- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?
by Marco Hogewoning 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

[apologies for duplicates, suggest to follow-up on this on the RIPE IPv6-WG for which you can subscribe at https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg/) Dear Colleagues, Unfortunately so far I have only found Dutch (and French) sources, we would be happy to receive pointers to English texts on this. The Belgian Institute for Post and Telecom (BIPT) recently ran a consultation to evaluate the National IPv6 Workplan, which was released back in 2012. The deadline to comment had already passed, but I trust our Belgian community members to have found this via other sources in time to respond. http://www.bipt.be/public/files/nl/22027/Raadpleging_ipv6.pdf In this, there is one question in particular that caught our eye, number 6, which roughly translates to a question asking if the requirements in a Code of Conduct on the usage of CGN which was agreed in 2012 are still current and workable and whether or not this CoC should be reviewed. Further in the introduction of the consultation, chapter 1 (page 3), there is some more information on this agreement: > Om de eindgebruiker toch eenduidig te kunnen identificeren was er beslist om bijvoorbeeld het delen van een IP-adres te beperken tot maximaal 16 gebruikers en dit via een gedragscode die door de sector werd ondertekend. Translation by me: > To identify users, it was agreed that sharing a single IP address would be limited to a maximum of 16 users and that this limit would be part of a code of conduct which would be signed by the industry” So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful. As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you think this form of cooperation between the public and private sector as a way to expedite the deployment of IPv6? Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Accountability Task Force
by Athina Fragkouli 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 73 there was support for a review of the RIPE community's accountability, by looking at its current procedures, documentation and structures. An Accountability Task Force has been established to carry out this work and will have its first meeting in the coming weeks, after which a charter and additional information will be published. A mailing list will also be created for the Task Force’s discussions and the archives will be publicly available. You can find the accountability presentation at RIPE 73 here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1248/ If you have feedback or would like to join the Task Force, please send an email to <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Cybersecurity Due Diligence - an ISP Perspective
by Mirjam Kuehne 15 Nov '16

15 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, For those who missed Joanna Kulesza's presentation at RIPE 73, she wrote a summary for RIPE Labs: Cybersecurity Due Diligence - an ISP Perspective Cybersecurity is no longer a corporate or private affair. What once was simply good business practice is now a legal obligation for ISPs, large and small. What does this mean for you? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/joanna_kulesza/cybersecurity-due-diligence Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: The Internet Infrastructure's Turn to Content
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article by Uta Meier-Hahn on RIPE Labs: The Internet Infrastructure's Turn to Content https://labs.ripe.net/Members/uta_meier_hahn/the-internet-infrastructures-t… One of the Internet’s key features is that it keeps networking functions separate from the applications and services that use these functions. However, network operators and especially Internet service providers appear to be becoming more content aware. Networking is becoming more intertwined with content. This might have implications for tomorrow’s Internet. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Euro-IX Memorandum of Understanding and RIPE NCC Engagement
by Paul Rendek 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC and the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the Euro-IX Forum in Krakow, Poland on 7 November. The MoU documents the existing relationship between the RIPE NCC and Euro-IX, and focuses specifically on the promotion of IPv6 and IXPs, the importance of security, and a common approach to Internet governance: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe-ncc-and… This MoU is the latest formalised agreement for greater cooperation between the RIPE NCC and one of the many external organisations we work with, and we wanted to give you some background on why we believe these types of agreements are valuable to the RIPE NCC membership and the greater RIPE community. We also want to be completely transparent about the agreements we’re entering into, which is why we’ve created a new page on the RIPE NCC website where you can get all of the details for yourselves: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations Beyond the RIPE NCC membership, there is a diverse range of organisations we work with in various ways, including governments, regulators, technical bodies, industry groups, law enforcement agencies, academic institutions and others. By engaging with these organisations, we can offer decision makers technical expertise that will ultimately benefit the Internet community, gain support for open, bottom-up policy-making, and strengthen the legitimacy, authority and accountability of the RIPE NCC, the RIPE community and the global registry system. In fact, this kind of engagement is included as one of the four main focus areas in the Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan & Budget 2017, and was the subject of a presentation by RIPE NCC Executive Board member Maria Häll at RIPE 73. You can find both of these online for more details if you’re interested: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016/draft-ri… https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1480/ You can also learn more about our engagement with external organisations and the mutual benefits of these agreements in this RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/building-and-documenting-stronger-rela… We encourage you to include any comments you might have in the comment section under the article, or on this mailing list. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC

1 0

BoF follow-up: Creation of IoT-Discuss mailing list
by Marco Hogewoning 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, During the Internet of Things BoF in Madrid, several participants commented on the need to strengthen the information exchange on this topic. Noting the wide variety of the topics and concerns that would fall under such a broad term as the Internet of Things, while it the same time too specific for any existing mailing list, it was concluded that the creation of a dedicated mailing list would be a feasible way forward in centralising the information available, while leaving open the option to take specific topics to specialist working groups or other venues. As we announced during the meeting, we have now set up this dedicated mailing list called “IoT Discussion”. The aim of this list is to facilitate the exchange of information concerning the Internet of Things, particularly as it may have impact on the RIPE NCC, RIPE or our stakeholders' operations. The list is also a platform to inform each other about proceedings in other relevant standards bodies or governance structures, and may be used to discuss and formulate common positions among participants on IoT-related topics. If you take interest in this topic or participate in other discussions surrounding the IoT, we would encourage you to subscribe to this mailing list. To subscribe to this list, please visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion. The same webpage also gives access to the public archives of this mailing list. Regards, Marco Hogewoning On behalf of the RIPE NCC’s External Relations department.

1 0

RIPE NCC's response to ITU SG20 Liaison Statement
by Marco Hogewoning 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities. The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppl… In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

6 8

Suggested agenda for RIPE73 Cooperation WG session
by Johan Helsingius 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

Here is the current suggested agenda for the cooperation WG session in Madrid. Julf & Achilleas - - - - - RIPE73 Cooperation WG session Thursday, 27 October, 10:00-11:30 Co-chairs: Achilleas Kemos, Julf Helsingius 1. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) - Welcome - Selecting a scribe - Approve agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 72 https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/minutes/ripe-72 2. Cybersecurity Due Diligence - and ISP Perspective (20 minutes) Joanna Kuleza, University of Lodz, PL 3. EU 5G Action Plan (20 minutes) Achilleas Kemos 4. IPv6 and Government Update (20 minutes) Chris Buckridge and Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC, Constanze Bürger, BMI, DE 5. RIPE NCC Update (20 minutes) Chris Buckridge and Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC, Julf Helsingius - IANA transition - IoT issues - ITU activities 6. Open Microphone Session (5 minutes) 7. Any other business

1 0

European Commission tender: study to support the definition phase of the Next Generation Internet initiative
by Marco Hogewoning 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, We recently have been notified about the following, which we think this may be an area that RIPE community members have an interest in commenting on. At this stage we do not have more information than what is posted on the webpages mentioned below. "The European Commission has launched a call for tenders for a service contract to conduct a study to support the definition phase of the Next Generation Internet initiative. In their offer, the tenderer should demonstrate a deep knowledge of the Future Internet area and key applications, from a technical perspective, notably through relevant previous work of similar nature (SMART 2016/0033 The overall objective of the study is to support the definition phase of the Next Generation Internet initiative. This includes developing a concept for a new research and innovation initiative on next generation Internet and engaging with a broader community of stakeholders.” More information about this tender and the Next Generation Internet Initiative can be found on the Commission’s website: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/next-generation-internet… Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

the IANA transition has happened!
by Jim Reid 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

The last minute attempt to get an injunction to stop the NTIA contract from ending has been rejected. Rejoice!

2 1

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet Community
by Nurani Nimpuno 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

FYI Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 1 October 2016 at 06:39:02 GMT+2 > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet Community > > Dear colleagues, > > > We are very pleased to see the completion of the transfer the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority’s (IANA) stewardship to the global multistakeholder community. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-st… > > We are also very happy to see that the implementation of the proposal fully reflects the spirit of the number community’s will. > > The number community has worked effectively and constructively together with the broader Internet community over the last two years in completing this plan. The number community’s fundamental principles of openness, transparency, inclusiveness and bottom-up decision making, have been a leading example throughout this work. We are immensely proud of the work carried out by our community and we feel privileged to have been part of this process. > > The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition, involving many different stakeholders across the globe, is a true testament to the multistakeholder model. > > The IANA function now in the hands of the global Internet community, which will ensure the continued stability and openness of those fundamental functions. > > We now have a stewardship mechanism which the Numbers Community, with expertise on the global number resources, has the stewardship of the IANA Numbering Services. This mechanism reflects the three Operational Communities, who have been responsible for the resources managed by the IANA, to have stewardship for these functions. > > We would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this successful transition. > Kind regards, > > Izumi Okutani, chair of the CRISP team > Nurani Nimpuno, vice chair of the CRISP team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 14
by Corinne Cath 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

I would be happy to add to that conversation from the perspective of civil society, as ARTICLE 19 recently wrote about the impact of 5G development and roll-out on human rights. I assume a remote presentation option is possible? (I shared the blog to the list, but here is another link: https://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/252/view/). Best, On Thu, Sep 29, 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: Call for Agenda Items RIPE73 - Cooperation WG (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:04:51 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Call for Agenda Items RIPE73 - > Cooperation WG > Message-ID: <0D347044-5600-4F54-AF65-4E246BC50EE6(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Another interesting topic could be how the Commission, DG Connect, sees > how all their intended investments in 5G - political and regulatory and > financial - relate to the internet. > > At the "Net Futures" event earlier this year, Commissioner Oettinger said: > > << They (communication networks) 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. >> > > When one thinks of the various fundamentals of the internet there is a > major mismatch there. > > Gordon > > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 14 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath

1 0

Call for Agenda Items RIPE73 - Cooperation WG
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

Dear group members, Our meeting at RIPE73 is just one month away and we are in the process of finalising the agenda. If you would like to suggest a topic for discussion or have a presentation you have or would like to see presented, please get in touch with us. Best regards, Julf & Achilleas

5 7

RIPE NCC's Response to CWG-Internet Open Consultation "Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”
by Marco Hogewoning 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, In response to the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet)’s open consultation “Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”, we have prepared and submitted the attached contribution on behalf of the RIPE NCC. In our submission we emphasise the need for IPv6 and highlighted the ongoing coordinated efforts by all stakeholders to expedite the deployment of IPv6 in their networks, services and products. Should you have any questions regarding this consultation or our contribution, please do not hesitate to contact me or one of my colleagues. Regards, Marco Hogewoning External Relations RIPE NCC

3 3

New on RIPE Labs: What Do Network Operators Sell to Each Other?
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Sep '16

20 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs contributed by Uta Meier-Hahn: What Do Network Operators Sell to Each Other? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/uta_meier_hahn/what-do-network-operators-sell… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 4
by Corinne Cath 18 Sep '16

