Internet Architecture Board


IAB Minutes 2020-06-17

Home»Documents»Minutes»Minutes 2020»IAB Minutes 2020-06-17

Minutes of the 2020-06-17 IAB Teleconference

1. Administrivia

1.1. Attendance

  • Harald Alvestrand (ICANN Liaison)
  • Jari Arkko
  • Ben Campbell
  • Alissa Cooper (IETF Chair)
  • Michelle Cotton (IANA Liaison)
  • Stephen Farrell
  • Wes Hardaker
  • Cullen Jennings
  • Mirja Kühlewind (IAB Chair)
  • John Levine (RFC Series Temporary Project Manager)
  • Zhenbin Li
  • Jared Mauch
  • Cindy Morgan (IAB Executive Administrative Manager)
  • Karen O’Donoghue (ISOC Liaison)
  • Tommy Pauly
  • Colin Perkins (IRTF Chair)
  • Alvaro Retana (IESG Liaison)
  • Jeff Tantsura
  • Amy Vezza (IETF Secretariat)
  • Jiankang Yao
  • Mark Nottingham
  • Greg Wood

1.2. Agenda bash & announcements

Items on the IETF relationship with ETSI and the Root Server Operators
(RSO) Financials were added to the agenda.

1.3. Meeting Minutes

The following meeting minutes remain under review:

  • 2020-06-10 business meeting – (draft submitted 2020-06-10)

1.4. Action Item Review

  • 2020-06-10: Cullen Jennings to write something up (e.g. a blog post) on the factors that made Let’s Encrypt possible, and what factors would need to align for similar efforts on identity management to be successful.
  • 2020-06-03: Mirja Kühlewind to write up a proposal for an IAB Open Meeting.
  • 2020-05-27: Zhenbin Li to follow up with Deborah Brungard/Routing ADs about whether there is need for a formal liaison relationship with ETSI.
In Progress:
  • 2020-06-01: Stephen Farrell (with Colin Perkins and Mirja Kühlewind) to revise the proposal about refactoring IAB Programs based on the retreat discussion.
  • 2020-06-03: Stephen Farrell and Colin Perkins to schedule a tech chat on contact tracing apps and permissionless innovation.
  • 2020-06-05: Tommy Pauly to find a speaker and schedule a tech chat on safe browsing.
  • 2020-06-10: Stephen Farrell, Jari Arkko, Ben Campbell, and Wes Hardaker to write a proposal for what a workshop on COVID-19’s impact on the Internet might look like (i.e. virtual vs in-person, timing).
  • 2020-06-10: Cullen Jennings to find out whether people would be willing to provide content for a possible plenary topic on the heroic efforts to keep Internet services up during COVID-19; if so, he will take the proposal to the Plenary Planning Program.
  • 2020-06-10: Tommy Pauly to write a proposal for a potential IAB program on deployability.
  • 2020-06-10: Wes Hardaker to write a proposal for a potential IAB program on centralization.
  • 2020-06-10: Cullen Jennings to write a proposal for a potential IAB program on prioritization.
  • 2020-06-17: IAB to discuss on the mailing list whether the lessons learned from Let’s Encrypt can be applied to other arenas (e.g. identity management).
  • 2020-06-17: Mirja Kühlewind and Tommy Pauly to draft an agenda for the IAB Open Meeting at IETF 108.
  • 2020-06-17: Jari Arkko to ask Ted Hardie for an update on the ICANN Governance Working Group (GWG).
  • 2020-06-17: Cindy Morgan to send an announcement about the RFC Editor Future Development Program chair appointment.
  • 2020-06-17: Cindy Morgan to follow up with the incumbent regarding the CCG appointment.

2. Monthly Reports

2.1. IRTF Chair Report

–Begin IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

IRTF chair report to the IAB for the month ending 16 June 2020

# Research Groups

* Virtual interim meetings held by NMRG, PANRG, T2TRG, QIRG
* IEEE P7130 discussing liaison relationship with QIRG


Awards for IETF 108 will go to Shehar Bano, Chaoyi Lu, and Ingmar Poese. Details at


Accepted 13 of 26 submissions. Camera ready versions due this week. 
Initial workshop programme posted (
program.html). Travel grants will roll-over to the diversity travel 
grant programme since ANRW is online only. Registration to open this 

# Documents and Errata

draft-irtf-icnrg-terminology with RFC Editor (AUTH48)
draft-irtf-icnrg-disaster with RFC Editor
draft-irtf-nwcrg-network-coding-satellites in IRSG final poll
draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements in IRSG final poll
draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2 in IRSG review (waiting for authors)
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-05 in IRTF chair review
draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-07 in IRTF chair review
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-03 in IRTF chair review
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-considerations-04 in IRTF chair review

Started processing RFC errata backlog.

