- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The future of the CRISP Team role
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] The future of the CRISP Team role > Date: 9 februari 2016 08:29:48 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > We are pleased to inform you that the CRISP Team has handed over the responsibility to the RIRs, on preparing implementation for IPR related to the provision of the IANA services. > > The three operational communities are now at the phase of preparing implementation, based on the consensus the IETF Trust to be the entity to hold the ownership of "the IANA trademark" and "the IANA.ORG domain". Further, the three operational communities are undertaking coordination towards the implementation work between now and September, through the IPR coordination group with leaders from each operational communities. > > The CRISP team takes on an observer role in this group, to ensure consistency with the proposal, and continue to make itself available to answer questions or provide clarifications as needed. > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno will represent the CRISP team in this group. > > The public read-only archives of its mailing list are available at: https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/ > > With this formal handover in the implementation of IPR to the RIRs, we no longer have specific actions as the CRISP Team, and our role now transitions into ensuring consistency with the number community proposal, until implementation of the IANA stewardship transition is completed. The CRISP Team continues to remain available to provide answers, advice and clarifications about the proposal as needed in the IANA stewardship transition process, and to help ensure that the implementation of the number resources component of the transition, such as the SLA on IANA Numbering Services, Review Committee and IPR related to the provision of the IANA services, is consistent with the number community's proposal. > > This transition of our role is based on the CRISP Team Charter, which describes our role as :"The CRISP team will have completed its work upon the ICG transmission of the combined IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to ICANN, but will continue to be available to answer any relevant questions about the number community’s proposal from any interested party, until the completion of the IANA Stewardship transition." > > Until the end of our work based on the CRISP Team Charter, we continue conducting calls on needs basis with schedule published on the NRO's CRISP Team website. > > CRISP Team Charter > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… > > CRISP Team teleconferences > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/crisp-team-p… > > We thank the number resources community for the inputs you have given us throughout the process, and we are open to questions you may have on this transition in our role. > > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > The Chair and the Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

The EU, ICANN and maybe the Internet
by Gordon Lennox 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

There seems to be an interesting slew of meetings in Brussels next week. But the one that really caught my eye was: << On Thursday 28 January, the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission will host a meeting of the recently created Public Safety Working Group of the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN. This whole-day meeting will bring together law enforcement and public safety organisations as well as private sector representatives to advance cooperation on the expanding number of matters related to ICANN's policies that have an impact on public safety. Topics include the security of the Domain Name System, accuracy and privacy rules for the WHOIS registry and consumers' safeguards for new Top Level Domain Names in regulated sectors (like .doctor or .bank). Representatives of Europol, the UK National Crime Agency and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation will be among the panellists. >> So a European Commission Directorate General which has “migration” as its first topic is hosting an ICANN-related meeting? But the "so-called Internet 'technical community' will also gather in Brussels” for a RIPE NCC Roundtable with Governments and Regulators. And of course there is also preparatory work for EuroDIG in Brussels in June and a dinner-debate organised by the EIF (European Internet Forum) and a meeting of the High Level Group on Internet Governance. More details can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/blog/internet-governance-week-brusse… Meanwhile EDRi - https://edri.org - is behind the 2016 PrivacyCamp - http://privacycamp.eu/ By the way I hope most folk have seen the latest ruling of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the surveillance by employers of the network activities (Bărbulescu v Romania). Details on the EDRi web-site. And then we have the CPDP 2016 - Computers, Privacy and Data Protection - http://www.cpdpconferences.org Some of these events are of course much more open than others. Or to put it another way we will have to count on those who have actually been invited to those which are closed for any news. Happy 2016 everybody! Gordon

2 2

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Scheduled Teleconference Thursday January 14th 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

fyi. Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP members > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Scheduled Teleconference Thursday January 14th 13:00 UTC > Date: 12 januari 2016 15:38:51 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > > > Hi > > The next scheduled CRISP teleconference will be on Thursday January 14th at 13:00 UTC. > > The agenda will be and update on the IPR discussions among the OCs. > > Webex details below. > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m31c9ec30fcbe5ab39d62d984dfbf2… > Meeting number: 709 316 083 > Meeting password: crisp > > > JOIN BY PHONE > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 709 316 083 > > Global call-in numbers: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389533… > > Toll-free dialing restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Report on WSIS+10
by Chris Buckridge 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Hi all, As a follow-up on my updates to past meetings of the Cooperation Working Group on the WSIS+10 process, we have just published a report on RIPE Labs regarding the High-Level Meeting that took place in the UN General Assembly last month and the Outcome Document that it produced: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/wsis-10-what-was-all-the-fuss-about All comments and discussion are welcome on the RIPE Labs forum or here on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 21 Dec '15

