ISOC Advisory Council Meeting 14th Nov 2014 Honolulu, Hawaii
Announcements
•
ISOC NomCom is currently calling for candidates to run for Trustee
o
•
Until 24th Nov Call for PIR Board Nominations:
o
•
•
http://www.internetsociety.org/pir-call-nominations
IETF Nomcom, calling for comments on nominations
o
https://www.ietf.org/nomcom/
o
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2014/
Internet Protocol Journal, republished: calling for sponsors
o
•
See www.internetsociety.org/Trustees
http://protocoljournal.org
ION Tokyo 17th Nov 2014, participation welcome
Call for Comments/Actions to ACs
•
Comments welcome on ISOC activities in 2015
o
https://connect.internetsociety.org/communities/community-home/digestvie
wer/viewthread/?GroupId=25&MessageKey=d34de6b2-6037-4683-842c-8bb
dc69b7891&tab=digestviewer#bm0
•
MANRS: Anyone interested in joining the initiative, contact Andrei
o
Presentation from IETF 91

o
Blog Post from IETF 90

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/tech-matters/2014/07/isoc-rou
gh-guide-ietf-90-routing-resilience
Actions and Summary Presentation to ISOC Board of Trustees:
http://internetsociety.org/who-we-are/board-trustees/meetings
Feedback from Board of Trustees:

When talking about the need to build the network of people inside of AC Org members,
Jason suggested we create a LinkedIn community. We should discuss how we
leverage the social networking tools.

The AC chairs should contact the BoT at least a month before for questions that the
BoT would like to have reaction to. Consider having roundtables and moderated
discussions. The point is, the AC members should have time to prepare their thoughts
for the issues that BoT/ISOC staff would like input.

For the developing countries, The AC should work with the Chapters AC.
Coordination of effort.

AC 2015 Plan… Need an execution plan and milestones.
Discussions
1. Introductions:
Generally ISOC AC org members seem to find value in covering both policy and technical areas,
and several expressed they care about the Internet in general.
•
A number of IAB members, 10 members of the Board of Trustees, ISOC Executive staff
and program leads all in attendance.
•
26 AC representatives from 19 unique member organizations in the room with 2 more
attending for a total of 28 AC representatives from 21 unique members
•
Total attendance 54
•
A member from Skype related to regulatory work in the US
•
IAB Statement on confidentiality: Something ISOC could work on (DNIC)
2. ISOC in 2015 - Kathy Brown
General Background:
•
Governments consider the Internet as something effective and powerful leading to the
need to be involved in Internet Governance.
•
Issues we care about must be addressed at regional and national levels but be elevated
so that these inform the global discussions.
•
Governments used to stay out of the technical area but no longer. Many see the
relationship between technology and social development.
•
Multi-stakeholder approach takes certain Internet issues out of the government-only
platform of discussions (e.g. intergovernmental organizations). This is especially true
for the technical area (e.g. the IETF).
ISOC’s engagement:
•
ISOC has engaged in WSIS review, IGF, OECD, and other IG events
•
ITU PP in Busan. ITU wishes to be more involved in internet connectivity around the
world.
•
Government itself is not the right place for the decisions to be made. ISOC took this
position at ITU PP. Reached consensus that this should be done by multistakeholder
process. OTOH, issues likely to continue. The job of the ISOC is to continue this
message.
•
Another approach ISOC is taking is to aid users understand how to use these
technologies.
Future:
•
We need to strengthen the Internet Societies, in the context of chapters, ACs and all
involved in the ISOC: Have pieces, to get together as one.
•
Focused enough to reach consensus among ACs (technical, policies), governments,
strong society which can speak locally, regionally and globally.
•
Feedbacks from ACs and Chapters, it will get reflected into policy position of ISOC.
•
Board meeting: where to focus, approval for plan for 2015. Will share witt ACs once
approved. Tell us where we can do better.
3. Global Engagement Strategy - Raul Echeberria
Updates on Chapters:
•
5 regional bureaus. Discussions to create a 6th in the Middle East.
•
107 Chapters: new from South Korea, Turkey.
Building leadership and new staff:
•
Fellowship program including IGF: 17 countries (?)
•
New staff: Chapter Development Manager in Europe, Partnership Manager in APAC
•
Chapter Workshops: last one was in LA, with North America Chapter

Other WSs planned in Middle East, Beirut, San Paolo with Latin American
Chapters
Creating of new IXPs:
•
Africa, Latin America, Caribbean, last one delivered for IXPs in Armenia.
•
In many areas, IXP operators collaborate with RIRs for working on regional
development.
IETF outreach:
•
IETF in Latin America and Caribbean, ISOC is promoting. (Acknowledged by Jari during
IETF)
•
Latin American group created to outreach IETF in the region.
Future Focus:
•
Strengthening of Chapters
•
Supporting key ISOC priority objectives in regional contexts.
•
Working together with ACs on more vibrant and engaging virtual meetings.
4. MANRS – Andre Robachevsky
See presentation slides for details.
Key points:
•
Global routing issues cannot be solved by a single network of operators. Better to
collaborate.
•
Good how who all is deploying the technologies
•
If widely adopted and implemented MANRS will improve routing resiliency
•
Good MANRS covers 3 areas, very minimum package

