 minutes are approved.
4. From the Chair
The Chair noted that the Plenary would include an open discussion on the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and ICANN.
The Chair mentioned the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Annual Meeting would take place on Wednesday, 5 May.
5. Number Resource Organization (NRO) Update
Presented by Axel Pawlik, Managing Director RIPE NCC and Secretary of the NRO.
This presentation is available at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-nro-mou.pdf
Question on the proposed global policy development process and what happens if the ICANN Board does not reach the simple majority to ratify a proposal, or the two-thirds majority to reject it.
Axel responded that one of these majorities would have to be achieved. He stated that if this did not happen within 60 days, then the policy would be ratified. He added that the process has been designed so that the global policy making cannot stall.
Rob Blokzijl commented that the community should read the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the NRO and ICANN and ask any questions they have.
He added that the proposed process of global policy ratification will not affect 99% of the things that RIPE do as a regional community and that it will only apply to the global policies involving all the RIRs and the IANA.
6. Reports from the RIRs
APNIC Update
Presented by Paul Wilson, Director General, APNIC
This presentation can be found online at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-apnic.pdf
LACNIC Update
Presented by Rául Echeberría, CEO, LACNIC
This presentation can be found online at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-lacnic.pdf
ARIN Update
Presented by John Curran, acting President of ARIN
This presentation can be found online at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-arin.pdf
AfriNIC Update
Presented by Adiel Akplogan, Project Manager, AfriNIC
This presentation can be found online at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-afrinic.pdf
7. ICANN Update
Presented by Doug Barton, General Manager, IANA
This presentation can be found online at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-icann.pdf
Question on the Policy Development Process for ccNSO.
Doug Barton replied that the Policy Development Process for ccNSO was not within his realm.
Barbara Roseman, consultant at ICANN, added that the ccNSO elections are being conducted under a supervisory committee meant to help address some of these questions. She added that questions on the ccNSO could be sent to the ICANN public comment forum.
8. Evolving the Core: Deployment Challenges and the Internet
Presented by Scott Markus – Transatlantic Fellow, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
This presentation can be found online at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-marcus.pdf
Comment that sometimes when technologies are assisted in their deployment, their underlying technical deployment can change and this change can have positive or a negative effect.
Scott Markus responded that this is true, and that wider adoption does provide wide benefit. He noted that market mechanics in general are a much better way to look at these things. He added that when governments intervene, the result is that the market is distorted and that this is usually a negative influence.
Comment on whether IP addresses can be defined, as in the case of other resources, as ‘public good.’ It was commented that in the WSIS context the term ‘public good’ might be dangerous as it could encourage governments to intervene when it is not necessary. It was added that maybe the term ‘common good’ would be better.
Scott Markus replied that whatever terms are used, he would still advocate very cautious levels of intervention.
9. RIPE and RIPE NCC Open Discussion
The Chair introduced the topic of the NRO and ICANN Memorandum of Understanding. He noted that the period for public comment ended on Friday, 7 May.
The Chair asked for comments.
Comment that this was a positive evolution to reinforce the co-operation of the RIRs.
It was added that given political circumstances, this development was necessary but that some of the points need clarification.
Comment on the role of the NRO and its Executive Council.
Geoff Huston, APNIC, responded that he was involved in drafting the proposed Memorandum of Understanding and commented that it was not the intent for the Executive Council of the NRO to have any influence on forming policy. He added that, as described in the Memorandum of Understanding, the Executive Council were points of contact to ensure that the appropriate messages could be communicated effectively.
He noted that the NRO does not tell the community about how they should arrive at a consensus and that the NRO respects that process for all the communities.
Question on why all decisions made by NRO need to be ratified by the Executive Council.
Geoff Huston replied that the NRO is a formal organisation with its own processes so that when a decision has been made by one part, the organisation as a whole is capable of formally adopting the decision as policy. He added that, for an organisation to accept a policy proposed by part of its body, it needs a ratification process.
He noted that the entire spirit of the Executive Council is to make sure the rules are observed and to make sure the RIR communities’ decisions and the processes they use are respected.
He stated that, when drafting the proposed Memorandum of Understanding, they tried to make the English in the document good without being overly legalistic. He added that this document is not so much a formal contract as a document outlining the Regional Internet Registries’ good intentions for how they will work with ICANN.
The RIPE Chair commented that, in essence, the Memorandum of Understanding changes very little in terms of the areas of relevance to the RIPE community.
He added that the community will keep developing policy in its usual way and that the NRO will not affect this.
He noted that, in the past, it has been found that when different communities develop similar documents there is a mutual benefit in doing this on a global scale. He added that this will continue, as it has for eight years. The only change is that this process has now been written down on paper through the Number Resource Organization.
He stated that the term ‘global policy’ can be confusing, and that it can be best explained as referring to policies that the RIRs cannot do on their own, such as policies explaining how the IANA allocates address space to the RIRs.
He noted that this only happens once or twice a year between the IANA and a single RIR. He added that the NRO allows this policy to be described in a better way.
He added that the intention of this document was to create one that describes the philosophy and the intent of the organisation and not to create a document full of overly legal language that people would not read. He noted that this is an advantage, as it makes the document accessible to more people. He also stated that the details of documents such as this one could always be improved as long as people understand the fundamental intentions of the document.