# Other

* Discussions re IETF 108 in-person meeting cancellation 
* Discussions re ITU NewIP proposals
* Participated in IAB virtual retreat

–End IRTF Chair Report, Colin Perkins–

2.2. ICANN Liaison Report

–Begin ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–

ICANN report - up to June 16, 2020
 This report covers ICANN events from April 13 to June 16, 2020 

ICANN and the .org sale (NO)
After carefully considering all the evidence laid before the board, the 
ICANN board decided in its April 30 meeting to withhold ICANN’s consent 
to PIR’s Change of Control Request.

The resolution that was passed tries to lay out carefully the 
information reviewed, the considerations made, and the rationale for the 
decision. It would be unwise for me to try to interpret these words.

The voting record is included in the preliminary minutes.

Reactions to the decision have been temperate - the people who think the 
deal was a bad idea praised the decision, the parties to the deal 
declared that the deal is now off the table.

In its meeting on May 7, ICANN passed a revised operating and financial 
plan for fiscal 2021-2025 and a revised budget for fiscal 2021 (which 
starts in June 2020).

The budget isn’t very much changed from the pre-COVID budget - it is 
conservative, meaning that it reflects a projection of income that is 
slightly less than what we think is the most likely projection - but we 
all know that the uncertainty in the current situation is very large. 
ICANN feels that it has the resources it needs to remain financially 
viable throughout this crisis.

ICANN has formally cancelled the Kuala Lumpur meeting (ICANN 68, June 
2020), and as of the June 11 board meeting, the Hamburg meeting (ICANN 
69, AGM), is also declared to be “not in Hamburg”.

Plans are made based on the theory that it will be possible to hold 
meetings in 2021 and 2022, but we know that plans need to have 
contingency plans in them.

There is some appetite for exploring intermediate stages between fully 
virtual meetings and “business as usual”, but no concrete steps have 
been taken towards physical meetings yet.

Name changes and moves
The Organization Formerly Known As OCTO (which, among other things, 
housed IANA) is now called IROS (Identifier Research, Operations, and 
Security Function) - the OCTO name is kept for “the part of IROS that is 
not IANA operations”.

There is also a reorganization in the leadership team - Susanna Bennett 
is leaving, Theresa Swinehart and Xavier Calvez are taking on increased 

Otherwise, business as usual (or as close as it gets to that during the 
COVID crisis).

–End ICANN Liaison Report, Harald Alvestrand–

2.3. IANA Liaison Report

–Begin IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

IANA Services Liaison Report – 17 June 2020
SLA Deliverables Update:
- ICANN met 100% of processing goal times for the May 2020 monthly 
statistics report, exceeding the SLA goal to meet 90% of processing goal 
times.  These times include the steps that ICANN has control over and 
not time it is waiting on requesters, document authors or other experts.  
Monthly reports can be found at:
Other News:
IANA Services Operator and IETF Leadership Meeting Minutes:
Summary of Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Virtual meeting IETF-107 (make-up from Vancouver)
18:30 UTC
Jay Daley, IETF LLC Executive Director
Jari Arkko, IAB IANA Program
Ted Hardie, Outgoing IAB Chair
Mirja Kuehlewind, Incoming IAB Chair
Alissa Cooper, IETF Chair
Suzanne Woolf, IAB IANA Program
Russ Housley, IAB IANA Program
Harald Alvestrand, IETF liaison to ICANN Board
Kim Davies, VP, IANA Services, ICANN, President, Public Technical Identifiers (PTI)
Michelle Cotton, Protocol Parameters Engagement Sr. Manager
Amanda Baber, Lead IANA Services Specialist
Naela Sarras, Director, IANA Operations
1. Introductions and Welcome
Jay Daley's second meeting. Also on the call: Naela Sarras, who manages 
the group that works on all IANA-related requests. 
2.  Review of Action Items from previous meetings
Gather .arpa stats - was in progress. Got put off for priority reasons. 
Would like to remove from action list and move to future actions as we 
look at reporting/ways of gathering statistics. 
Turn around draft for .arpa based on feedback from S. Woolf and T. 
Hardie. K. Davies incorporated feedback. We'll discuss draft/next steps 
later in meeting. 
Reach out to Glenn and give updates if there's any pushback re "IANA" 
usage - M. Cotton will bring J. Daley up to date and reach out to Glenn 
in next few weeks. 
Draft document to remove .int names that are no longer needed is in 

