June 2016 - cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

FYI: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors
by Patrik Fältström 20 Jul '19

20 Jul '19

Hi, As you can see below European Commission just released human rights guidance for 3 business sectors. I have helped COM and specifically IHRB with their piece of the work, and I know others on this list have also helped. Everything from more formal support to extremely good comments that have helped making the documents what they finally ended up being. Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod Begin forwarded message: > From: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > Subject: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors > Date: 17 juni 2013 18:23:09 CEST > To: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > > We are pleased to announce the publication of the European Commission Sector Guides on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. > > > Download the Guides here: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6711&lang… > > The Guides – for employment and recruitment agencies, ICT companies, and oil and gas companies – were developed over the past 18 months by Shift and IHRB through extensive research and multistakeholder consultation with representatives from the three industries as well as governments, trade unions, civil society, academia and other experts. Read more about the Guides’ development here. > > Each Guide offers practical advice on how to implement the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in day-to-day business operations in each industry through step-by-step guidance. At each step, they summarise what the UN Guiding Principles expect, offer a range of approaches and examples for how to put them into practice, and link users to additional resources that can support their work. They are intended to help companies “translate” respect for human rights into their own systems and cultures. > > Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this process. > > Best regards, > > > CSR Team > > European Commission > Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General > Unit ENTR.D.1 >

6 12

Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings?
by Alessandro Vesely 05 Dec '16

05 Dec '16

Hi all, as asked in ISOC survey, it seems there are a few big players who dominate Internet connectivity market, more and more convoluted with telephone. Here in Italy, for reasons beyond my understanding, you are bound to get a residential connection unless you have a VAT number. I really cannot understand the rationale for that, and it looks to me as a gratuitous limitation of individual freedom. Personally, I'm unable to get a non-filtered, static IP connection since I closed my VAT account (after my tax preparer's recommendation). I'll probably have to give up running my own email server. In addition, I've never been able to get IPv6 addresses --perhaps that needs a fiscal reform, eh? Is it that way all over Europe, or is it just Italy? Can anyone shed some light on why it is so? TIA Ale

8 8

time-lines for co-chair appointments
by Jim Reid 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-) Could you please clarify matters? I have three questions: [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting. [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria? It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.

8 12

New on RIPE Labs: Scaling the Internet of Things? Not a Problem! (by Shane Kerr)
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article by Shane Kerr on RIPE Labs talking about some challenges for the Internet of Things: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/shane/scaling-the-internet-of-things-not-a-pr… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Geoff Huston on the Open Internet
by Mirjam Kuehne 29 Jun '16

29 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article by Geoff Huston on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/open-season?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-… It talks about the Open Internet and if public policy can help to preserve it. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20
by Corinne Cath 24 Jun '16

24 Jun '16

Dear all, I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects. I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup: The working group discusses the following: 1. The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are *not* to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg>. This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. 2. The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list> mailing list. 3. The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. 4. The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-464>, describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies> (PDP) itself. The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO <http://www.nro.net/>) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group. I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele? best, On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, > Issue 16 (Michael Oghia) > 2. Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:44:21 +0300 > From: Michael Oghia <mike.oghia(a)gmail.com> > To: Constanze.Buerger(a)bmi.bund.de > Cc: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>, Gordon Lennox > <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > Message-ID: > <CAMCMt7oat=fWQxn_kOub6cbdq1Mu_os172J3nWiHHb-d_= > oVxA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you for sharing this Constanze! > > Indeed, the more we work together, the more we will accomplish things. I am > sure of that. Collaboration is how we built the Internet, and and I firmly > believe collaboration and openness is how we will continue to ensure it > evolves in a way that is advantageous and beneficial to humanity. > > -Michael > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM, <Constanze.Buerger(a)bmi.bund.de> wrote: > > > We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: > > > > For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content ? we have the > > process. J > > > > > > > > For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: > > > > New role of public administration and governments > > > > > > > > The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only > > ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home > > with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 > solutions, > > worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. > > The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running > and > > we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. > About > > this communication way and the role of public administration in the > > community I told you last year. > > > > But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. > > > > The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are > > driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. > In > > hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but > we > > have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a > problem > > because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. > > > > So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts > > and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . > > > > . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social > > and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to > > figure out a new ?Thinking? and new ?Cooperation Forms?. > > > > Regards > > > > Constanze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Im > > Auftrag von *Michael Oghia > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 > > *An:* Gordon Lennox > > *Cc:* Cooperation WG > > *Betreff:* [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg > > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > > > > > > > > I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. > > > > > > > > My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact > > decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and > > once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are > > positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen > to > > listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work > > with diplomats and a lot of training with government. > > > > > > > > In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of > politics > > and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, > > etc. -- are still people. Just people. > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox < > gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I agree. > > > > One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question > and > > you get a response. > > > > But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is > > not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong > > disagreement about values. > > > > I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. > > Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour > > there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And > > it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > > > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > > > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > > > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > > > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16
by Corinne Cath 23 Jun '16