18 Sep '16

Thank you for sharing Achilleas! Related to this, I recently wrote a blog for ARTICLE 19 about the promises and perils of 5G and what civil society do to ensure that human rights play a central role in its development. Might be of interest. https://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/252/view/ Best, On Sat, Sep 17, 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. President Juncker "State of the union 2016" and "Connectivity > package" (Achilleas.KEMOS(a)ec.europa.eu) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:14:02 +0000 > From: <Achilleas.KEMOS(a)ec.europa.eu> > To: <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] President Juncker "State of the union 2016" > and "Connectivity package" > Message-ID: > <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B2003FB@S-DC-ESTG02-J. > net1.cec.eu.int> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear group members, > > This week President Juncker gave (on Wedensday) the 2016 State of the > Union address. You can find the whole text here: > > www.ec.europa.eu/soteu<http://www.ec.europa.eu/soteu> > > The Digital Single Market is a key priority for this Commission. Below you > can find also the press release relative to improved internet connectivity > for all citizens and businesses in Europe. > > http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3008_en.htm > > On this occasion the Commission proposed an ambitious overhaul of EU > telecoms rules with new initiatives to meet Europeans' growing connectivity > needs and boost Europe's competitiveness. These proposals will encourage > investment in very high-capacity networks and accelerate public access to > Wi-Fi for Europeans. > > Documents adopted: > > Communication and Staff Working Document - Connectivity for a Competitive > Digital Single Market - towards a European Gigabit Society< > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34110> > > Action Plan and Staff Working Document Communication - 5G for Europe< > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34115> > > European Electronic Communication Code<https://ec.europa.eu/ > digital-single-market/news-redirect/34112> > > Regulation on the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications > (BEREC)<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34114> > > Regulation on the promotion of Internet connectivity in local communities > and public spaces (WiFi4EU) <https://ec.europa.eu/digital- > single-market/news-redirect/34228> > In view of preparing the Madrid meeting, could you please signal which EU > developments (if any) would be most interesting to discuss. > > Achilleas > > Achilleas Kemos > Programme Officer - Future Connectivity Systems > DG CONNECT > European Commission > >

1 0

President Juncker "State of the union 2016" and "Connectivity package"
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

Dear group members, This week President Juncker gave (on Wedensday) the 2016 State of the Union address. You can find the whole text here: www.ec.europa.eu/soteu<http://www.ec.europa.eu/soteu> The Digital Single Market is a key priority for this Commission. Below you can find also the press release relative to improved internet connectivity for all citizens and businesses in Europe. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3008_en.htm On this occasion the Commission proposed an ambitious overhaul of EU telecoms rules with new initiatives to meet Europeans' growing connectivity needs and boost Europe's competitiveness. These proposals will encourage investment in very high-capacity networks and accelerate public access to Wi-Fi for Europeans. Documents adopted: Communication and Staff Working Document - Connectivity for a Competitive Digital Single Market - towards a European Gigabit Society<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34110> Action Plan and Staff Working Document Communication - 5G for Europe<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34115> European Electronic Communication Code<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34112> Regulation on the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC)<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34114> Regulation on the promotion of Internet connectivity in local communities and public spaces (WiFi4EU) <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34228> In view of preparing the Madrid meeting, could you please signal which EU developments (if any) would be most interesting to discuss. Achilleas Achilleas Kemos Programme Officer - Future Connectivity Systems DG CONNECT European Commission

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Articles on the US Senate Hearing
by Nurani Nimpuno 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

FYI. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Articles on the US Senate Hearing > Date: 15 september 2016 06:10:30 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > FYI. > > Several articles published after the Hearing conducted by the US Senate Committee on Judiciary on 14th September, Chaired by Ted Cruz. > You can also see the video and statements of each panelist at the Hearing from the website. > > Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet > http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/protecting-internet-freedom-implic… > > > * Politifact: > Ted Cruz incorrect about Obama giving control of internet to UN-like body <http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-in…> > * Reuters: > Blocking Internet oversight transition a 'gift to Russia': Obama administration <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKCN11K26F> > * Dallas Morning News: > Cruz fights to keep internet domains under U.S. control as critics decry move as misguided <http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20160914-cruz-says-he-s-f…> > * Financial Times: > Republicans lash out at US plan to cede Internet control <https://www.ft.com/content/9ac0cfe4-7a97-11e6-ae24-f193b105145e>(subcribers only) > * Politico: > Cruz: Obama officials could face jail for internet ‘handover’<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/ted-cruz-internet-domain-larry-strick…> > White House: Cruz stand on ICANN 'ironic' <https://www.politicopro.com/tech/whiteboard/2016/09/josh-earnest-cruz-stand…>(subcribers only) > > Izumi Okutani > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

6 8

whatabootery
by Jim Reid 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

I understand this word may need translation into English. Much like my accent I hear you say. :-) Whatabootery is a Glasgow expression for the practice of raising non-sequiturs, particularly when trying to divert attention from inconvenient truths: what about...

2 1

Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder
by Gordon Lennox 30 Aug '16

30 Aug '16

The Berec consultation closes on Monday July 18 at 14h00. http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/… There are websites to help you respond if you so wish: https://www.savenetneutrality.eu https://www.savetheinternet.eu/en/ Or of course you can respond directly. But the more who respond the better? Gordon

5 7

NRO Statement on IANA Intellectual Property Rights
by Nick Hyrka 25 Aug '16

25 Aug '16

This email is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) NRO Statement on IANA Intellectual Property Rights The NRO has reviewed the IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Assignment Agreement, the IANA IPR License Agreement and the IANA IPR Community Agreement, as published for comment at: https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements And finds that these IPR agreements meet the requirements of the numbers community, as expressed in the CRISP Proposal at: https://www.nro.net/news/final-proposal-crisp The NRO notes that these agreements are presently posted for public comments through September 12, 2016 at 23:59 UTC. After that time, and presuming a favorable review of the comments received, the NRO intends to enter into these agreements in order to facilitate the IANA Stewardship transition. For your information Oscar Robles Chair Number Resource Organization

1 0

"Incentives, Benefits, Costs, and Challenges to IPv6 Implementation"
by Marco Hogewoning 19 Aug '16

19 Aug '16

Dear Colleagues, As you may already have seen, the NTIA has published a Request For Comment regarding the implementation of IPv6. Apart from using the comments received to guide and inform NTIA’s efforts, they also intend to use this as a basis for a contribution to the IGF’s Best Practice Forum on IPv6. A more detailed blog post on this RFC is available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/ntia-seeks-input-it-develops-initiatives… Together with some community members I am participating in the IGFs Best Practice Forum (BPF) on IPv6: "Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a successful IPv6 deployment”. I would like to encourage network operators and other stakeholders tin the RIPE region, who have any data that could be relevant to this project, to share this with the Best Practice Forum, using the questions as posted by the NTIA as a guide. In particular we are interested to learn more details about the costs and return on investment of an IPv6 deployment and the commercial or economic arguments that motivated the decision to invest in and deploy IPv6. Contributions can be made directly to the Best Practice Forum mailing list at http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org or feel free to submit them to me personally and I am happy to forward them them on your behalf. A more detailed description of the BPF can be found at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/bpf-ipv6 We would also encourage RIPE community members, where applicable, to consider responding directly to the NTIA's RFC. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

NTIA Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition
by Nick Hyrka 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

Dear colleagues, Yesterday, the NTIA announced that they had informed ICANN that, barring any significant impediment, they intended to allow the IANA functions contract to expire on 1 October. You can find the full announcement here: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/update-iana-transition Kind regards, Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

IANA IPR agreements - call for public comments
by Athina Fragkouli 12 Aug '16

12 Aug '16

Dear Colleagues, A call for public comment on IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) agreements has been posted. The announcement is available at: https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/ Comments are due by the deadline of 12 September 12 2016 at 23:59 UTC. Background The Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community includes a requirement for certain IPR associated with IANA to be transferred from ICANN to an entity independent of the IANA functions operator. The IPR consists of trademarks and domain names. After discussion within the operational communities and the IETF Trust, the IETF Trust indicated that it would be willing to hold the IANA IPR. The IETF Trust is a Virginia common law trust created in 2005. Among other things, the IETF Trust was created for the purpose of acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain intellectual property for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology. The IETF Trust agreed to hold the IANA IPR in the service of the affected Internet operational communities. Representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement. This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - IANA IPR License Agreement. This agreement allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. The document available for public comment is a basic form that will be used to generate three license agreements, one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services. Items highlighted in yellow will vary by agreement and will be completed once the License Agreement is split into three. In each case the licensee is ICANN, with the ability established for ICANN to sublicense to PTI. - IANA IPR Community Agreement. This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. The IETF Trust, the operational communities, and ICANN hereby solicit feedback as to whether the draft agreements address the needs of the affected communities. Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

Reports on the 10th European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG)
by Marco Hogewoning 29 Jul '16

29 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, The 10th edition of EuroSSIG (http://www.eurossig.eu) was held last week in Meißen, Germany. Started as a response to the conclusion by the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) on the lack of academic research and teaching on Internet governance. Since the inception of the summer school in 2007, RIPE NCC has been contributing both financially and with staff resources in the faculty. Over the years several RIPE NCC staff and RIPE community members have attended the summer school as fellows. With many of the alumni active in Internet governance across the various I* organisations and other stakeholder groups, EuroSSIG has been a successful initiative, which found itself copied in many regions, including the Middle East. We have written up our impressions of the 10th anniversary edition of EuroSSIG in the following two articles: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gergana_petrova/eurossig-a-deep-dive-into-the… https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/eurossig-internet-governance… Should you have any questions about the EuroSSIG or RIPE NCC’s involvement in these activities, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC External Relations

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments
by Peter Koch 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 05:02:40PM +0000, Achilleas.KEMOS(a)ec.europa.eu wrote: > Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. Habemus procuratores! > To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). In that spirit I'd suggest the wg allow itself a rest on process and start working on a program for Madrid. The NIS directive and its implementations status as well as similar legislation in non EU countries could be one topic. -Peter

1 0

IXP Best Practice Forum
by Michael Oghia 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, Building on last year's IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on enabling environments for establishing successful IXPs <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/creating-an-e…>, this year's IXP BPF aims to identify success stories and list factors that can contribute to the development and success of IXPs as well as the broader Internet ecosystem. I am reaching out to the RIPE community in particular due to many of the efforts by both the community as well as RIPE NCC in promoting IXPs and interconnection in general <http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/consultation2015/Attachments/36/RIPE-NCC-IXP-IT…> . The IXP BPF is a consensus-driven, bottom-up, and inclusive collaborative effort, one that brings together professional expertise from across stakeholder groups in order to generate a practical, constructive, and relevant outcome document. We are currently soliciting feedback and brainstorming ideas, especially related to the scope and goals of this year's IXP BPF, and invite you to contribute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/144r3BIFX8QF6wg5m-QNdNfDcYHOVoic4fSMKYA4… . If you are not already involved, I encourage you to add suggestions to the document, share it among your networks, and contact Wim Degezelle, the IXP BPF project manager, or Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, one of our IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) coordinators, for more information or if you have any questions. Additionally, you can sign up for the mailing list at: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org. Kind regards, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