3. IANA Services Activity
Four months of between-meeting cumulative stats are in plenary report. 
J. Arkko and R. Housley reviewed last month's stats; no questions. 
No impact to IANA service levels due to COVID-19. Staff is working 
remotely/safely, meeting remotely. Trains running on time. 
4. Update on Supplemental Agreement Deliverables
2020 Supplemental Agreement has been approved and signed by IETF LLC and 
ICANN. Work will start on drafting the 2021 Supplemental Agreement soon.
Audit report delivered to IETF Leadership on 27 January 2020. Next step: 
posting statement on IETF LLC website saying that report has been 
reviewed and no issues identified. 
A. Cooper and R. Housley reviewed and didn't have any questions.
ACTION ITEM: for R. Housley to draft statement for posting on IETF LLC 
Request to change delivery date from 30 January to 28 February for the 
annual review of protocol parameters work was sent to IETF Leadership on 
22 April 2020. If no issues, will work with J. Daley on next steps. One-
time modification for this year's Supplemental Agreement. K. Davies: 
contributing reason is that vendors have trouble doing this work around 
the Christmas period. Trying to accommodate.

5. Update on Operational Activities
Customer Service Feedback
Three collection methods: post-ticket surveys (satisfied/unsatisfied - 
HDWD), general feedback, annual engagement survey.
HDWD (April 2019-March 2020): 88.95 satisfaction rate, 56.63 response 
Feedback follow-up: if the answer is "dissatisfied," we follow up with 
requester. Review of feedback for improvement opportunities and trends 
-- do we need to change something on the website? Do we get this a lot?
Negative comments where IANA was accountable:
20 responses (17 percent of responses received):  

7 of those were about timeliness (5 of 7 were concerning expert review 
Major theme was long expert review times. Is there anything we can do to 
improve this?
- discussions underway with ports expert team. Can more information be 
added to the form that would set timing expectations and result in more 
requesters filling out the form correctly?
T. Hardie: have you considered not doing surveys where the response rate 
is very low, like 1 percent -- so low that the responses might not be 
M. Cotton: We did get a low response rate for the annual survey. Did 
something a little different this time -- sent it to the IETF-announce 
list. And that led to a very low response rate. We were trying something 
new to see if we could reach more people, and it wasn't successful. We 
also received feedback suggesting that the survey itself could be 
improved. Marilia Hirano is analyzing the feedback. We may not send to 
ietf-announce list again.
M. Cotton: We may tweak who we send it to, in order to make sure we get 
the best response rate. It seems like we always get four or five IESG 
M. Kuehlwind: I think I responded in my first year, but then I was 
sending the same feedback year after year, so I stopped.
M. Cotton: I know I sent multiple reminders this year, but we'll look at 
that. If that's not how we're able to get the best feedback we can try 
something different.
M. Kuehlwind: There's kind of close cooperation already, so if we can 
talk to you, maybe that's a better way.