23 Jun '16

To those interested in the next steps of the Bildt report, I am will be attending a meeting organized by EU MEP Marietje Schaake next week. see: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2016/06/european-launch-of-our-internet-the-f… Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest. On Gordon's comments on the net of rights movie. I appreciate your thoughts and kind words, but I have to disagree with your assertion that it demonizes the Internet. I think the documentary does not demonize or blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its technical infrastructure. Best On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Jim Reid) > 2. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Gordon Lennox) > 4. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) > 5. Copenhagen - The Movie! (Gordon Lennox) > 6. Re: Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity > offerings? (Alessandro Vesely) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:28:27 +0100 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <F41783E4-5A03-4150-884C-DA44CC11EF69(a)rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > This is an interesting document. I?ve only skimmed through and not yet > read it in detail. > > Does anyone know what happens now? Will it be up for > discussion/consultation at some governance forum like WSIS or ICANN? How > can people and organisations comment on the report? > The motherhood and apple pie statements on page viii ("What Happens > Next??) are rather vague about next steps. > > In particular, what does > > > ?... conceive of a new model that embraces greater involvement of those > whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the > network and to exercise their fundamental rights online. This new vision of > ?multi-stakeholderism? requires a more collaborative, global and > decentralized model of decision making; enhanced coordination and > cooperation across institutions and actors; increased interoperability in > terms of identifying and describing issues and approaches for resolution > throughout the ecosystem; open information sharing and evidence- based > decision making; and expertise- or issue-based organization to allow for > both localization and scale in problem solving. > ... > To continue to be effective, Internet governance will need to be more > inclusive and more distributed.? > > actually mean in practice and where is this new vision/model to be > developed? > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:29:59 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <576AD927.8080404(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > > of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > document actually says. > > Julf > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:00:23 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <A0430C4C-B038-4B6B-A091-274C4706D187(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) > > I pointed to the article by Kieren which in turn points to the report. > > In order to encourage people to at least go and read what Kieren said I > supplied a couple of tasty ?nibbles? from his article. > > I had hoped that some people would then go on, as Jim has done, and look > at the actual report. > > :-) > > Gordon > > > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > >> Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > >> of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > > document actually says. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:04:35 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <576AE143.1090706(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) > > Ah, my apologies - I have been reading the original > report, but not Kieren's article, so I didn't realize > you were quoting him. > > Julf > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:54:13 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Copenhagen - The Movie! > Message-ID: <76D5EDAA-7FD3-47E3-A03F-09ED358465D6(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > For people who were ?not there? - either not in Copenhagen or just in > another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource. > > And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit > some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, > stuff perhaps of general interest. > > So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme. > > But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware > and that is the ?Net of Rights? video from the screening organised by > Corinne. > > https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/ > > Personal takeaways. > > The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the > presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is > that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the > Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and > there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence. > > There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with > governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a > useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard > contradiction there. We are not talking about ?evil regimes? elsewhere. We > are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very > large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are > obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. > ?Snoopers' charter" anyone? > > I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet?. That sends the > wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various > players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the > problem. I also don?t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly > somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not > know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those > who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had > several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. > Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get > it right? with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the > agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding > MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK. > > There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the > Internet technical communities, the ?techies? of the IETF and RIPE, were > politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That > does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in > Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned > and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA > interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was > friendly. > > A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by > the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation > from Chris for other possible directions. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:20:03 +0200 > From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely(a)tana.it> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet > connectivity offerings? > Message-ID: <576BA9C3.4070004(a)tana.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Thanks for all replies. I note none of them came from Italy or Spain... > > On Wed 22/Jun/2016 16:11:00 +0200 Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > > > Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is > something that > > is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the > > culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set > up a > > mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or > buy a > > postbox company in the Seychelles? > > There have been several privacy-safeguarding improvements in residential > connections. I welcome them. > > Requiring a VAT number is different, though. Every Italian citizen has a > fiscal code, which is as good as a VAT number for identification purposes. > Yet, after years, one of my connection providers still invoices me using my > expired VAT number. Could that be rooted in 11-digit VAT numbers vs > 16-byte > alphanumeric fiscal codes? Hmm... not in this millennium, I'd say. > > I'd rule out specific laws, because the other connection provider I have > did > switch to fiscal code invoicing upon request to do so. However, I doubt > they > would have offered me that contract if I hadn't have a VAT number at the > time. > > A third provider, who promised me everything over the phone last month, > retracted all /after having laid new fiber cables to my office/, saying > they > cannot do their "microbusiness" contract without VAT number. They > invoiced me > zero euro for missing the deal. > > Others just quit the conversation as they hear about no VAT number. Note > that > residential lines, which I use too, are somewhat cheaper for "physical > persons" > than for businesses. > > The only high level manager I spoke with dismissed the argument as obvious, > saying "Every provider does so". "You mean in Italy?!" I objected. He > said yes. > > > The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other > than > > that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that > companies > > try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone > number > > on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have > gotten > > an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in > the USA... > > Postmaster.live.com used to check enlisting requests by (also) writing to > WHOIS > contacts. Many methods can enforce one another. And yes, it is something > of a > pita to switch provider on a mail server. > > > The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same > thing > > as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should > give out a > > copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds > the > > same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security > when > > people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it > without > > questioning the legality of it. > > Agreed. BTW, bank payments, along with email addresses, make for trusted > IDs. > Erogo ergo sum. I don't think FB wants to gain the same level of > accountability as, say, PayPal, as an informal ID certifier. > > Ale > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath

6 9

Copenhagen - The Movie!
by Gordon Lennox 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

For people who were “not there” - either not in Copenhagen or just in another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource. And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, stuff perhaps of general interest. So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme. But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware and that is the “Net of Rights” video from the screening organised by Corinne. https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/ Personal takeaways. The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence. There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard contradiction there. We are not talking about “evil regimes” elsewhere. We are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. “Snoopers' charter" anyone? I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet”. That sends the wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the problem. I also don’t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get it right” with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK. There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the Internet technical communities, the “techies” of the IETF and RIPE, were politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was friendly. A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation from Chris for other possible directions. Gordon

1 0

Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG)
by Gordon Lennox 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

Kieren’s write-up - where you will also find pointers - is here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/21/how_to_save_the_open_internet/ Nibbles: << The internet could go one of three paths in the next decade, according to an elite group of policymakers: open and global; unequal and uneven; or dangerous and broken. And the path to righteousness? It's contained in the recommendations of the 140-page report that the grandly named Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) has spent two years working on and released Tuesday. >> << There are "significant barriers" to real engagement that "discourage" people. And the report suggests that "seasoned participants from the technical community may need to adjust their usual blunt approach" in order to bring in others. It even goes so far as to suggest that the current approach taken by such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Society (ISOC) and so on "may not always be sustainable, particularly as the pioneers who established and remain key supporters of these bodies disappear from the scene." Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. >>

3 4

The Working Group
by Gordon Lennox 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a reply I feel I should ask one more. Do people actually want this Working Group? I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG cannot just be about private conversations. The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many “lurkers”. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what chairs and co-chairs think. I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think? Gordon

5 7

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11
by Corinne Cath 20 Jun '16