1 0

Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

Dear group members, This is a joint message by Julf and Achilleas. Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. We regret that Meredith and Collin decided to step down, we hope they will continue to follow the Workgroup and provide advice based on their experience and knowledge. We also ask for the support of the Group and the RIPE team, in order to fulfil the Group's objectives and have a successful meeting already in Madrid. To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). Best regards Julf and Achilleas From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:29 PM To: Jim Reid Cc: RIPE Co-operation WG Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Thanks, all, Jim, I appreciate your reiterating the process. The issue is, as I see it, that we've already gone through two rounds of this process, imperfect as they may have been, and pretending that "doing it again" will produce something "better" seems like a stretch. To review -- we have four candidates. These are: · Achilleas Kemos · Collin Anderson · Julf Helsingius · Analia Aspis Analia won't be able to make the RIPE meetings. So, while her experience is formidable and her voice very welcome on the list, she does not look like a good choice for Co-chair. That leaves us with three candidates. I know Collin, he has been a shadow chair in the past, helping organize and assemble WG sessions, and working on a number of policy and research issues in collaboration with RIPE community members. Achilleas brings considerable policy expertise, and can help bring policymakers from EC and otherwise into the RIPE community. This is a great asset. Julf is a last-minute candidate who is clearly invested and experienced. His tone is even-keeled, and by all accounts, he appears to be someone who'd be a pleasure to work with. So this is what I will do: given that I feel the years of work I've put into the Co-op WG are not being weighted or acknowledged, that many list members would prefer to see me reflect back their opinion passively than voice my own based on these years of experience, and given the increasing time-pressures I'm under in all other areas of life, I am going to step down. I will remain available to answer questions and help guide the process through Barcelona, but I will no longer be Co-chair. In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com<mailto:jim@rfc1035.com>> wrote: > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com<mailto:meredithrachel@google.com>> wrote: > > So, what do you suggest? It’s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG Meredith. That’s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation with the WG. However given where we are, here’s what I would do if I was in your shoes. Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn’t followed and things have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that never happened and start from scratch once more. There’s no point apportioning blame or playing “he said, she said” about what happened since that would not help. I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go beyond that by naming any personal preferences or “qualified candidates”. This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then there’s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last words... Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for nominees. When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it would be helpful to clearly state the dates when “nominations” close, when the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. hope this helps -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

The 5G consultation
by Gordon Lennox 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

This is sort of just for the record - because we are too late! There was another consultation: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/targeted-consultation-co… A short time-scale to respond and a a "targeted" consultation. So I guess they did not want to hear from individual experts and civil society. Which is a pity given that network neutrality is of interest to very many people and that much of the 5G community is clearly and publicly against network neutrality. They are arguing for the neutrality legislation to be relaxed and at the same time for public subsidies. Gordon

3 4

New on RIPE Labs: Internet Access Disruption In Turkey - July 2016
by Mirjam Kuehne 19 Jul '16

19 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, With the attempted coup in Turkey, reports went out about social media being throttled and/or blocked. We analysed data about this that we collected with RIPE Atlas and the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI). Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/internet-access-disruption-in-turke… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Open ITU consultation on the Internet
by Jim Reid 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

The ITU’s created an open consultation on "Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”. More details are here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-feb2016.aspx It might be worthwhile for this WG to submit something. Or ask our respective governments what sort of response, if any, they’re preparing.

3 2

Co-chairs - current status?
by Gordon Lennox 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort she put in. However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates for the positions of co-chair: • Achilleas Kemos • Collin Anderson • Julf Helsingius • Analia Aspis After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.” Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have settled down. Gordon

3 3

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6
by Corinne Cath 14 Jul '16

14 Jul '16

Dear all, I would like to echo the sentiments by Gordon and Julf. It is a great loss for the cooperation WG that Meredith has decided to step down, and I hope she reconsiders. I cannot speak for the group, but I want to say that her enthusiasm, experience and dedication will be sorely missed. Something we will all realize soon enough. The same holds for Collin's efforts and support to the WG. I hope the remaining candidates are not scared away by what seems to be politics with a very very tiny 'p', that have colored the discussions and going-ons of late in this WG. I also believe that we should move swiftly in putting in place new (co) chairs, and I support Gordon's suggestions on how to move forward. Best, Corinne Cath On Thu, Jul 14, 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. Co-chairs - current status? (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Meredith Whittaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:42:57 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has > done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort > she put in. > > However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates > for the positions of co-chair: > > ? Achilleas Kemos > ? Collin Anderson > ? Julf Helsingius > ? Analia Aspis > > After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint > Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.? > > Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and > whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. > > I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could > confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. > > We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have > settled down. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:59:26 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <5786574E.1050906(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > step down as she has done. > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > think we all agree that her contributions have been > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > to provide additional support and resources. > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > co-chairs for the WG. > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > their positions. > > Julf > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:51:22 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> > To: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > Cc: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: > < > CAHx-7Ow+6S+bwvM3p8yT_bdHctzju_PN3SDrkmKsEDHZZKC9QA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Julf, Gordon, > > Thank you for your kind words. > > I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although I appreciate the > entreaty. This due both to the climate on the WG list, and to my personal > workload, which was already making it very difficult to act as chair. Note > that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He has merely dedicated > his time and expertise to the group in the past. > > Thanks, > Meredith > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > > step down as she has done. > > > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > > think we all agree that her contributions have been > > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > > to provide additional support and resources. > > > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > > co-chairs for the WG. > > > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > > their positions. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC >

2 1

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

Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
by Peter Koch 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Johan Helsingius wrote: > I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, > but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) > to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are > people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. I feel that we have a significant confusion regarding the chairs' role and position. <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selectio…> is quite clear in stating that the two or three chairs are collectively chairing the goup, but the WG gets to decide (which is not unlike the other RIPE WGs). I have not received signals that the WG was accidentally off track with combining its choices. -Peter

1 0

Fwd: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Johan Helsingius 03 Jul '16

03 Jul '16

Just back from ICANN56 - and I am sure you all saw this announcement that Nick sent out. On Wednesday, RIPE (and the other RIRs) and ICANN signed the IANA Numbering Services SLA, so the work of the CRISP team is now done (and the team dissolved). At ICANN56 we also clarified some of the outstanding issues related to the post-transition IANA, and earlier in June NTIA published a report stating that their criteria for the transition have been fulfilled, so we are closer and closer to actually completing the transition - US politics willing... Julf -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:35:42 +0200 From: Nick Hyrka <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: ripencc-management(a)ripe.net Organization: RIPE NCC To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Helsinki, Finland – 29 June 2016. The RIRs and ICANN signed the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services today at ICANN 56 in Helsinki, Finland. This agreement documents the arrangements for provision by ICANN of IANA numbering services, after the IANA stewardship transition which is expected to occur on 30 September 2016. The SLA will only come into effect with the transition, and will have no effect whatsoever before that time. This event is a significant milestone in the long process of transition planning which started in March 2014 with US Government announcement. The process involved huge efforts by the Internet number community collectively, and by teams formed specifically to carry out the work. In particular the NRO Executive Council expresses its sincere thanks for the contribution by CRISP members during the last year and a half in the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. The CRISP Team worked tirelessly to integrate and consolidate the views from the five different regional communities into a single proposal. As the work of the CRISP team is now finally complete, we hereby announce that the team is formally dissolved. Finally the NRO EC also wishes acknowledge the support of the ICANN Board and staff who worked hard with us to finalise the SLA and ensure it was completed on time. The final version of the SLA is available at: http://www.nro.net/sla

1 0

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

For meeting attendees -- relevant BoF this evening
by Meredith Whittaker 26 May '16

26 May '16

[If you're not attending the RIPE meeting in person, you can stop reading now] Hi those at the meeting, I wanted to draw your attention to a BoF happening this evening that may be of interest. Corinne Cath, Oxford Researcher and repeat RIPE attendee (CCed), will be screening a short film that explores how Internet protocols and standards can be architected (or not) to promote Human Rights. - *What: *Movie Screening and Beer BOF: "Net of Rights" - *When: *6pm/17:00 this evening - *Where:* Tutorial Room (to the left of the main room, along the far-left wall across from the espresso cart) Clearly, this is a topic that falls right into the remit of cooperation, and the concomitant challenges of thinking through the social, political, and technical at once. I believe many of you will enjoy it. Oh, and THERE WILL BE FREE BEER. Thanks! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

3 3

New mailing list format
by Meredith Whittaker 26 May '16

26 May '16

Hi all, Mihnea, CCed, approached me early to discuss the new RIPE Forum mailing list format. A test list, where you can see format and UX, is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-forum-test More information is below. I am very happy with this format, and believe that implementation will increase the ease of communication on the list. However, before it's deployed, I want to make sure the community has a chance to weigh in. Please direct any questions and comments to Mihnea. Best, Meredith *More information on the new RIPE Forum design and deployment, from Mihnea: * Dear colleagues, There’s a new way to participate on the RIPE Working Group mailing lists! Introducing the RIPE Forum, a web-based interface for reading and sending emails on RIPE community mailing lists. We developed the RIPE Forum in-house based on feedback we received from members of the RIPE community who wanted the option to interact and share information in a more modern way. But it’s important to note that this new interface is completely optional – those who like using the established mailing list system can continue on as they always have, and won’t notice any difference. Several weeks ago the RIPE Forum was deployed on the RIPE Atlas mailing list as a pilot. The test was a success with no major issues detected and very positive comments were received from users. We have presented the results to the Working Group chairs and it was decided to deploy the RIPE Forum to all RIPE Working Group mailing lists. We invite you have a look yourself: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ We created a special mailing list for testing purposes, so that any conversations about the platform itself can be contained there without disrupting the regular flow of discussions on the Working Group mailing lists. Feel free to send test messages and try out the RIPE Forum on this special list. https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-forum-test If you’d like to learn more about how the forum works or the background behind the project, please take a look at this RIPE Labs article that was published for the pilot phase: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/introducing-the-ripe-forum The forum is still in "beta" status – there might be still some bugs and we are continuously working to improve things, so please keep that in mind while exploring the forum. You can give your feedback by clicking on the “Report a bug” button on the forum, or leave a comment on the above RIPE Labs article. We hope you’ll enjoy the RIPE Forum, and look forward to your feedback! -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

Vb: Re: On the Nature of WG Chairs...
by Maud.Karlberg＠vll.se 26 May '16

26 May '16

Hi! Can you please take me away from this sendlist? Maud Karlberg Vänliga hälsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr Västerbottens läns landsting 901 85 Umeå 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik ----- Vidarebefordrat av Maud Karlberg/US/VLL/SE på 2016-05-26 15:34 ----- Från: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> Till: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> Kopia: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> Datum: 2016-05-26 15:04 Ärende: Re: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... Sänt av: "cooperation-wg" <cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> Brian, this is an excellent point. The perfect should not be the enemy of the done, and we should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG. Discussion of what these qualities are is productive and welcome, of course. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com > wrote: I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" more. Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for obvious reasons. I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something for the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