•
BPG filtering, anti-spoofing, coordination and collaboration
MANRS was developed by operators; it is a document for operators and is a
demonstration of commitment from a the community behind this initiative.
•
Several operator organizations have declared commitment to MANRS.
•
Individuals and non-network entities may not necessarily sign up at this stage, but may
consider a scheme to sign up as ambassadors and/or perhaps join the mailing list.
5. ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2014 – Sally Wentworth
http://www.internetsociety.org/itu-plenipotentiary-conference-2014
http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/itu-plenipotentiary-2014-outcomes
Background:
•
The Plenipotentiary meeting is a treaty meeting that sets the scope of ITU itself and
also deals with ITU operations – Leadership, strategy planning, etc.
•
Concerns had been ITU may want to expand the areas of activities
Working towards ITU PP:
•
In developing Regional positions, many chapters were participating in regional
meetings, talking individually with governments
•
Wanted to position ITU in IG echo-system in a positive way: ITU has a role in
Development, International telecommunication system
•
Would also want ITU to work on a more transparent and open fashion
Discussions at ITU PP:
•
Can see full submissions, able to give inputs to the outcomes.
•
Many proposed ITU should be more open and inclusive.
•
There were proposals requesting ITU to expand its role, such as ITU should become an
RIR, ITU should allocate IPv6, set ground rules of the Internet, role of ITU in
surveillance, privacy, etc.
•
A proposal from the Government of India: Re-architected basics routing principles of
the Internet. Caused a lot of discussions. Not much changes as a result.
•
There was a call for the ITU to do more capacity building.
•
ITU on international policy: Council WG on Internet public issues: This bears watching
particularly if discussions are not transparent.
Looking back and follow ups:
•
ISOC communities worked together as a single community.
•
ISOC played an enormous role, often quoted by members states.
•
ISOC will update the metrics with the outcomes.
Discussions:
•
NETmundial and IANA transition were not discussed but have played a role in reducing
any tension due to the lack of trust of western control of the Internet.
•
Issues related to cost affordability, IPv6, spam, were issues grabbing attention
•
ISOC is developing metrics for continuing issues and will to identify areas for
additional effort.
•
Of special note is to consider the needs and desires of the countries making proposals
for a strong national rather than global Internet.
6. IANA Transition - Narelle Clarke and Keith Davidson
Reference Information on IANA
[SSAC068]:
SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014)
[SSAC067]:
Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014)
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/documents-2012-02-25-en
Narelle:
•
ICG is making a call for proposal from each resource community; Jan 2015
•
IETF is developing a proposal.
Questions from Narelle to ACs: What should ISOC ICG representatives focus in ICG?
•
US Congress tried to stop the transition though passing an act and this is likely to
happen again. Role for ISOC to educate people about what the transition.
•
Transition of the IANA Stewardship should not be conflated with basic human rights.
Keith:
•
Names proposal. There may be separate proposals between GNSO and ccNSO.

Produce separate Annex to a single proposal, to distinguish issues particular to
ccTLDs and gTLDs.
•
ccTLD: Issues of Sovereignty and a separate appeals mechanism process continue to be
explored. Separation of powers between policy development and operations are
important. 240 individual ccTLDs, not all are members of ccNSO.
•
The target date for completing a recommendation will likely move out a full year to Sep
2016.
•
ICANN, CCWG on IANA. Meeting every two weeks, in the process of completing a
survey.
•
If you know ccTLD who are not actively engaged or aware, please contact them and let
them know.
•
In submitting proposal to NTIA, ICANN Board will not change the proposals from the
community, although the proposal must be submitted through Board. This has reduced
concerns of many in the community.
•
FAQ to be published
•
ICANN accountability issue is being discussed in parallel.
•
Call for comments on NETmundial initiative; the full ISOC Community needs to be
heard
7. Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem (GGIE)
Glenn Deen NBCUniversal
See slides for more details
Issues:
•
Hard to create and deliver video in massive scale.
•
Much more standards to cover to deliver a video. Need a much more simple system
•
Too many standards bodies. IETF, IEEE.W3C, SMPTE, etc and must visit different
groups. Each has a narrow focus.
Initiative:
•
Try to bring a group of experts to work on the problem, driven by real business and
users’ needs. Not a standards body.
•
Not just professional content; includes YouTube uploads. Huge volumes of data.
•
Smarter end devices, how do you standardize in IETF, how do we deploy? Etc.
•
Look at the whole echo-system not just the web
•
Internet over the top discussions
Current Status:
•
Mailing list hosted by ISOC
•
There has been WebEX meeting, FTF Meeting in IETF London.
•
TF under W3C Web and TV Interest Group
Next steps:
•
If interested in in the effort, have people from IETF, W3C, etc involved.
•
Once the use cases are selected, need feedbacks on the use cases.
Contact Info: glenn.deen@nbcuni.com
Discussions:
•
There is currently no plan to collaborate to talk to standards people at ITU but open to
the possibility. Introductions welcome.
•
WIDE project: IETF Yokohama, invite TPAC, want to collaborate with IETF, one the
challenges is collaboration with W3C TPAC.
8. Open Mic
Joint Policy Action Team (JPAC):
•
It is to engage AC org members on policy related issues, have discussions and consider
necessary actions.
•
AC delegates attending the meeting are asked to take the JPAT back to Policy staff
within their organizations, see whether they are interested, and help identify the right
people in their organization for this group.
•
ISOC to contact the POCs and make sure they spread the word and support for this
project.
Engineering Sensitivity Training:
•
Some engineers at the IETF are too blunt in conversation with new comers and may be
discouraging unintentionally.
•
Needs a balance between honest feedback and being polite.
Policy environment:
•
Two extremes arising: Top down and bottom up processes.
•
It’s important to make sure people make comments in ensuring bottom up process.
•
Questions were raised from the AC participants such as

What does IG mean, what problems are we trying to solve?

What was the impact of ISOC’s program in ITU PP?

ISOC communities who took initiatives and leading roles, they recall
presentations inputs provided from ISOC. The program needs to expand
and continue.