20 Jun '16

Dear Gordon and others, As a 'lurker' on the list and a pretty regular RIPE participant, I can only state that I think this mailinglist is very important. And yes, that it is a wanted, and necessary, contribution to the larger conversations going on at RIPE. That being said, I can imagine your frustration about the lack of conversation, Gordon. But that seems in part because there are not sufficient working group co-chairs to move the ball forward in terms of ensuring a steady flow of mailinglist conversations and contributions. This is not to say that Meredith is not doing an excellent job. She is. But she is also doing it alone. And if we want the list to become more active we need to ensure that there are enough people to facilitate that. I also noticed during the latest RIPE meeting that there was a lot of pressure to select co-chairs, yet when the conversation was started a lot of (negative) energy was focused on our current chair's choice of words with regards to the procedures for doing so. I think highlighting this is important for several reasons: it shows that the group is very focused on process, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but when such a process-heavy approach actually undermines the process of selectinging the co-chairs, in my mind there is a (process) problem. We could have easily spent that time we nit-picked Meredith choice of words, nit-picking the candidates merits. Related to this, as a relative newbie on this list, the rather hostile manner in which the conversation at RIPE in Copenhagen took place was off-putting. And now before my inbox gets filled up with people complaining about 'generation-Y's inability to deal with the real world' or 'in your face feedback', let me make three things clear: 1. I am Dutch, we pretty much invented the in-your-face-style of conversation. 2. I am on IETF mailinglist, where they pretty much invented 1. but then for mailinglists 3. Just because our communities pride themselves on their 'saying-it-like-it-is' culture does not make it efficient (or right) It should not come as a surprise that lurkers on the list stay silent sometimes when they notice that the on going conversations are tense, a little in-crowdy, and that their questions or points are most likely dismissed with a 'go read the archives'. I am not saying that this is the case for this mailinglist or WG, but I think it might be something to consider. I hope that in the upcoming weeks we can make a definitive decision about the new co-chairs. Don't worry, I won't suggest an election (or that I don't want to be in the way of your coffee break) because we all know that apparently offering such suggestions can get some people pretty agitated, but rather that we move this process forward so we can get back to discussing the content, with support of the new co-chair(s). Best, Corinne On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. The Working Group (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: The Working Group (Johan Helsingius) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:19:16 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a > reply I feel I should ask one more. > > Do people actually want this Working Group? > > I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But > traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG > cannot just be about private conversations. > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of > conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be > interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I > have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many > ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make > even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for > co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they > see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what > chairs and co-chairs think. > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right > now. But what to others think? > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:24:41 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <576664D9.9070004(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the > > lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that > > while people may be interested they are not actually > > interested enough to say anything. > > As I haven't been on this list too long, I didn't want to > start spamming the list with postings about stuff going > on that I think we should be aware of (and possibly address), > and instead have been lurking to get a "feel" for the > spirit of the list - but I agree with you, it seems rather > thin on the ground with regards to relevant discussion. > > Julf > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: LPWA: Things in Search of a Network
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Jun '16

20 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Last week Marco Hogewoning had the opportunity to visit the LPWA IoT Networks Event in Amsterdam, a two-day conference dedicated to the use of low power wide area (LPWA) wireless networks that lie behind many Internet of Things (IoT) solutions that are entering the market. Please find his report on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/lpwa-things-in-search-of-a-n… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization
by Nurani Nimpuno 11 Jun '16

11 Jun '16

Fyi. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 11 June 2016 at 04:59:34 GMT+2 > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization > > As you may have seen already through various channels, the NTIA has published Assessment Report on the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal. > > NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-pro… > > It has thoroughly reviewed each component of the proposal including the Number Resources component and expresses that it meets the criteria for the transition announced by the NTIA in March 2014. > This is a big step forward, with still work to do for implementation. > > You can see the latest Transition Planning Timeline and Implementation Planning at : https://www.icann.org/uploads/iana_work_session_asset/attachment/321/TPFM_0… > > > Nurani & Izumi > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

NTIA Issues IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Report
by Axel Pawlik 10 Jun '16

10 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, The transition of stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community has reached a significant milestone. On 9 June 2016, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued its assessment report on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. The proposal was submitted to the NTIA in March 2016 following the ICANN 55 Meeting. From its first announcement, the NTIA has set down a number of requirements that any proposal for transition would need to meet. The proposal must: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2. Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3. Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet. The NTIA further stipulated that it "would not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution." After thorough review the NTIA reports that it finds that "the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal meets the criteria necessary to complete the long-promised privatization of the IANA functions." The NTIA also looked at the recommendations developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, and found that "the accountability recommendations are consistent with sound principles of good governance that reflect the unique and important mission of ICANN within the Internet ecosystem.” The NTIA is now engaging with members of the United States Congress, and has asked ICANN to provide an implementation planning status report to gauge whether this work is likely to be completed prior to the expiration of the IANA functions contract on 30 September 2016. A fact sheet and link to the full report is available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/fact-sheet-ntias-assessment… Further information on the IANA stewardship transition is available at: https://www.ripe.net/iana-stewardship-transition Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Best effort, specialised services, network neutrality and more
by Gordon Lennox 09 Jun '16