2 1

On the Nature of WG Chairs...
by Brian Nisbet 26 May '16

26 May '16

Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/

5 7

Status on co-chairs process?
by Gordon Lennox 26 May '16

26 May '16

Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning. The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not have the time this topic required during the session. I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process. I still think though that we should keep with published the process. This is where I think we are: * the chair requests candidates. Done. * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. On-going? I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this weekend? ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. ** the chair announces the consensus. I see no need to rush this any faster. Do people agree? I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. Gordon

4 6

Chairs of this wg
by Patrik Fältström 26 May '16

26 May '16

All, I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair. I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a responsibility in the RIPE PDP. I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU). And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability. I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not want to be alone. But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct people, and not because we must have two co-chairs. I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment. Patrik

5 4

Choosing chairs
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

In advance of any discussion we will have on the choice of new co-chairs I have looked again at the process as drafted by Meredith. I still think it is OK. It might be word-smithed a little in the future, not to change the ideas but to make it a little bit more robust. But that is not urgent. And anyway I don’t think anyone in the community is going to start counting commas. Looking at what is going on elsewhere it was nice to see that at least one other WG adopted Meredith’s text! But looking wider I see words like elections, consensus, decisions. I don’t think there is conflict. But here is my take. We have tended to avoid elections as we don’t have a nice list of people who are eligible to vote and anyway the folk active on mailing lists are also important. We tend to go instead for consensus. But maybe to point out the obvious somebody has to decide that there is consensus. That decision is perhaps the most important job of a chair / co-chair. And if they ever get it wrong people ought to make that clear and the conversation can then continue. That is basically again what Meredith proposed. Getting consensus can though take time. So a quick “show of hands” can be useful for certain quick decisions. But maybe not for the choice of WG chairs. There are though other situations where we vote - obviously when we have a list of those eligible to vote but also where there is no chair to make the call. That is the situation we will have when we decide on the RIPE chair. So consensus within the WG but voting at the level of RIPE? And so no conflict? Gordon

1 0

European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

Please look at full press release for some more details. Snippets follow: Commission proposes new e-commerce rules to help consumers and companies reap full benefit of Single Market - Brussels, 25 May 2016 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. Today’s e-commerce package is composed of: • A legislative proposal to address unjustified geoblocking and other forms of discrimination on the grounds of nationality, residence or establishment; • A legislative proposal on cross-border parcel delivery services to increase the transparency of prices and improve regulatory oversight; • A legislative proposal to strengthen enforcement of consumers' rights and guidance to clarify, among others, what qualifies as an unfair commercial practice in the digital world. The proposed revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation will give more powers to national authorities to better enforce consumer rights. They will be able to: • check if websites geo-block consumers or offer after-sales conditions not respecting EU rules (e.g. withdrawal rights); • order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; • request information from domain registrars and banks to detect the identity of the responsible trader. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1887_en.htm

4 6

Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

Please look at the press release for more details. Snippets follow: Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms - Brussels, 25 May 2016 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. This proposal also reflects a new approach to online platforms, addressing challenges in different areas. As part of its Digital Single Market strategy, today the Commission presented an updated Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD); the common rules which have governed audiovisual media, ensured cultural diversity and the free circulation of content in the EU for almost 30 years. Nowadays viewers do not only watch video content via their TV channels but also increasingly via video-on-demand services (such as Netflix and MUBI) and video-sharing platforms (such as YouTube and Dailymotion). This is why the Commission wants to achieve a better balance of the rules which today apply to traditional broadcasters, video-on-demand providers and video-sharing platforms, especially when it comes to protecting children. The revised AVMSD also strengthens the promotion of European cultural diversity, ensures the independence of audiovisual regulators and gives more flexibility to broadcasters over advertising. This proposal reflects the new approach of the Commission towards online platforms - like online marketplaces, search engines, payment systems, social media, video and content-sharing sites. Since the launch of the Digital Single Market strategy in May 2015, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the social and economic role of these new players. Today the Commission concluded that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach was not appropriate for consumers to benefit from the opportunities and for the rules to meet the different challenges posed by the very diverse types of online platforms. Based on this approach, the Commission will look at each area where it can act, from telecoms to copyright rules, to address any specific problems in a future-proof way for all market players. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1873_en.htm

1 0

WTSA
by Patrik Fältström 24 May '16

24 May '16

Hi, As we are moving into a new ITU planning cycle, with specifically WTSA later during 2016 that sets the Study Groups, it is important that we all decide what organization we would like to deal with what issues. To help with this preparatory work ISOC have created this document that I think makes it quite clear what issues might come up: <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/itu-world-telecommunication-standardizat…> One of the main reasons I think this is important is that we have a terrible experience when ITU-T started to discuss MPLS related issues, something already dealt with in the IETF and we can not have the same overlap between organizations again. Because of this, now is the time to ensure ITU-T do not bring up issues already dealt with in other organizations, and in a similar way we should not redo in non-ITU-T environments things dealt with in ITU-T. I for example think it is of ultimate importance that any IP address policy (of any shape or form) is deal with in the RIRs. And not in any ITU-T study group. And I ask whether this WG is where coordination in the RIPE Community can take place? Patrik

2 1

Update on EU Platform Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 23 May '16

23 May '16

>From Politico: *14 GOVERNMENTS WRITE TO REJECT ‘ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL’ PLATFORM REGULATION: * The governments believe an EU regulation of Internet platform would “hamper innovation.” They would like to see more ambitious digital single market proposals from the Commission, and a “positive approach.” The U.K. and Poland head the list of signatories. Germany, France, Italy, Spain did not join. http://politi.co/1NEYNKN <http://politico.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e26c1a1c392386a968d02fdbc…>

1 0

eIDs
by Gordon Lennox 13 May '16

13 May '16

We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. Now here is the UK take: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introdu… If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to share. (I am not sure why I wrote “nice” there.) :-) Gordon

3 3

Call for co-chair nominations
by Meredith Whittaker 12 May '16

12 May '16

This is the thread where I, as Chair, officially call for Coop-WG co-chair nominees to identify yourselves, and provide a bit of background about who you are and why you'd bring energy and great content to the Coop-WG. Per the process, we'll leave this open for two weeks. I encourage discussion, questions, and and other productive activity that helps you get to know the nominees on this thread. Thanks, Meredith -- currently the sole Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

5 5

New on RIPE Labs: The Internet for Things
by Mirjam Kuehne 11 May '16

11 May '16

Dear colleagues, Please see this new RIPE Labs article by Byron Ellacott, Senior Software Architect at APNIC: The Internet of Things without the Internet is just things, and we’ve had things since the first caveman used a pointy stick to draw on a wall. What then does the Internet bring to things to justify a capital T? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/the-internet-for-things?pk_campaign=la… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation to the CRISP call 10th May UTC1300 Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12]
by Nurani Nimpuno 10 May '16

10 May '16

FYI. (Apologies for the very late notice.) Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation to the CRISP call 10th May UTC1300 Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] > Date: 10 maj 2016 10:43:07 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > FYI. Anyone is welcome to attend the coming call as an observer as usual. > > > Izumi > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] > Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:07:09 -0400 > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > To: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > CC: crisp(a)nro.net > > Dear CRISP Team > > Please find the webex details below > > Unfortunately I’ll be in transit by the time of the call. I’ll ask ARIN staff to support the meeting. > > Regards > > German > > > CRISP Meeting > Tuesday, May 10, 2016 > 1:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 1 hr > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m997f5f40cb1b5a93229a05efc0a19… > Meeting number: 704 589 239 > 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: 704 589 239 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=461171… > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties
by Meredith Whittaker 05 May '16

05 May '16

Hi Co-op WG, Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selectio…> for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy community as well as the network research community, and is frequently consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging policy considerations with technology issues. Thanks, Meredith Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

6 17

Co-Chair Nominations Introduction (Anderson)
by Collin Anderson 05 May '16

05 May '16

Hi Cooperation WG community – I'm Collin Anderson, an independent network researcher based out of Washington, D.C. I had reached out to Meredith about the possibility of more active participation previously but had suspected this introduction would arise in Copenhagen, so I apologize then for not reaching out through the list first to make a case for myself. I have attended the last four RIPE Meetings, presented at two of those meetings in the Coop WG [1][2], been a supportive resource in the planning of three of those sessions, and have an earlier history of interacting with the RIPE Atlas platform in pursuit of public interest issues [3]. Those presentations and papers are representative of my background and involvements (cda.io) – the nexus of the Internet, its architecture and public policy, with an interest in accessibility and security. A substantial portion of my time is dedicated to Measurement Lab, however, I also collaborate with a broader range of NGOs and academic institutions on producing research on these issues in Europe and the United States. Hence Coop WG is interesting to me because it is where all of the issues that RIPE maintains expertise in comes into more uncertain questions of external application (from my perspective at least). Outside of this, the question of how I would make an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community is particularly relevant. I'm specifically interested in the Coop WG being a mechanism of inclusion for local communities – by the virtue of the rotation of the meetings across the region there is an opportunity to bring in representatives of the NGO and public sector that wouldn't otherwise have the means or awareness to come to RIPE. So more local presence outside of generous sponsorships of much needed coffee baristas. My research has always attempted to support the pairing of technical expertise with local impact and local communities that wouldn't otherwise have access to those resources, and I believe that this principle would be a mechanism for Coop WG to fulfill its mission. So, my ambition would be to support conversations like the eID thread that seems to be the most active discussion on Coop-WG in a year, but also to bring in people that wouldn't otherwise have access to this community – but who should interact and will be novel to form connections with. I would be a generative resource because I happen to have some of these relationships by virtue of my mode of operation professionally, but also because I am personally motivated toward that objective. I would be happy to answer any questions here (on-thread or off-thread) or in Denmark in a couple of weeks, and my apologies again for the misstep. Cordially, Collin Anderson [1] https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10079/ [2] https://ripe71.ripe.net/archives/video/1176/ [3] https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci14/workshop-program/presentation/ande…

2 1

Elephants and eIDs
by Gordon Lennox 02 May '16

02 May '16

Some people here may remember the presentation on eIDs at a previous RIPE meeting. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process A draft Commission document which mentions eIDs has recently been “leaked”. http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Platforms-Communication.p… See in particular the top of page 12. I understand from folk within the bubble (the Brussels/EU bubble) that this kind of thing is now seen as a way of testing the reaction of experts, of those really interested, before proceeding. So any prompt reaction, and this could be individual reactions rather than the reactions of organisations, may be useful. Indeed any reaction now may more useful than when the Commission has taken a formal position on the proposal and when the services are naturally obliged to defend it. This item from The Register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/eu_login_youtube_national_id_card/ - would suggest that one person to write to is the Estonian Commissioner. Regards, Gordon