21 Dec '15

Dear Richard, Thank you for your reply. Regarding your comment on the Sole Designator Model, I would like to highlight that the NTIA requirement you mention refers to the oversight of the IANA function. The replacement of the oversight of the IANA function is described in the ICG proposal. The CCWG draft report, however, refers to the oversight of ICANN. Therefore, the NTIA requirement would not be applicable in this case. With regards to the topic of U.S. Headquarters as part of ICANN's fundamental bylaws, thank you for expressing your agreement to the ASO representatives' position. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:40:37 +0100 > From: "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> > To: "'Athina Fragkouli'" <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net>, > <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers > Related Analysis > > Thank you for this. > > Please see embedded comments below. > > Best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf >> Of Athina Fragkouli >> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 16:46 >> To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related >> Analysis >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on >> Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft >> Report, available here: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-work-stream-1-recs-30nov15-en.pdf >> >> Comments can be sent via this webpage: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-2015-11-30-en >> >> The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. > > SNIP > >> >> 2. Sole Designator Model >> >> The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised >> by changing ICANN?s structure, and introduced a structure called the >> Sole Membership Model. >> >> During and following the public consultation, objections to this model >> were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, >> the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole >> Designator Model. >> >> The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-1-30nov15-en.pdf). >> >> The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: >> >> - To implement the ?Sole Designator? model, ICANN?s Supporting >> Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to >> enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to >> as the ?Empowered Community?. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal >> personhood. >> - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint >> and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire >> Board. >> Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a >> decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely >> implement their decisions. >> - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered >> Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned >> in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply >> with that decision. >> - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to >> start the process and to exercise community power) are described in >> ANNEX 04 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-4-30nov15-en.pdf) >> >> Do you have any comments with regard to this model? > > Paragraph 58 of that proposal shows that the "empowered community" would consist of 5 organizations: ALAC, ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, and GAC. Each of these organizations is an organic component of ICANN, and the majority of them represent the domain name and addressing industries. > > Thus, the proposal does not provide for any external accountability or supervision of ICANN: ICANN would be accountable only to entities that are part of ICANN. > > In March 2014, NTIA announced that it intended "to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community", see: > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio… > > An entity (the "empowered community") that consists of organizations that are organic components of ICANN is obviously not "the global multistakeholdercommunity", nor can it be construed to be representative of that community when 3 out of 5 of the cited organizations represent the domain name and addressing industries. > > Consequently, the proposal manifestly fails to meet the main objective enunciated by NTIA, namely that ICANNshould be accountable to a the broad global multistakeholder community. Therefore, I do not agree with recommendations contained in the proposal. > > It still seems to me that it would be better to turn ICANN into a proper membership organization, see: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/pdfXXrCnTxCwW.pdf > > SNIP > > >> >> 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws >> >> In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the >> CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related >> provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in >> particular regarding ICANN?s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG >> suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The >> concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-3-30nov15-en.pdf) >> of the third Draft Report. >> >> The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the >> Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting >> Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could >> block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change >> to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting >> rights (75% vote). >> >> One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments requires that >> ICANN ?remains headquartered in the United States of America?. The CCWG >> noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at >> Article XVIII Section 1: >> >> ?OFFICES. >> The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall >> be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of >> America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or >> outside the United States of America as it may from time to time >> establish.? >> >> The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a >> Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of >> Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the >> Fundamental Bylaws. >> >> The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: >> >> ?There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. >> Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, >> most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR >> community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in >> the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an >> administrative issue.? > > I agree. It is not appropriate to case into stone that ICANN must reside in the USA. > > SNIP >

3 4

CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft Report, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo… Comments can be sent via this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the Number Community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the second Draft Report. At the same time we would like to to highlight the principle amendments introduced in the third Draft Report and provide you with an update on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the second Draft Report (see communication from 9 September 2015: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-September/00078…) 1. Community powers In the third Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows (see ANNEX 01 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) - Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reject changes to ICANN’s Bylaws - Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation - Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board. - Recall the entire ICANN Board - Initiate a binding Independent Review Process (where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results) - Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of Post-Transition IANA separation [We would like to note that this power refers to the CWG-Stewardship transition proposal] 2. Sole Designator Model The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure, and introduced a structure called the Sole Membership Model. During and following the public consultation, objections to this model were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Designator Model. The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: - To implement the “Sole Designator” model, ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to as the “Empowered Community”. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire Board. Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely implement their decisions. - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply with that decision. - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to start the process and to exercise community power) are described in ANNEX 04 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) Do you have any comments with regard to this model? 3. Revised Mission The third Draft Report suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in ANNEX 05 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) ICANN's mission with regards to Internet number resources, is described as follows: “ Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” (ANNEX 5 p8, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) The description is in line with the feedback provided by the ASO representatives during the drafting process for the first Draft Report and the ASO representatives requested that the Number Community confirm its accuracy during the first public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) of the third Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting rights (75% vote). One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws. The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an administrative issue.” The third Draft Report provides that two considerations suggest that the CCWG-Accountability should not propose that Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: - Public comment on the first and second draft was evenly split on the question of whether to designate Article XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw. Supporting this designation were several commenters from the Commercial Stakeholders Group of GNSO. Governments were among those expressing strong opposition. - Second, the Empowered Community could block any proposed change to ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII, which states, “The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.” (ANNEX 3, p 6, para 25 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) 5. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives have communicated the following to the CCWG: “…the RIR community stresses that there are separate, well-established appeal mechanisms for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. An arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the global policy development process 2. An arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Imposing different appeal procedures than the ones agreed upon and used by the numbers community would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that disputes relating to Internet number resources be excluded from the scope of the proposed appeal mechanisms. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources.” Accordingly, in the third Draft Report (as well as in the second Draft Report) there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (ANNEX 07, para 22 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) “Exclusions; Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.” However, in the annex describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (ANNEX 08, para 8 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) “Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.” It is our understanding that the intention is to exclude disputes related to Internet number resources from the scope of the Reconsideration Process, as this section is about the Reconsideration Process and not about the IRP. A correction to clarify this would be appropriate. The ASO representatives will comment appropriately to the CCWG. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IGF 2015 output document: "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 09 Dec '15