Kim made updates to the document based on feedback. Draft posted and 
shared. Very little feedback received to date. We need to determine what 
the next steps are. Kim, Jari, as authors, 
J. Arkko: We got good feedback from the IAB. Next steps are to go 
broader and send to one or two of the IETF lists. Not sure which yet. 
T. Hardie: It hasn't been adopted by the IAB yet?
T. Hardie: I think sending to DNSOP would be good.
J. Arkko: I thought we should try to get feedback and then adopt it, but 
you may be right
S. Woolf: If you're sending to DNSOP, put clear framing around it and 
mention what kind of feedback is being requested.
T. Hardie: The question about who should operate it -- I like how the 
draft puts that off. But I think any framing note to DNSOP needs to make 
that clear.
K. Davies: DNSOP, OARC perhaps. I don't think guidance for how it should 
be discussed should come from me. Guidance from your side of the fence 
could be helpful. 
J. Arkko: Next week we'll revise based on the feedback we've received so 
M. Cotton: So next steps are for K. Davies and J. Arkko to revise and 
send it out to the wider group.
- .ARPA stats: put off defining.
- RZMS: We haven't used this for .arpa in the past. Haven't had IAB rep 
log in. In next week or so will work with Mirja and Wes on getting 
credentials for Wes and showing him what he needs to do.
- Whois information for .arpa doesn't quite match other TLDs, which have 
legal entities listed in manager and administrative contact fields. 
K. Davies: We can sent information in a more detailed email. Our general 
goal is to improve data quality. There's a lot of historical data in 
root zone database, and we're being sure now that we only record TLDs to 
legal entities. It would be ideal to be consistent if it makes sense to 
do so. Can there be an appropriate legal entity for .arpa? Trying to 
bring some formality to the way we make these name allocations. We can 
make a case that this is a one-off exception. 
T. Hardie: I have no hats to take off, so personally. Strongly 
discourage doing this simply for consistency's sake. Will be hard to 
unpack roles. 
R. Housley: I'd like to avoid opening this can of worms. It's not like 
the other TLDs. 
J. Arkko: It's not a matter of making it just look like the others, but 
there are reasons for having a legal entity there. One thing that could 
be explored would be for it to be the IETF Trust.
T. Hardie: No.
R. Housley: Go back to the RFC that defines what .arpa is.
A. Cooper: I don't think this would work. We can put "c/o" into the 
name, but that's almost just as bad. Does the name "IANA" need to change 
in the whois record?
K. Davies: It's listed as a role. There was an idea that the IAB could 
be listed as the role name. We just wanted to float this. There is a 
case to be made that this is a unique case.
T. Hardie: I appreciate your raising this quietly. I think that because 
the governing documents are significantly different from other TLDs' 
governing documents, this will be more trouble than it's worth. 
DECISION: follow up via email to close the loop and make sure we have a 
final decision documented. 
QA Reviews
Testing began last month for Feb 2020 data. Reviewing questions and 
methodology monthly. Re-review questions and methodology after six 
months. Taking samples of requests, going back and looking at the 
requests to make sure we followed the defined processes and put them in 
the right states and checking for possibilities for improvement and 
redundant steps. Too early for takeaways. The next time we meet, we 
should have five months of data to report on.

Ports Expert Group
Postponed Vancouver meeting. Collecting suggestions from experts on 
improvements. We have an action item for improvements to the form. 
TZ Database Secondary Expert
We had discussed getting a backup for Paul Eggert. Paul is informally 
training Tim Parenti, whom Kim has been in contact with. In next couple 
weeks/next month, we hope to have the IESG designate him as secondary 
K. Davies: We haven't really done any follow up since January. We're 
trying to establish a protocol with Paul and Tim. 
R. Housley: Let's get the formal appointment done soon so that there's 
no possibility of being at zero experts.
M. Cotton: We've got the ACTION ITEM to go back to Tim and Paul and find 
out if he's ready to be officially designated. We'll work on that and 
report back.