09 Jun '16

I seem to remember some people thinking that the “network neutrality” debate in the EU was over when the Regulation was adopted last year. But this is what Commissioner Oettinger said in April in Brussels at the NetFutures event: << The challenge is that communication networks themselves have to evolve and to adapt to the new digital economy. They need to move from "one size fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the versatile requirements of many industries, and that can deliver guaranteed and ubiquitous quality of service. This is precisely what 5G is aimed to achieve: Changing communication networks into innovation platforms rather than mere voice and data pipes. >> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-s… Now we have a fairly short public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines. << Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 included new Net Neutrality rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of Internet Access Service. It specified that BEREC lay down guidelines on the implementation by NRAs of their obligations to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules. The Guidelines aim to contribute to the consistent application of the Regulation, thereby contributing to regulatory certainty for stakeholders. >> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_co… For comments from TheRegister see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equa… <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equa…> And elsewhere: https://savetheinternet.eu https://edri.org/make-break-summer-eu-net-neutrality-first-stop-vienna/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/eu-net-neutrality-draft-guidel… https://netzpolitik.org/2016/leak-eus-forthcoming-net-neutrality-rules-here… http://motherboard.vice.com/read/europe-is-about-to-make-some-big-decisions… Enjoy, Gordon

2 1

Co-chair attributes
by Gordon Lennox 06 Jun '16

06 Jun '16

Now that I think we have clearly moved into the discussion stage - it will be interesting to see how that goes - I have looked back at what has been said on criteria and how we get to consensus. I don’t think the process can or should be micro-managed by the group. I think we can trust Meredith to assume her responsibilities. With that in mind I think the three criteria mentioned by Meredith - candidates should be willing (and not coerced!), able to attend (ideally for the full RIPE meeting), available - are “necessary but not sufficient”. To those of course we should add the generic requirements coming from the “job description" on the RIPE web-site. I hope everybody has read those! I suppose it should almost go without saying that folk should understand what RIPE is and what NCC is and how they each fit into the wider ecosystem. And of course that the co-chairs as a team should also be able to put together a meeting! But all that is probably the same for any WG. So looking through the comprehensive list of criteria from Jim I find myself in agreement with many of them, but not all. I would like to see people from the local community: people who understand how governments work in this region and who understand what the concerns of individuals and organisations in this region are. I would like at least some of the co-chairs to be explicitly sensitive to the tensions between governments and the Internet. Governments and regulators are not always benign! Where I diverge a little from Jim, and the topic has come up recently on this list, is when it comes to outreach and to what extent co-chairs are supposed to represent the WG and indeed RIPE elsewhere. This area is a bit different from others and maybe particularly when it comes to outreach where NCC has been very much involved. NCC, among other things, organises regular roundtables with government folk. I am aware that NCC as such has participated in other meetings such as those of CEPT. I also remember the support NCC gave when it was felt a letter should be written to Brussels. It was not easy. But we were able to do it. Then there was a meeting in the European Parliament on “network neutrality” which proved slightly problematic. Who were the participants representing exactly? To be clear: I am very happy with what NCC has done in this area. I could only wish they mentioned their good work more often on this list! Where I am less comfortable is about outreach being part of the job description of WG Co-chairs. I also wonder to what extent participants in the WG can also take on this kind of task. I think this needs to be discussed further. In Madrid when we have our full complement of co-chairs? As far as consensus is concerned there was a question elsewhere about that. I do not anticipate any problem. If all those who have been following the discussions here on the list just nod at their screens when Meredith announces what she sees as consensus then she will have got it right. Regards, Gordon

3 2

QoS, QoE and Enhanced Services
by Gordon Lennox 05 Jun '16

05 Jun '16

We have EuroDIG this week and of course there will be discussions about "network neutrality” This paper - Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History - by kc claffy and David Clark is very much worth a read by anyone seriously interested in the topic. https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2015/adding_enhanced_services_int… Regards, Gordon

1 0

Co-chair attributes: some suggestions
by Jim Reid 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