The Chair asked for comments. There were none.
10. Reports from the Working Groups
Report from the ENUM BoF
Jim Reid presented a report on the ENUM Birds of a Feather (BoF).
There were 121 Attendees.
Topics included governance structure for tier 1 registry and sources of funding from industry and government.
Jim Reid announced the proposal to form an ENUM WG.
The RIPE Chair asked for comments. There were none.
It was agreed that the ENUM Working Group should be created.
Presentations from this BoF can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#enum
RIPE NCC Services Working Group
Presented by: Kurtis Lindqvist, RIPE NCC Services Working Group Chair
There were 59 and 30 attendees in the two sessions.
Topics included the RIPE NCC Activity Plan 2005, feedback on RIPE NCC services, the LIR Portal and de-bogonising address space.
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#ncc-services
DNS Working Group
Presented by: Jim Reid, DNS Working Group Co-chair
There were 89 attendees.
Topics included the new DNS Working Group Charter, DNS standards and best common practises, quality checks on reverse delegation and securing zone transfers.
The RIPE Chair asked about the proposed interface between DNS MODA and the IETF. He added that if this is not well defined and understood, this might cause problems in the definition of standards.
Jim Reid responded that this was an important detail that was still being considered. He noted that a lot of people in MODA have been active in IETF for some time. He added that there will have to be an overall review of the activities that come out of MODA by the IETF.
Jim Reid announced that Patrick Falstrom had resigned as a co-chair of the DNS Working Group to give him more time to act as co-chair of the ENUM Working Group.
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#dns
Anti-Spam Working Group
Presented by: Rodney Tillotsen, Working Group Chair
There were 45 attendees.
Topics included bots and services, financial services fraud (“phishing”), ASRG update, sTLD ‘mail’, recent legislation, the Database Working Group and the mapping of IP addresses, the update to ripe-206, virus bounces and a review of the Working Group Charter.
Question on whether the Working Group should expand mandate beyond spamming issues to other areas of abuse.
The Working Group Chair replied that this was something to consider.
The Working Group Chair congratulated Sabri Berisha on his appointment as Working Group Co-Chair.
The Working Group Chair's report from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-anti-spam.pdf
Address Policy Working Group
Presented by: Gert Doering, Working Group Co-chair
There were 89 attendees.
Topics included a RIPE NCC update, an update on the Address Supporting Organization’s Address Council, the 80% policy for additional IPv4 allocations, the policy development process, IPv6 allocation requests and address allocation for private Internets.
The Working Group Chair's report from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-ap.pdf
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#ap
Routing Working Group
Presented by: Joao Damas, Working Group Chair
There were 57 attendees.
Topics included global network mobility, a routing workshop report, a RIS update and FCCN.RPSLng.
The Working Group Chair's report from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-routing.pdf
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#routing
Tech Sec Working Group
Presented by: Ted Lindgreen, Working Group Chair
There were 31 attendees.
Topics included how to deal with DNSSec implementation and requirements, a report on DNSSec workshop, and the deployment of DNSSec on server and client sides.
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#techsec
EIX Working Group
Presented by: Mike Hughes, Working Group Co-chair
There were 39 and 30 attendees in the two sessions.
Topics included IXP customer workshop, common themes, EURO IX news, IXP reports, MD5 implementation, the RIPE NCC Activity Plan 2005 and IRC feedback.
The Working Group Chair's report from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-eix.pdf
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#eix
Test Traffic Working Group
Presented by: Alex Tudor, Working Group Chair
There were 30 attendees in each session.
Topics included a TTM report from the RIPE NCC, Internet 2, experiences with a Multi-Protocol network monitor, SCAMPI and presentations from three operators on how they use TTM in their daily operations.
The Working Group Chair noted that BGplay was a useful tool.
He also stated that in order for the RIPE NCC to become a measurement authority it needs to have interchangeable measurements. He added that these measurements would need to be integrated with other measurement infrastructures and available on a global platform.
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#tt
IPv6 Working Group
Presented by: David Kessens, Working Group Chair
There were 116 attendees.
Topics included the global IPv6 routing table status, a "per country view" of IPv6 allocation, reports about actual IPv6 traffic volume as compared to IPv4, raising RPSLng awareness, discussion on minimum-peering, the latest IPv6 Land Speed Record, IETF multi6 update, IPv6 allocations and IPv6 home automation.
The Working Group Chair's report from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-ipv6.pdf
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#ipv6
Database Working Group
Presented by Wilfried Woeber, Working Group Chair
There were 37 and 50 attendees in the two sessions.
Topics included removing the ‘country’ attribute, abuse contact information, RATToolSet, RPSLngm, CRISP and IRIS.
The Working Group Chair's report from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/ripe48-plenary-db.pdf
Presentations from this Working Group can be found at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-48/presentations/index.html#db
The Chair noted that RIPE 49 would take place 20 - 24 September in Manchester, the United Kingdom.
There was no other business.
The Chair thanked the staff of the RIPE NCC and the organisations that supported the meeting.
Thanks to: FLAG Telecom, the Amsterdam Internet Exchange, Interoute and Global Voice Networks.
The Chair thanked everyone for attending and invited attendees to attend RIPE 49:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/index.html
Session ended at 12:25.