6 14

New on RIPE Labs: Broadband Services and Infrastructure Mapping
by Mirjam Kuehne 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Dear colleagues, Please find on RIPE Labs a short report about a conference on Broadband Services and Infrastructure Mapping, where a number of interesting mapping projects were presented. My colleague Emile Aben attended and presented RIPE Atlas: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/broadband-services-and-infrastructu… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Net Futures 2016
by Gordon Lennox 24 Apr '16

24 Apr '16

Last week saw Net Futures 2016 in Brussels. http://netfutures2016.eu/ A good opportunity to hear people like Andrus Ansip - Vice-President & Commissioner for Digital Single Market, Günther Oettinger - Commissioner for Digital Economy & Society, Lise Fuhr - Director General of ETNO, Mats Granryd - GSMA Director General and so on; people you tend not to get all together in the same place that often. There are various videos available and I have been told slide-packs may be available soon. But I can recommend a look at the speeches given by the two Commissioners: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/ansip/announcements/speech-given-… https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-s… It was interesting how various ideas were presented. The current “consumer Internet” versus the future “industrial Internet”. The perceived need to move from "one size fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the different requirements of different vertical sectors, and that can deliver "guaranteed and ubiquitous quality of service”. The tying together of “things" with 5G. So a “thing” is something with one or more sim’s? And so it is somehow tied to mobile operator? And anyway 5G does almost everything? And so on. I could recommend going to Net Futures 2017! Gordon

2 2

Cruz and Co Send ICANN Another Letter
by Gordon Lennox 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

<< Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz (and others) has sent yet another letter to ICANN. This time round, the letter is addressed both to the Chairman of the ICANN Board, Dr Steve Crocker, as well as to former CEO Fadi Chehadé. The letter repeats some of the questions previously put to ICANN, though the wording is much blunter this time round. . . . >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160405_cruz_and_co_send_icann_another_lette…

5 6

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Nurani Nimpuno 02 Apr '16

02 Apr '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 2 April 2016 at 01:41:32 GMT+2 > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The CRISP Team has reviewed the 5th Draft SLA, and we observe no inconsistencies observed with the number community proposal, i.e., the ICG proposal,including the changes made from the 4th Draft. > > Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… > > The focus of our review remains unchanged, and we primarily reviewed whether the SLA sufficiently covers the following four key elements of the number community proposal. > > * Service level requirements of the IANA Numbering Services are clearly defined to meet the expectations of the RIRs and the Internet numbers community > * The RIRs, and the Internet number Community through the Review Committee are able to conduct review of the service level, to ensure the service level is met in accordance with the SLA > * The RIRs have the ability to terminate the SLA, while at the same time ensuring the stability of the IANA Numbering Services, in accordance with the number community proposal > * The IPR and rights over data are transferred, in accordance with the number community proposal > > We would like to thank RIRs and ICANN for developing the 5th Draft in timely manner, and sharing it in a continued transparent manner with Internet number community. > For accountability of the SLA to be based on the ICG proposal with support from the community, it is our expectation that the completion of this SLA will continue to take place in such a transparent and open manner. > > As we have expressed in our review for the 4th Draft, as SLA provides the Internet number community with its required accountability measures on IANA Numbering Services, it must be considered as an essential commitment along with other improvements to ICANN’s accountability. While the SLA will have no effect until the transition actually takes place on 30 September 2016, it should be finalsed and signed, no later than the finalised changes to the ICANN Bylaws which have been specified by CCWG-accountability. > > It is our understanding and expectation that, the next version, reflecting feedback from the public comment by NRO until 15th April will be the final version of the SLA. > We trust the RIRs and ICANN continue to work constructively and transparently to finalise an SLA that respects the wishes of the number community including the timeline of its finalisation. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Notice of Intent - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition
by Gordon Lennox 27 Mar '16

27 Mar '16

<< The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) intends to award on a sole source basis under authority of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.5-Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items (FAR 13.501) to the contractor, President and Fellows of Harvard College (Berkman Center), as the only capable source that can provide an independent review and assessment of a non-profit corporate governance structure designed for a multistakeholder setting in support of NTIA's broader evaluation and assessment of the proposal to enhance the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN's) accountability related to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition. The President and Fellows of Harvard College (Berkman Center) shall provide experts with experience and proven capability to perform an independent review and assessment of a non-profit corporate governance structure designed for a multistakeholder setting. This requires professional services of a unique, technical, and highly-skilled nature including through understanding of ICANN and it procedures and processes, multistakeholder approaches and processes, data analysis, and the Internet domain name system (DNS). Congress has mandated the review prior to NTIA transitioning it's stewardship of certain Internet technical functions to the global multistakeholder community, which is to be completed by June 30, 2016. . . . >> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bfc9cbacbbeb27a0ff16b3…

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Call
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Mar '16

23 Mar '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Michael Abejuela <mabejuela(a)arin.net> > Date: 22 March 2016 at 20:08:39 GMT+1 > To: "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Call > > Hello CRISP Team, > > The agenda for tomorrow’s call as well as Webex info is as follows: > > 1) ICANN55 Update and General Timelines > 2) Congressional Hearing > 3) SLA ver.5 review > 4) Other Implemenetation Status > a. IPR - Principal Terms > b. Review Committee - Members > 5) Reflection on the work completed overall > > > CRISP 2016 > > Wednesday, March 23, 2016 | 1:00 pm Greenwich Time (GMT) > > > Meeting number: 706 686 549 > Meeting password: crisp > > meeting link: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m0fd481c84ca42ec84567cf1a9328f > c89 > > > Audio connection: > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > > Global call-in numbers > https://ripencc.webex.com/cmp3000/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/globalc > allin.do?siteurl=ripencc&serviceType=MC&eventID=446021207&tollFree=1 > > Show toll-free dialing restrictions > https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Access code: 706 686 549 > > > > > Call-in toll number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 > Call-in toll-free number (UK) > 0800-051-3810 > Australia toll > +61 29037 1692 > Australia toll free > 1800-658203 > Austria toll > +43 125 302 1542 > Austria toll free > 0800-297252 > Belgium toll > +32 2894 8317 > Belgium toll free > 0800-77651 > Brazil toll free > 0800-892-2411 > Bulgaria toll free > 00800-118-1100 > Canada toll > +1-416-915-9997 > Canada toll free > +1-855-818-5031 > China North toll free > 10800-714-1693 > China South toll free > 10800-140-1727 > Croatia toll free > 0800-223231 > Czech Republic toll > +420 2288 82827 > Czech Republic toll free > 800-701364 > Denmark toll > +45 3272 7723 > Denmark toll free > 8088-7006 > Estonia toll free > 800-0100348 > Finland toll > +358 931 584349 > Finland toll free > 0800-915086 > France toll > +33 17091 8646 > France toll free > 0800-9-19312 > Germany toll > +49-(0)6925511-4400 > Germany toll free > 0800-187-3683 > Greece toll free > 00800-1612-20-35535 > Hong Kong toll > +852 5808 1922 > Hong Kong toll free > 800-966347 > Hungary toll > +36 1700 8735 > Hungary toll free > 06-800-19550 > Iceland toll free > 800-9381 > India toll free > 000-800-100-8171 > Indonesia toll free > 001-803-016-3552 > Ireland toll > +353 152600 58 > Ireland toll free > 1-800-947178 > Israel toll free > 1-80-9453550 > Italy toll > +39 0230410 440 > Italy toll free > 800-870552 > Japan toll > +81 34580 8156 > Japan toll free > 0053-11-61212 > Latvia toll free > 800-04229 > Lithuania toll free > 8800-30854 > Luxembourg toll > +352 208 81750 > Luxembourg toll free > 800-27323 > Malaysia toll free > 1-800-815775 > Mexico toll free > 001-800514-5545 > Morocco toll free (002-11-0011) > 800-708-0263 > Netherlands toll > +31 20794 7996 > Netherlands toll free > 0800-022-3497 > New Zealand toll > +64 9929 1742 > New Zealand toll free > 0800-459104 > Norway toll > +47 2103-5854 > Norway toll free > 800-16930 > Poland toll > +48-22295-3597 > Poland toll free > 00-800-112-4312 > Portugal toll free > 8008-27739 > Romania toll free > 0800-895796 > Russia toll > +7 4952 217144 > Russia toll free > 88-00100-9439 > Senegal toll free > 800-708-0263 > Singapore toll > +65 3158 1415 > Singapore toll free > 800-101-2597 > Slovakia toll free > 0800-606-563 > South Africa Toll > +27 11019 7059 > South Africa toll free > 0800-983983 > South Korea toll free > 00798-14-203-3552 > Spain toll > +34 91791 1283 > Spain toll free > 900-93-7920 > Sweden toll > +46 85051 3563 > Sweden toll free > 020-79-7912 > Switzerland toll > +41 43456 9564 > Switzerland toll free > 0800-894627 > Taiwan toll free > 00-801-127320 > Thailand toll free > 001-800-156203-5535 > USA/Canada toll > +1 631 267 4890 > USA/Canada toll free > 1-855-299-5224 > > > > > -- > Michael R. Abejuela > Associate General Counsel > ARIN > 3635 Concorde Parkway > Suite 200 > Chantilly, VA 20151 > (703) 227-9875 (p) > (703) 263-0111 (f) > mabejuela(a)arin.net > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Dear Colleagues, FYI - Please find below the latest NRO announcement regarding the Fifth version of the draft SLA. https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC ===== UPDATED FIFTH DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv5) AND CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 17 March 2016 Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v2 A third draft of the SLA was published on 30 October 2015 and invited ICANN legal staff to provide comments by November 30th 2015. The third draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v3 A fourth draft of the SLA was published on 25 February and invited ICANN to move forward to signing the SLA. The fourth draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v4 Fifth Draft SLA As a result of ICANN comments on the fourth draft and additional feedback received at meetings during ICANN 55 in Marrakech, a fifth draft of the SLA has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla The SLAv5 is open for public comments. Comments can be sent to IANAXFER mailing list at https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer. The deadline for comments is April 15th 2016. For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv5 against the fourth draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments on SLAv5 and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/slav4-comments In accordance with the transparency commitment to our the community, we share the exchange of a clear track of comments between ICANN and RIR staff working towards a final SLA document. About the Fifth Draft SLA The fifth draft of the SLA has been developed by a team consisting of individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv5 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA,informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA, and ICANN’s written comments regarding the third and fourth draft SLA. It is written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs collective actions and responsibilities in its dealings with ICANN under the SLA. It also includes background and definitions. The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps The RIRs thank the community and ICANN staff for its thoughtful comments and now publish this SLAv5 in the interest of transparency and keeping the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We trust that all comments and concerns have been addressed and that the current draft, SLAv5, represents a mutually acceptable SLA that is consistent with the principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal. We invite public comments as we approach the final version, which will be signed with ICANN/IANA as part of the IANA Transition planning process and will take effect upon release of their existing agreement with NTIA. _______________________________________________