09 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, In earlier emails we asked you to review the draft outcome document for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Best Practice Forum on IPv6. This is to let you know the 2015 IGF inter-sessional work has now concluded and the final output document has been published on the IGF website. It is available for download at: http://goo.gl/BXBzTn Acknowledging the need for a increased rate of IPv6 adoption, the documents highlights numerous examples and best practices that can help businesses and governments with their IPv6 deployment projects. A large section of the document is dedicated to role and function of IPv6 task forces, which can be instrumental to a successful IPv6 deployment in a particular country or region. In addition it provides an overview of various capacity building programs that are available, which includes the RIPE NCC Training Courses and IPv6 Roadshows. We hope this document provides useful guidance for our community members and stakeholders that face the important step of enabling IPv6 in their networks and services. We would like to thank everybody who contributed to this document and in particular Susan Chalmers, Izumi Okutani and Wim Degezelle who jointly coordinated and supported the work on behalf of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 25 Nov '15

25 Nov '15

My sincere apologies for the late sharing of this. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)apnic.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 25 november 2015 09:53:26 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find agenda and webex details for today crisp team scheduled teleconference > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> >> Date: 25 November 2015 at 2:53:42 PM AEST >> To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>>, <crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>> >> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC >> >> Hi German, >> >> >> Thanks for the reminder and below is the suggested agenda for the CRISP Team call today. >> >> --- >> AGENDA >> >> 1. Agenda review >> >> 2. Action items >> a. Minutes >> b. The CRISP review of SLA ver.3 >> >> 3. Update >> a. IGF 2015 >> b. RIPE71 >> >> 4. Implementation Status >> a. Review Committee >> b. SLA: CRISP Review >> c. IPR: Update from the call with other OC leaders >> >> 5. AOB >> --- >> >> Thanks, >> Izumi >> >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>> >>>> Date: 6 November 2015 at 10:48:09 AM AEST >>>> To: <crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>> >>>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> CRISP Meeting 4th Wednesday each month >>>> Scheduled: 25 Nov 2015, 11:00 PM to 26 Nov 2015, 12:00 AM >>>> Location: https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc> >>>> Invitees: German Valdez, German Valdez >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d…> >>>> Meeting number: 707 107 621 >>>> Meeting password: crisp >>>> >>>> >>>> JOIN BY PHONE >>>> 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) >>>> +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) >>>> Access code: 707 107 621 >>>> >>>> Global call-in numbers: >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532…> >>>> >>>> Toll-free dialing restrictions: >>>> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can't join the meeting? Contact support here: >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CRISP mailing list >>>>> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CRISP mailing list >>>> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp> >> > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Reminder and Preparation for Tomorrow's RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session
by Meredith Whittaker 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Adding the coop-wg list so everyone has the latest info and incentive to show up for the session. I'd also like to give a big thank you to Collin for helping organize this session, and for chairing and coordinating in my absence! Thank you, Collin! Cheers and sorry to miss it, Meredith On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Collin Anderson <collin(a)measurementlab.net > wrote: > Hello all, > > Just a reminder that the Cooperation Working Group session for RIPE71 > <https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/> will take place > tomorrow, Thursday, 19 November 09:00 - 10:30, at the JW Marriott in the > Main Room. > > We have a packed (and interesting) set of sessions, so if you could upload > your slides <https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/upload-presentation/> beforehand, > this will ensure smooth succession across the presentations. If we could > plan for ten minutes average per presentation, that will provide time for a > few questions after each speaker ends. I will try to be short to make sure > that others have more time to engage the audience, and I believe a few > others have short presentations as well. > > Currently, the order of speakers is the following: > > - Digital Privacy in the EU, Valentina Pavel > - Export controls, human rights, and networked technologies, Collin > Anderson > - Access and poverty in the United States, Oana Niculaescu > - RIR accountability, Farzaneh Badii > - Experiences in Cooperation Between Governments and Community > Stakeholders, Tahar Schaa > - RIPE NCC report on the WSIS+10 process, Chris Buckridge > > If there is anything that I can do to assist or questions, please let me > know. I will make sure to be there a bit early to setup and coordinate any > last minute needs. > > Look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow and hearing the excellent > presentations. > > Cordially, > Collin Anderson > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Source Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on IGF 2015
by Chris Buckridge 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the tenth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which took place last week in Brazil: https://www.ripe.net/reports/igf-2015 Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC

1 0