A consensus seems to be emerging about who should join Meredith as co-chairs. I don’t want to derail that. In parallel to those deliberations, I think it would be helpful to suggest a list of essential or highly desirable qualities that a co-chair of this WG should have. The list below is a first attempt at that. Feel free to suggest others or disagree with these suggestions. It’s improbable that any one individual could hope to tick all of these boxes. That should be possible however when these qualities are spread across 2 or 3 people. The trick is finding the right balance of skills and experience. And I suppose deciding how to prioritise whatever set of requirements emerges: eg “foo is mandatory, bar is nice to have, foobar is highly desirable”. Meredith’s initial three criteria are no-brainers. But they do set the bar rather low. IMO the WG leadership needs to have more than those baseline qualities of being willing, able to attend and available. Here goes (in no particular order): 1) Roots in the RIPE Community 2) A good understanding of how things are done at RIPE (policy-making, consensus driven decision making, openness, lowest possible barriers to entry, inclusiveness, etc) 3) A good understanding of the NCC and its role in supporting RIPE and its WGs 4) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential roles other Internet institutions (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IGF, trade associations etc) along with an understanding how these institutions intersect with the RIPE community and how/when to best work with them 5) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential positions in government/regulatory circles 6) An appreciation of current legislation and regulation which affects the RIPE community 7) An understanding of future trends in 6) - like new EU Directives, stuff that might pop up from ITU, WCIT, etc and who is driving that 8) Able to engage with legislators and regulators about relevant technology/standards developments like IoT, 5G, IPv6 migration and the IPv4 run-out, crypto, RPKI, next generation broadband (whatever that might be) and so on 9) (Mostly) based in the RIPE service region 10) Ability to engage with government/regulatory policy-makers as well as those in other Internet institutions and represent the RIPE community in those fora

1 0

Press releases from European Commission, Brussels, 25 May 2016
by Gordon Lennox 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

The European Commission today tabled a package of measures to allow consumers and companies to buy and sell products and services online more easily and confidently across the EU. The European Commission today proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech better. http://europa.eu/rapid/latest-press-releases.htm

11 22

Details about the nature of my self-nomination as wg co-chair
by Analia Aspis 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

Dear group, I have been following the discussion related to co-chairs nominees. In order to let the group to know a bit more my profile and my commitement to the wg, here I go with some extra explanations: 1. "*One chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU)*" I am a South American academic but with a different profile from the classic academics. Since I did start with ICT policy issues, I have been very involved with CS and goverment, listening to their point of view so as to perform a more comprehensive understanding of policy development process. In general temrs, LatinAmericans always "watch and apply" policies from the "North". In this sense, I am very excited to be part of policy discussions, so as to understand and give my perspective from another point of view. 2. *WG involves outreach and bringing others into the community* In the same direction as pointed out above, definetively I would like to involve more specilist to RIPE community since I do feel that there are are still few understanding of RIPE's actions in many organizations from my region. I was one of them until the past months when I started silently to follow the discussion. I feel that it is now my moment to act actively and this does not mean to be the enemy of the done, conversly, it is adding a new dynamic. For sure I will need time to learn and understand the key points of the group, but all the challenges I had in life, this is a new one. 3. *We should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG* I think I can offer a comprehensive point of view of the issues, contribute to the understanding of the different backgrounds and situations. Moreover, I do consider the research as a unique opportunity to enhance her research work across Latin America and to start an active network not only in the region but collaborate worldwide. I do have strong experience in tasks related to assist in the design, execution and analysis on different research project, write about different themes of IT and IG, coordinate mutlistakeholder, attend and speak in conferences related to governance and politics, being always updated with the current mission of international agencies which work with technology and teaching about IT from different points of view, including legal, technical and social aspects, teach about internet issues, of course including all the fields related to ICANN, IGF, ITU, and other organizations, relationships between domain names and commercial law, dispute resolutions, social developments among others and organize seminars within my Research Center to promote and study IG issues Finally, you can check out my whole profile here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15w3r3fVETcOHhJemRJSnIyeUk/view?usp=shari… ..... Kind regards, Analía Aspis

2 2

Signature Draft of IANA Numbering Services SLA
by Athina Fragkouli 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, In the interest of transparency, the Number Resource Organization has published an update on progress made on development of the Service Level Agreement between the IANA Numbering Services Operator (ICANN) and the five Regional Internet Registries. A draft 5.2 is now publicly available, and is considered a “signature draft”. This RIRs expect that this SLA will be signed by all parties at the same time frame as the rest of the accountability measures approved by the ICANN Board. https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5-2-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-t… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0