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Moves to Final Phase
by Nick Hyrka 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). —————————————————————————————————— IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION MOVES TO FINAL PHASE 11 March 2016, Marrakech, Morocco – An historic proposal for the global community to assume stewardship of the IANA functions, produced after nearly two years of work by the global Internet community, has been delivered to the U.S. Government for its consideration. The proposal would remove U.S. Government oversight over a set of fundamental Internet administrative functions, including management of the global pool of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and Autonomous System Numbers), and replace it with a set of arrangements for community-based oversight. The proposal, developed by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), is based on input from three operational communities, including the Internet Number Community (those with an interest in the global management of Internet number resources). The contributions of the Internet Number Community were coordinated via a Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team made up of community members drawn from each of the five RIR regions. CRISP Team Chair Izumi Okutani said: “The discussions that have taken place over the last two years have been a showcase for the kind of bottom-up, community-driven processes that are a central feature of the Internet Number Community. This approach has been fundamental in making the Internet a truly global resource. It is very satisfying to see the input of so many stakeholders explicitly reflected in the ICG’s proposal, and I believe that the solution presented here successfully meets the needs of the Internet Number Community, and of all IANA stakeholders.” The ICG proposal includes mechanisms for stewardship of the number-related IANA functions, as developed by the Internet Number Community. These mechanisms include a contractual Service Level Agreement signed by the RIRs (as stewards of these functions) and ICANN (as the entity responsible for management of the functions). More information on this aspect of the proposal is available here: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/about-the-pr… While the ICG published the final draft of its proposal in October 2015, elements of the proposal relied upon the adoption of a set of recommendations regarding the accountability of ICANN to its community. These recommendations were developed separately by a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) and were adopted by the ICANN Board at its meeting this week in Marrakech, Morocco. The Board was at that point able to pass on both the ICG and CCWG documents to the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Government. “The events of this week, here at ICANN 55 in Marrakech, represent another significant step in the long process to better operationalize the global community’s shared stewardship of the IANA functions,” said Number Resource Organization Chair and LACNIC CEO Oscar Robles. “We have not reached the end of this process yet, and we respect the attention that the U.S. Government must give to this proposal before making what will be a historic decision. At this point though, we recognize the achievement that this proposal represents: a huge, global community of people from different sectors and stakeholder groups has achieved agreement on a complex plan to achieve something of huge importance. It is something about which we, as a community, should feel justifiably proud, and it is a testament to the effectiveness of the multistakeholder model. The Regional Internet Registries have publicly supported the progressive steps taken by the U.S. Government over the years to reduce its oversight of global Internet administrative functions. Since the NTIA’s announcement in 2014, we have been pleased to help facilitate our communities’ contributions to this important IANA stewardship transition process. We now stand ready to work with ICANN and all of the IANA stakeholders towards full implementation of the ICG and CCWG proposals.” The U.S. Government will now review the proposal to ensure that it meets the criteria set out by the NTIA when they first announced their intention, in March 2014, to pass stewardship of the IANA functions to the global community. If approved, the RIRs and ICANN will continue their work towards implementation of the proposal, which will be completed prior to the expiration of ICANN’s current contract with NTIA in September 2016.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: The Regulatory Conditions of IP Interconnection
by Mirjam Kuehne 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new RIPE Labs article submitted by Uta Meier-Hahn: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/uta_meier_hahn/the-regulatory-conditions-of-i… This is a follow-up of her earlier work on "Internet Interconnection: Networking in Uncertain Terrain". Abstract: Internet interconnection has often been described as an unregulated field. However, local public regulation is starting to emerge – be it through disclosure regulations, mandatory peering or licensing terms. Due to the networked nature of the internet, local rules may acquire a global scope. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Survey on Internet governance in South East Europe
by Chris Buckridge 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, I’m forwarding a request for people in South East Europe to participate in an online survey on Internet governance. The data collected will be compiled and reflected in a report to the SEEDIG meeting on 22 April 2016 in Belgrade: http://www.seedig.net/seedig-survey/ From the call for participation: > We are trying, through this survey, to get a better understanding of how Internet governance, in general, and Internet governance issues and processes, in particular, are perceived by the Internet community in South Eastern Europe and the neighbouring area (SEE). It covers aspects such as: interest and participation in IG processes and organizations (motivation, challenges, opportunities), Internet-related issues considered as most pressing at national level and in SEE, degree of satisfaction with national, regional and global IG mechanisms, etc. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Nurani Nimpuno 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > Date: 4 mars 2016 14:37:53 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > The CRISP Team has reviewed the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services. > > Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > https://www.nro.net/news/updated-4th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… > > Firstly, we would like to thank both ICANN and RIRs for sharing all comments and updates on the SLA from its Third Draft in a continued transparent manner with Internet number community. It is our expectation that the completion of this SLA will continue to take place in such a transparent and open manner. > > We observe that the 4th Draft SLA is consistent with the number community proposal and we support the comments made by RIR staff in working towards a final SLA document, addressing the feedback received from ICANN. > We have primarily reviewed whether the SLA sufficiently covers the following four key elements of the number community proposal. > > * Service level requirements of the IANA Numbering Services are clearly defined to meet the expectations of the RIRs and the Internet numbers community > * The RIRs, and the Internet number Community through the Review Committee are able to conduct review of the service level, to ensure the service level is met in accordance with the SLA > * The RIRs have the ability to terminate the SLA, while at the same time ensuring the stability of the IANA Numbering Services, in accordance with the number community proposal > * The IPR and rights over data are transferred, in accordance with the number community proposal > > In particular, we support the NRO revisions numbered below, which are required to ensure consistency with the CRISP proposal. The previously proposed text, without the NRO revisions addressing ICANN's feedback, would be inconsistent with the number community proposal as well as the final ICG proposal, and therefore not acceptable to the Internet number community. > > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Draft-SLA_v3-comments-ICANN-20160223… > > Source 15: 8.1- Periodic Review > Source 16: 8.2- Cooperation with review > Source 17: 9- Failure to Perform > Source 20: 10.3 Right not to renew > Source 24: 11.1 - Submission of a plan (* The RIR Lawyer Comment says 11.2.1 - could it be a typo?) > Source 35: 11.2 - Transition to Successor Operator > Source 26: 12.1 - Assignment of IPR and rights to Data > > In addition, we wish to remind the community that the SLA provides the Internet number community with its required accountability measures, which are clearly represented within the number community proposal; and it is therefore essential to the CRISP support for the IANA transition plan. > > The SLA will have no effect until the transition actually takes place on 30 September 2016, however it must be considered as an essential commitment along with other improvements to ICANN’s accountability. In particular the SLA should be executed or otherwise guaranteed, no later than the execution of changes to the ICANN Bylaws which have been specified by CCWG-accountability. > > The CRISP team wishes to express our concern about the lateness of the comments on the SLA made by ICANN, close to four months after the latest published version of the SLA by the RIRs. > > We would like to strongly request both ICANN and RIRs to work swiftly on providing additional inputs if any, so that the accountability measures needed for the Internet number community, can be put into place according to the schedule as described above. We trust that ICANN and RIRs continue to work constructively and transparently to finalise an SLA that respects the wishes of the number community. > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISPT Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

ICANN Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal - Number Community-Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Dear colleagues, I would like to inform you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published its Supplemental Final Proposal, available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723723 ---------------------------------------- Amendments from the third Draft Proposal ---------------------------------------- The ASO representatives to the CCWG communicated an analysis of the third Draft Proposal on 16 December 2015: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-December/000817… The following analysis relates to numbering-related amendments introduced in the Supplemental Final Proposal since that earlier draft: 1) Mission statement ICANN’s Mission with respect to numbers has been further clarified. It now reads: “The Mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems as described below. Specifically, ICANN […] Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers. In this role, ICANN provides registration services and open access for global number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Regional Internet Registries and facilitates the development of related global number registry policies by the affected community as agreed with the RIRs”. See Annex 05 - Recommendation #5: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723723/Annex%2005%20-%20… 2) Reconsideration process The scope of the Reconsideration process explicitly does not include disputes related to Internet number resources. Please see Annex 08 - Recommendation #8: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723723/Annex%2008%20-%20… 3) Minority statement The ASO submitted the following minority statement into the CCWG process, and it has been included in the Supplemental Final Proposal: “The ASO notes that the Internet Numbering Community is not relying on the CCWG-ACCT WS1 proposal to fulfill our expectations of ICANN accountability. Instead we will rely primarily on a contractual agreement (or “SLA”) between the RIRs and ICANN, as defined within the CRISP and ICG proposals, to provide the required accountability mechanisms. In order to serve this purpose, the proposed SLA must be in place at the time of the IANA Transition. However, the agreement contains “condition precedent” language such that, even if it is signed immediately, it will only come into effect when ICANN is actually released from its related duties under the NTIA contract. Negotiation of the Numbers Community SLA is nearly complete, and we expect to reach agreement in the near future. We propose to then promptly sign the agreed SLA with ICANN, in the same timeframe as implementation of the CCWG recommendations. By having both components in place at that time, we will be satisfied that all ICANN accountability matters are properly resolved.” ----------- Next steps ----------- The CCWG has sent the Supplemental Final Proposal to the working group’s six Chartering Organizations, including the ASO, and asked them to consider and approve the document by 9 March 2016 in order to meet the overall timing requirements, and allow the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. In parallel, the CWG-Stewardship is expected to deliver its confirmation that its dependencies have been met, in order to allow the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to move forward. The ASO representatives to the CCWG will soon send a recommendation to the NRO EC regarding approval of the Supplemental Final Proposal. If you object to approval, please respond giving reasons. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG

1 0

Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Dear Colleagues Please find below the NRO announcement on the 4th draft Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services. The announcement is available at: https://www.nro.net/news/updated-4th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC ----------- UPDATED FOURTH DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv4) AND CALL TO ICANN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SIGNING THE SLA 25 February 2016 Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v2 A third draft of the SLA was published on 30 October 2015 and invited ICANN legal staff to provide comments by November 30th 2015. The third draft of the SLA is available at https://www.nro.net/sla-v3 Fourth Draft SLA As a result of ICANN comments on the third draft of the SLA and a clarification call on Tuesday January 26th (https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2016-February/000725.html) a fourth draft of the SLA has been produced and available at https://www.nro.net/sla For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv4 against the third draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments on SLAv3 and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/slav3-comments In accordance with the transparency commitment with the community, we share the exchange of a clear track of comments between ICANN and RIR staff working towards a final SLA document. About the Fourth Draft SLA The fourth draft of the SLA has been developed by a team consisting of individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv4 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA as well as informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA and ICANN’s written comments regarding the third draft SLA. It remains written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible collectively in its dealings with ICANN under the SLA. It includes background and definitions. The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps The RIRs thank the community and ICANN staff for its thoughtful comments and now publish this SLAv4 in the interest of transparency and keeping the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We trust that all comments and concerns have been addressed and that the current draft, SLAv4, represents a mutually acceptable SLA that is consistent with the principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal. We invite ICANN staff to take the appropriate steps so that we can move forward with signing of this SLA as soon as possible, preferably during the ICANN 55 Meeting in Marrakech Morocco.