6. Discussion Topics
Registry Workflow System Project
Continuing to work on design, database, etc. Targeting Private 
Enterprise numbers first, as it's a high-volume registry. We would like 
to discuss some topics relating to contacts and reporting. 
Proposed contact model
For FCFS and Expert Review, we're listing a contact who can answer 
questions and make changes. The change controller will appoint a new 
contact if the contact is unavailable, makes final decisions if there 
are disputes.
For Specification Required and RFC-based:
No contact or change controller necessary.
Barry Leiba has put out a draft to better define change controller 
language, which differs from one registry to another (sometimes IETF, 
sometimes IESG, sometimes WG; sometimes this is dictated by an RFC).
New contact model separates public contact and authorization roles:
Requester (submitter)
Assignee (beneficiary of request; similar to change controller; can 
appoint new authorizer)
Authorizer (who can make changes to the registration or the contact 
Contact (who can answer questions about the registration)
K. Davies: Currently it's not clear what a name in a registration record 
means, what they're authorized to do. This is an attempt to harmonize 
models and separate roles. Similar to root zone model. 
M. Cotton: Looking at RFCs that address this: 8126bis will address these 
changes and update definitions. Waiting for more information before 
starting update. Open questions: how to address registries where an RFC 
created specific contact requirements. Also, will the term "Change 
Controller" be replaced with "Assignee" everywhere?
M. Cotton: We want to confirm minimum required contact information with 
this group. Currently, we believe it's name of contact person, name of 
entity (organization or company), and email of contact person. In 
addition, if a request is received to remove PII from a registry when 
it's part of that minimum requirement, should it be denied?
A. Cooper: I agree. We need a useful amount of information in the 
M. Kuehlewind: Does the contact person have to be a person? Could it be 
a working group or something like that?
A. Cooper: I think it's good for people to know who they're emailing.
H. Alvestrand: Emails stop working, but legal entities can sometimes be 
A. Cooper: Why do we have this data? So they can find a contact if they 
have a question. 
K. Davies: There are purpose-based registrations, which most are, and 
then entity-based, like a PEN or a TRIP number. 
J. Daley: We had a similar request for PII removal. Where there is a 
process that already exists to replace it with something else and can 
reasonably be done, it'll be done. If it can't be done, we point to our 
privacy statement. We've received strong legal advice.
Overall percentage calculation
Future reporting will focus on individual change requests rather than 
tickets, which can request multiple changes. Numbers will increase but 
reflect changes more accurately. Does this work? 
R. Housley: I think it's OK, but I'd like to see how it reflects the 
reports. Would it make more sense to split current tickets into multiple 
J. Daley: I think you have to make this change. When one ticket has much 
more work, the measurement we're getting doesn't mean anything. This 
should be changed to reflect the work that's being done.
M. Cotton: We'll follow up after we have mock-ups and see if it makes 
Future reporting on OPEN requests
We provide reporting on open requests, but by the time the report goes 
out, those tickets are resolved or in another state. The original 
reporting requirements were put together when we had a lot of tickets 
open for various reasons, but now we're generally meeting goal 
requirements 98-100 percent of the time. So reporting this doesn't seem 
helpful, because the information is stale. Should we even report open 
We do provide details for requests that are still open and have exceeded 
requirements or have been open for more than 60 days, whether it's 
waiting on us or someone else. 
R. Housley: I find the open number interesting. We don't know which 
requests, but it does indicate which queues are getting a lot of 
activity. I think it tells us where we're seeing a lot of interaction 
with the community.
M. Cotton: One thing we're considering with our mock-up of a future 
report is how we would incorporate reporting on these open requests. 
Maybe it's a different type or report. It's interesting to see what's 
open and why. If a request is waiting on an expert for a certain amount 
of days and we're not getting a response, in the past we've been lenient 
because they're volunteers, but we're trying to pop them up to an AD, 
after a set amount of time and we're not getting anywhere. Hopefully 
those requests will go down. We can revisit this topic as part of the 
overall reporting topic. I'm hoping we can schedule a call focused on 
reporting with this group sometime in May, and I'd like to include this 
topic. We want to report on things that are helpful and useful. 
Exhaustion rate reporting
In the supplemental agreement, there's a note saying that a notification 
will be provided to the IAB and IESG when utilization rates for a 
specific registry show danger of exhaustion. We didn't have tools for 
this when this was originally written, but we want to put that together 
in the new system. In looking at how to report this, we don't have a 
great definition for what "nearing exhaustion" means. It'll depend on 
the registry and the size of the registry. If you have any ideas or 
strong opinions, let us know. We'll look at this and make a suggestion. 
PEN Specific – Duplicate PEN, confirm our understanding
We'd like to confirm our current practice. As we move PEN to the new 
system, we've come up with questions. Currently, if someone applies for 
a PEN and for an individual or organization that appears to already have 
a number, we suggest they use that number, if appropriate. If there's 
pushback, we generally make the registration.
R. Housley: It's an infinite space, so if they find they need it, that's 
J. Arkko: This is the right approach. You're doing the right thing.
M. Cotton: Then we'll continue to do it.
7.  Informal Meeting Schedule
Phone May 2020 to discuss future reporting
Zoom call in July 2020 - Can be during or after the meeting; can figure 
that out as we get closer
Phone September 2020 (TBD)
In person November 16, 2020
Phone January 2021
In person March 8, 2020
7.5 Other business
K. Davies: We're developing a strategic plan for PTI -- just posted 
draft for public comment. Webinars in second half of May, announcement 
in 24 hours, we'll share details on mailing list. Happy to discuss in 
future meeting as well. 
8. Summary of new action items
Draft statement for IETF LLC website saying that report has been 
reviewed and no issues identified - R. Housley
Revise .arpa draft and send to wider group - K. Davies/J. Arkko
Working on getting RZMS credentials for IAB rep - M. Cotton
Follow up on .arpa whois record via email - K. Davies/M. Cotton
Confirm we can have the IESG officially designate the secondary TZ 
expert - K. Davies/M. Cotton

