[ncc-services-wg] Draft Minutes from WG session at RIPE 71

All,

please find the draft minutes of the RIPE71 session below. Please send any comments or corrections!


Best regards,

Lindqvist Kurt Erik
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se

----


RIPE NCC Services Working Group RIPE 71
18 November 2015, 16:00 local time
WG co-Chairs: Kurtis Lindqvist, Bijal Sanghani (absent)
Scribe: Emile Aben

A. Administrative Matters

Kurtis welcomed the room.

B. IANA Update - Elise Gerich (IANA)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/58-IANA_RIPE_NOV2015.pptx

There were no questions.

C. RIPE NCC Outlook - Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/121-RIPE-NCC-Outlook-2015-and-2016.pdf

There were no questions.

D. IETF Endowment Update - Jari Arkko (IETF) and Greg Kapfer (ISOC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/106-ripe_bucharest_ietf_endowment_v3.pdf

Martin Levy (Cloudflare) asked if funding the IETF isn't already done through ISOC.

Greg answered that IETF wants diversification in their funding sources.

Jari acknowledged that.

Martin responded that he doesn't support extra bureaucracy being thrown at anything.

Nurani Nimpuno (Netnod) said she thought it to be a good thing to have diversification of funds, and interprets this proposal as a way of diversification, not necessarily increase of funds.

Salam Yamout (RIPE NCC Executive Board) asked if the IETF is also looking for independence.

Jari stated the goal is to broaden the financial support. The IETF will still need an organisational home.

Greg added that there is a very good working relationship between IETF and ISOC, and stated that the proposal is a long-term endeavour.

Daniel Karrenberg (as private person) asked about transparency in the proposal. He said he finds the current story to vague, and acknowledges IETF does great work. He mentioned ISOC being well funded so this is about ISOC setting priorities, and said that ISOC could put down the endowment itself.

Jari provided details about budget. Regarding ISOC contribution, Jari said that that would likely increase.

Greg detailed current ISOC funding, and said ISOC will always be investing in the IETF.

Leah Symekher (ISC) asked how to expand participation for IETF and how to diversify the participation.

Jari answered that IETF brings in fellows into the IETF meetings for this, and to build on participants who are interested long-term. He said IETF has multiple tools like the mentoring programme at the IETF to bring in new participants.

Mirjam Kuehne (RIPE NCC) said the RIRs contribute membership money into ISOC specifically earmarked to support IETF and wondered what will happen with that.

Greg said it's for IETF operating expenses, which is a different thing from the endowment proposal.

Mohsen Souissi (as private person) asked Greg and Jari to write the proposal up so it's easy to decide on.

Jari said that's a fair request, and will get it done.

E. RIPE NCC Arbiters Process - Ondrej Sury (CZ.NIC) and Wilfried Woeber (University Vienna/ACOnet/VIX)

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/57-Presentation-for-Arbiters-Panel-RIPE-71.pdf

Farzaneh Badii (University of Hamburg) asked if arbitration was not enforceable in court.

Wilfried answered that the RIPE NCC doesn't have the mandate to enforce

Farzaneh asked if the artiration then is non-binding.

Wilfried clarified that it is binding for the RIPE NCC, but its no legal mechanism to enforce it in another party in a dispute.

Ondrej thanked the ripe ncc secretariat.

Nurani asked if there is a roll-over procedure for arbiters.

Wilfried clarified that it is the responsibility of the RIPE NCC management or the general meeting, but there is no fixed mandate.

F. RIPE NCC Operational Update - Andrew de la Haye (RIPE NCC)

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/128-COO-Update-final-RIPE71.pdf

Radu-Adrian Feurdean (CCS) asked if the issues that were discussing this morning in the address policy working group should be discussed in the services working group or in the general meeting.

Andrew responded that the general meeting is the right place.

Nigel Titley (RIPE NCC Executive Board) confirmed that.

G. RIPE NCC Services Developments - Alex Band (RIPE NCC)

The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/113-ServicesWG-RIPE71.pdf

There were no questions.

H. Open Microphone Session

There were no questions.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20160203/e15fb220/attachment.sig>