1 0

Fwd: Call for Nominations for Internet Technical & Academic Community Representatives in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
by Chris Buckridge 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

Dear colleagues, This is FYI for anyone with an interest in contributing to the UN’s work on “enhanced cooperation”. Cheers Chris > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Carl Gahnberg <gahnberg(a)isoc.org> > Subject: [Internetcollaboration] Call for Nominations for Internet Technical & Academic Community Representatives in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > Date: 22 Feb 2016 17:39:10 CET > To: Elist internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration(a)elists.isoc.org> > > Dear all, > > Please find below the Call for Nominations to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > > Best regards, > > Carl Gahnberg > Policy Advisor > Internet Society > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Call for Nominations for Internet Technical & Academic Community Representatives in the United Nations CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > (Deadline: 29th February 23.59 UTC) > > The outcome document of the United Nations General Assembly’s ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2015 included a direction for the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to "establish a working group to develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda” (Resolution A/RES/70/125 <http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN95735.pdf>, Section 4.1, paragraph 65). This will continue work done by an earlier CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, that was active from 2013-2014. and current CSTD Chair, Peter Major of Hungary, has indicated <http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193&Sitemap_…> that he will establish the new working group in a similar fashion, with 20 UN Member States and 5 representatives from each of the four identified stakeholder groups (business, civil society, intergovernmental organizations, the technical & academic community). > > The technical & academic community representatives in the 2013-2014 working group were: > > Andres Piazza (LACNIC, Argentina) > Baher Esmat (ICANN, Egypt) > Alex Corenthin (ccTLD.sn, Senegal) > Chris Disspain (auDA, Australia) > Constance Bommelaer (ISOC, France) > > The CSTD Chair has identified the Internet Technical Collaboration Group <http://www.internetcollaboration.org/> as a focal point for nominating stakeholder representatives from the technical & academic community. A Nominating Committee (NOMCOM) made up of senior members of the Internet technical community has been formed to decide upon these nominations. The NOMCOM members are: > > Scott Mansfield (USA) - Chair > Adiel Akplogan (Canada) > Jane Coffin (USA) > John Klensin (USA) > Nurani Nimpuno (Sweden) > Chris Buckridge (Netherlands) > Akinori Maemura (Japan) > > Individuals with active involvement with the Internet technical community and the closely-related academic computer network research community who would like to be put forward by the NOMCOM are invited to complete the Nomination Form, which includes a set of questions regarding experience and suitability for the role. You may also use the Nomination Form to nominate another person for consideration by the NOMCOM - in such a case, the Nominator should advise their Nominee to complete and submit their answers to the questions in Part 2 of the Nomination Form. > > The Nomination Form is available here <http://www.internetcollaboration.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/02/20…> > > Both parts of the form should be completed and returned to information.itcg(a)gmail.com <mailto:information.itcg@gmail.com> by 23.59 UTC on Monday, 29 February 2016. This deadline will be strictly adhered to, and only respondents who have fully completed both parts of the form will be considered by the NOMCOM. > > While responses to the questions should not be lengthy, they must include sufficient information to allow the NOMCOM to judge the nominee's suitability for the role. If the nominee believes that an existing CV or biographical sketch would contribute to the NOMCOM's understanding of the candidacy, such a document may be included as part of the submission (any additional documents should be attached to the email in PDF format). > > Nominees should be aware that specific nominations may or may not be accepted by the CSTD. > > Nominees should also be aware that funding for participating in the working group’s meetings (which will take place in Geneva) will be the nominees’ own responsibility. It is expected that the working group’s first meeting will take place in Q4 2016, with further meetings to be scheduled by the working group itself. > > While there is no expectation that technical & academic community representatives from the 2013-2014 working group would automatically continue in the role, the NOMCOM would welcome applications from those who have previously served on CSTD committees, as well as new nominations. > > Please feel free to forward this message to relevant fora. > > Privacy Statement > The nominating committee is required to forward information provided by nominees on the Nomination Form to the CSTD Chair and CSTD administrative personnel for purposes of the nomination. With the exception of nominees naming themselves, information provided to the NOMCOM for its consideration shall be treated in the strictest confidence. > _______________________________________________ > Internetcollaboration mailing list > Internetcollaboration(a)elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetcollaboration

1 0

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

May it be still possible to present a short 3 slider about cooperation?
by Schaa, Tahar 12 Nov '15

12 Nov '15

Hello all, hello Meredith and Alain, sorry for being so late to for applying for a short slot. The team around the German government LIR de.government supported the PDP of ripe-655 in many discussions with and contributions for Andrew from UK MoD and by involving our colleagues from the Swiss government. In the end the PDP was successful. Therefore a good example for a great working cooperation with governments as equal community stakeholders is given by this. This is worth to point out from my perspective and on behalf of Constanze from German Federal Ministry of Interior, I would appreciate to receive 5 min. to focus on this new role of government LIRs in the cooperation WG session on Thursday. I look forward to RIPE71! Best wishes from the IGF2015 in Brazil at sunny 35 degrees J Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen <https://www.google.com/search?q=Tahar+Schaa> Tahar Schaa Management Consultant Cassini Consulting GmbH Bennigsen-Platz 1 40474 Düsseldorf T +49 (0) 151 11 44 38 75 F +49 (0) 211 65 85 41 34 mail <mailto:tahar.schaa@cassini.de> tahar.schaa(a)cassini.de visit <http://www.cassini.de/> www.cassini.de Think green - keep it on the screen! Cassini Consulting GmbH | Bennigsen-Platz 1 | 40474 Düsseldorf Geschäftsführer: Sven Wiedenhöfer | Michael Schmitz | Jörg Zängerling Sitz der Gesellschaft: Düsseldorf | Registergericht Düsseldorf HRB 53235 Guiding ahead - Cassini ist Management- und Technologieberatung

1 0

Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement
by Nick Hilliard 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

Of relevance to RIPE Community members: NIck -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:19:45 +0000 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> here are some links to the relevant correspondence: 2015-06-03: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… 2015-09-07: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… Nick On 09/11/2015 14:03, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hi, > > I have no idea why this was not shared on this list as i think its an > important piece (which should have been said a long time ago) > > Regards > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Athina Fragkouli* <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net > <mailto:athina.fragkouli@ripe.net>> > Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement > To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > > Dear all, > > For the record, in case you haven't seen it, the NRO issued a statement > on the revision of ICANN Mission Statement: > > https://www.nro.net/news/the-nro-ec-recognises-that-the-icann-mission-state… > > I share this for information purposes only. No further actions are required. > > Thank you, > Athina > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng/ > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 5313339 52 Lower Sandwith St | INEX - Internet Neutral | Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie

1 0

Final Version of the Internet Number Community - IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter
by Nick Hyrka 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL VERSION OF THE INTERNET NUMBER COMMUNITY – IANA NUMBERING SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community Proposal, described in section III.A.4, is the establishment of a Review Committee to ensure that the service level defined in the proposed SLA for the IANA Numbering Services is maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator. Further description of the Review of IANA Numbering Services is provided in Article 8 of the draft SLA. On 23 June 2015, the NRO EC invited all interested parties to review and comment on the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter. This draft is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-v1 The Final Internet Number Community – IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter As a result of the public consultation of the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter, the final Internet Community – IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-final For the sake of clarity, you can find a tracked changes version of the first draft against the final version at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-redline Additionally, a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-comments Next Steps The RIRs thank the community for its thoughtful comments. Each RIR community may now appoint their representatives to the IANA Numbering Services Review Committee in accordance with the Charter.

2 1

Co-op WG agenda
by Meredith Whittaker 05 Nov '15

05 Nov '15

Hi all, Collin Anderson (CCed) and I now have an agenda online for the RIPE71 CoopWG. https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ Please let us know if you have questions. We're looking forward to it! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Open Source Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP team 29th Teleconference November 5th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 04 Nov '15

04 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The next CRISP team conference call details below. For those of you who will be at the upcoming RIPE meeting, we will give an update in the plenary on the current state of things in the IANA stewardship transition process. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Vice chair, CRISP Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 4 November 2015 at 13:29:50 GMT+1 > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP team 29th Teleconference November 5th 2015 13:00 UTC > > > Hi > > Please find below agenda and webex details for tomorrow CRISP Team Teleconference. > > As usual observers are welcome to join > > AGENDA > > 1. Agenda review > > 2. Action items > > 3. Update from ICANN54 > > 4. Status Update: Implementation > a. SLA > b. Review Committee > c. IPR > > 5. Timelines > > 6. IGF (Sessions about the IANA stewardship transition) > > WEBEX > > > CRISP Team 29th Meeting > Thursday, November 5, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m40c0647db272ca821bc72984fa658… > Meeting number: 705 133 517 > 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: 705 133 517 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Regards > > German Valdez > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

IGF Best Practice Forum document review “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 03 Nov '15

03 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, As mentioned in my email on 24 August, over the past few months we have been working on a project to document some high-level best practices on IPv6 adoption, titled “Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption.” This work is part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) inter-sessional efforts to create more tangible outcomes for the IGF by collecting and documenting best practices on a variety of topics. With the IGF 2015 taking place next week from 10-13 November, this project is drawing to a close and the final draft document is now published and open for review. The document is available at: http://review.intgovforum.org/?p=3987 You can use this same website to submit any comments. Comments will close on 14 November 2015, after which a final version of the document that incorporates any comments received will be released and made available for distribution. On day two of the IGF (11 November) from 09:00-10:30 local time (UTC-3) there will also be a session in which the main contributors will discuss the document and its main conclusions on what they believe are enabling factors that contribute to IPv6 adoption. Just like all sessions at the IGF, remote participation for this session will be available via http://www.intgovforum.org. Please follow the instructions that will be posted on that website. Finally I would like to thank all the RIPE community members that have contributed to this project, by responding to our survey or by making direct contributions on the mailing list or conference calls. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC - External Relations

1 0

Updated Third Draft Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services (SLAv) and Call for ICANN to Publicly Comment on SLAv3
by Nick Hyrka 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATED THIRD DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv3) AND CALL FOR ICANN TO PUBLICLY COMMENT ON SLAv3. Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Numbers-SLA-2.0.pdf Third Draft SLA As a result of the public consultation of the second draft of the SLA, a third draft of the SLA has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv3 against the second draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Draft-SLA_v2-comments_27Oct15.pdf In accordance with comments received from ICANN on 28 August 2015 during the public comment period for the second draft of the SLA, the RIRs now call for ICANN to provide its comments on SLAv3 in a public and transparent manner either through comments on the global IANA XFER mailing list (ianaxfer(a)nro.net) and/or open meetings between the RIRs and ICANN with capability for community members to observe. We invite ICANN and its legal team to provide any such comments by 30 November 2015 at 23:59 UTC in order to stay in line with the current timelines for successful and timely transition of the IANA Numbering Services. Subscription to the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list is open and available at: About the Third Draft SLA The draft SLA has been developed by a team consisting of individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv3 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA as well as informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA. It remains written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible collectively before ICANN. It includes background and definitions. The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps The RIRs thank the community for its thoughtful comments and now publish this SLAv3 in the interest of transparency and keeping the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We are now in the negotiation phase with ICANN as IANA Numbering Services Operator which we intend to be an open process. During this final period wherein the RIRs invite ICANN to publicly comment and confer with the RIRs on SLAv3, our goal is to arrive at an SLA draft that is mutually acceptable to the RIRs and ICANN, is consistent with the SLA principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal, and is in a form that is ready for signature. After 30 November, 2015, the RIRs intend to publish the final mutually acceptable draft SLA as one of the key elements for implementation of the Internet Numbers Community proposal and transition of the IANA Numbering Services.