–End IANA Liaison Report, Michelle Cotton–

2.4. RFC Editor Liaison Report

–Begin RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–

RFC production continues to become more routine.  While the RPC is still
finding the occasional bug in xml2rfc, they're now both less common and 
less severe, with most being rendering issues rather than issues with 
the XML vocabulary.  We are in the process of freezing the vocabulary 
and, with any luck, changes to xml2rfc.

[The Temporary RFC Series Project Manager] is still working with Julian 
Reschke to update 7991bis to include XML changes since we cut over to V3 XML.

Henrik Levkowetz, Peter St Andre, Robert Sparks, and [John Levine] set 
up an informal group to review and manage updates to the XML grammar.  
It met once and we hope we'll meet again this month if members' health issues allow.

–End RFC Editor Liaison Report, John Levine–

Alissa Cooper asked if there was any update on the process that will be used to define the new RPC SLA.

John Levine replied that the RPC has asked for permission to keep on some of the extra people who were hired for the v3 transition. Part of that request detailed some of the extra work that the RPC has been doing; John will ask if that email can be shared with the IAB. John also noted that processing the documents in Cluster 238 has made things move slower than they would otherwise.

–Begin RSOC Chair Report, Sarah Banks–

The RSOC continues to meet monthly, and it's been relatively quiet. We 
do have a couple of updates to share. As a reminder, we continue to 
update our decisions in our meeting minutes 
(found here:, and I'll 
highlight one here.

Decision: The RSOC agreed in our May meeting that the RFC Series should 
plan to able to regenerate the output formats of RFCs. John Levine is 
drafting a plan to outline when it would be appropriate to regenerate 
the output formats and what control mechanisms should be used.

SLA: The RPC continues to work without an SLA. The RSOC is working with 
the RPC to understand the remaining issues to getting a handle on the 
new v3 tools (if any), and plans to have an action plan (or a plan for 
the plan if things are "bad", which we don't think they are), within the 
next month. We'll share that with the IAB when we have it, expected in 
July update to the IAB.

–End RSOC Chair Report, Sarah Banks–

3. Request for

Wes Hardaker reported that EAP that will make a request for a delegation under .arpa; the request will be included in the IANA considerations section of a forthcoming document, and come to the IAB for approval at that point.

4. IAB Open Meeting

Mirja Kühlewind noted that Tommy Pauly has agreed to act as a co-chair for the IAB Open Meeting, which has requested a session for IETF 108. Mirja and Tommy will put together an agenda for this session.

5. IETF Relationship with ETSI

Zhenbin Li reported that he had solicited feedback from several people about whether there is need for a formal liaison relationship with ETSI. In summary:

  • There is work in ETSI that may relate to work in the IETF.
  • In the IETF Routing Area, there is no need for a formal liaison relationship at the working level.
  • For certain issues, an official liaison between both organizations may be useful.

The IAB briefly discussed the feedback, and concluded that the current working relationship with ETSI is working well and that there is no need for a formal liaison relationship at this time.

6. ICANN Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Appointment

Cindy Morgan reported that there are currently two candidates for the ICANN Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Appointment. She will send out a reminder about the call for nominations, which closes on 2020-06-30.

7. RFC Editor Future Development Program Chair Appointment

Via e-vote prior to the teleconference, the IAB selected Brian Rosen as an additional chair for the RFC Editor Future Development Program.

8. Root Server Operators (RSO) Financials and SLA/SLE

Jari Arkko reported that Daniel Migault, the IETF’s liaison to RSSAC, sent an email asking if the IAB has any feedback for the Root Server Operators (RSO) Financials and SLA/SLE discussion planned for 2020-06-22.

Stephen Farrell noted that it might also be helpful for the IAB to get input from the ICANN Governance Working Group (GWG). Jari Arkko will email Ted Hardie to ask for an update on the GWG.

9. Executive Session: Community Coordination Group Appointment

In an executive session, the IAB agreed to reappoint Tim Wicinski to the Community Coordination Group for 2020-2022.

10. Next IAB Meeting

The next IAB teleconference will be on 2020-07-01.