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Nurani Nimpuno 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear Colleagues, Please see the ICG announcement below. A major milestone in the IANA Stewardship transition process! Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability > Date: 29 oktober 2015 14:37:46 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > This announcement is now published - Congratulations and many thanks to the ICG for combining the proposal and leading the process! > > ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg… > > --- > Thursday, 29 October 2015 12:41 > IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: > https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf > > The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item. The names portion of the proposal is conditioned on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently under development in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, the ICG will secure confirmation from the CWG that its accountability requirements have been met. > > The ICG would like to thank all those who submitted public comments during the ICG’s public comment period. The ICG discussed this input and incorporated it into the current proposal as appropriate. As a result, matters relating to the dependency between the CWG and the CCWG, the Post-Transition IANA, the Root Zone Maintainer, the jurisdiction of ICANN, intellectual property related to IANA, and conformance with the NTIA criteria, among other matters, have been clarified. > > The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are complete, ready for implementation, and have no dependencies on the work of the CCWG or other remaining processes. Preparation for implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals is underway and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete its work. > --- > > > Izumi > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

2 1

ICANN 54: Addressing the Accountability Question
by Athina Fragkouli 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the recent ICANN 54 meeting, focusing on events relating to ICANN accountability and the IANA stewardship transition. You can find this report here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/icann-54-addre… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

1 0

NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability
by Nick Hyrka 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NRO STATEMENT ON IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION AND ICANN ACCOUNTABILITY The NRO takes this opportunity to comment on the current discussions of ICANN accountability, prior to the series of meetings coming up in Dublin, Ireland, during October 2015. The NRO has worked to ensure that to the extent possible, relationships between ICANN, RIRs and the global numbering communities are established in formal relationships that provide necessary definition and separation of responsibilities. The number community proposal for IANA oversight transition relies on these existing relationships, and builds on them to ensure that responsibilities, commitments and accountabilities are clear and robust in the post-transition environment. Regarding our expectations of ICANN accountability: in our relationships with ICANN, we have and will continue to rely upon binding agreements as the primarily mechanism for ICANN accountability to the numbers community. Regarding organisational models for ICANN accountability, the NRO notes that two legal memos [1][2] reached the conclusion that ICANN currently uses a “Designator” model for appointment of Directors, and that the designators currently have the power to remove the Directors that they appoint. We also note that both legal memos pointed out gaps in the current ICANN bylaws, and one of them was associated with concrete suggestions for bylaw changes to address the identified gaps [3]. The NRO believes that a clarification and formalisation of ICANN’s existing designator structure via the “Empowered SO/AC Designator” model (as referenced in the CCWG-Accountability “2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations” [4]) is the most straightforward approach to provide ICANN structural accountability to the community. We believe that the ability for designator organisations (SOs, ACs, and the NomCom) to remove and replace their designated Directors would provide a sufficient mechanism for enforcement of the desired community powers. However, we are able to support any accountability reform proposal which preserves and ensures ICANN’s ability to perform in accordance with our agreements, providing also that they are consistent with the successful IANA stewardship transition in the time available. The NRO is fully committed to the completion of the current IANA stewardship transition as a desirable and necessary evolution of the current ICANN and IANA models. Indeed, this is an overdue development that we have explicitly supported in several prior public statements. We therefore urge the global multistakeholder community to continue the work to converge on a mutually acceptable accountability reform proposal, which needs to achieve only the following: – Satisfying immediate concerns over ICANN accountability – Allowing the IANA transition to take place within the expected timeframe – Ensuring that ICANN evolution can and will continue in future. Finally we recognise the ongoing efforts by the CCWG and the ICANN Board to arrive to a successful conclusion of the work which is necessary for the IANA transition to occur. It is important that all of these efforts be fully respectful of the work of the community and that any discrepancies be dealt with in a true and amicable multistakeholder fashion. Alan Barrett CEO AFRINIC John Curran President and CEO ARIN Paul Wilson Director General APNIC Oscar Robles CEO LACNIC Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC References: [1] “Proposed Articles and Bylaw Amendments for ICANN”, Caplin & Drysdale, 31 Mar 2015. A memo discussing the existing designator model within ICANN, and discussing proposed amendments to the ICANN bylaws. Associated with proposed bylaw amendments [3]. Forwarded to the CCWG on 7 April 2015: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20… [2] “Current Corporate Status of ICANN under California Law”, Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin, 11 Oct 2015. A memo concluding that ICANN currently functions under a designator model under California law, and identifying related gaps in the current ICANN bylaws. Forwarded to the CCWG on 12 Oct 2015: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20… [3] “Proposed Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers re Designators”, Caplin & Drysdale, 31 Mar 2015. Associated with memo [1]. Forwarded to the CCWG on 7 April 2015: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20… [4] “CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations”, 3 August 2015: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre…

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability
by Nick Hilliard 14 Oct '15

14 Oct '15

FYI. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO Statement on IANA Stewardship Transition and ICANN Accountability Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 12:28:04 +0000 From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> https://www.nro.net/news/nro-statement-on-iana-stewardship-transition-and-i… FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Call Agenda e: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Call today October 8th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Oct '15

08 Oct '15

Apologies for the late sharing of this. Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Call Agenda e: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Call today October 8th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 8 oktober 2015 11:36:59 CEST > To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net>, ianaxfer(a)nro.net, crisp(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please see below the agenda for the meeting today. > > You can find the Webex details from German's mail and anyone is welcome to join as an observer as usual. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Action Items > a. Minutes from the last call > > 3. The questions from the ICG > > 4. IPR > a. Principles > b. IANAPLAN approach > c. Implementation time > > 5. General implementation plan > > 6. ICANN54 > > 7. Next Meetings > > 8. AOB > --- > > Izumi & Nurani > > On 2015/10/08 10:34, German Valdez wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> This is reminder of the scheduled CRISP Team call to be hold later today. >> >> Observers are welcome to join >> >> Below is webex details. >> >> Regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO Secretariat >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
by Hans Petter Holen 24 Sep '15

24 Sep '15

Dear RIPE community, As you may be aware, the proposal for IANA stewardship developed by the CRISP Team (and now incorporated into the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group’s proposal) proposes establishing a community-based Review Committee to assist the RIRs in their periodic review of the IANA numbering services Service Level Agreement. In recent months, the NRO Executive Council circulated a draft charter for this Review Committee, noting that the Review Committee “will comprise 15 members, constituted by: (a) two community appointees from each RIR region (who must not be RIR staff); and (b) one RIR staff from the region (who will be a non-voting member).” The charter also notes that “Each RIR shall appoint their Review committee members by a method of its own choosing.” https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Review-Committee-Charter-draft-Publi… The RIR Executive Council have indicated that they would like to establish this Review Committee in the coming months (ahead of the IANA stewardship transition), so it is important that the RIPE community come to consensus on how we will select our Review Committee members, and who those members will be. I would like to suggest a solution for your consideration and discussion: we currently have three community representatives on the NRO Number Council, two of which are elected by the community (the third is appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board). Acknowledging that the work of the Review Committee will likely be quite limited, I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would avoid an extra election process. It is based on our long-standing NRO Number Council process and employing the knowledge and talents of individuals who clearly have the trust of the RIPE community. It is important, however, that the community agree on a method for selecting Review Committee members, so if you support this method I would appreciate that you do so on the RIPE list (ripe-list(a)ripe.net) by Monday, 28 September. If this proposal is not acceptable we will conduct a separate IANA Review Committee selection process that would need to be planned prior to the RIPE 71 in November. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind Regards, -- Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair email: hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

7 8

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

FYI. Nurani Nimpuno > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Meeting on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 22 september 2015 13:17:59 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Please find below webex invitation for CRISP Team call on Thursday September 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > 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… > > Toll-free dialing restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO Secretariat > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Away from the distrubutionslist
by Maud.Karlberg＠vll.se 22 Sep '15

22 Sep '15

Hello! Can you remove me from this distrubitionslist? Vänliga hälsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr Västerbottens läns landsting 901 85 Umeå 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik

1 0

Fwd: IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
by Sergey V. Gushkov 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

+1 I completely agree! 2015-09-21 16:21 GMT+03:00 Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com>: > > On 15 Sep 2015, at 18:26, Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> wrote: > > > I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council > representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, > non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff > member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. > > > > I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that > would avoid an extra election process. > > +1 > > Just do it! >

1 0

CCWG Second Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published CCWG-Accountability second Draft Report that can be found here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 Comments can be sent through this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en The comment period closes on 12 September 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 provide you with a follow-up on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the first Draft Report (see communication from 15 May 2015 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-May/000753.html and ASO representatives submission to the CCWG on 12 June 2015 http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-June/0033…). We would also like to highlight the principle amendment introduced in the second Draft Report (section 7 below). 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.2 of the second Draft Report). With regards to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources, the description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs” (p 29, para 181). The description was 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 previous public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws. In the first Draft Report (p 25, para 89) the proposed amendment read as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” After the public consultation period ASO representative’s communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “With regards to ICANN’s core values in the Bylaws and in particular page 25, paragraph 89, the RIR community notes that the term "private sector led multistakeholder" (and similar terms) have been used by the NTIA in describing ICANN, but the RIRs describe their policy development processes using terms such as "inclusive, open, transparent and bottom-up". These different descriptions are compatible, provided it is understood that "private sector led" does not exclude government participation.“ In the second Draft Report the proposed amendment has been altered and now reads as follows (p.31 para 205): “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes, led by the private sector, including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, and academia that (i) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Do you have any comments with regards to this amended description? 3. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws As in the first Draft Report, the CCWG proposes in the second Draft Report 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 section 4 (pp 34-37) of the second 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 these provisions 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.” In the first Draft Report 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. After the public consultation period, 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 second Draft Report does not propose that Article XVIII be designated as Fundamental Bylaw, and provides the following justification: “Three considerations suggest that CCWG not propose Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: First, public comment on the first 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 Community Mechanism as Sole Member must approve with 2/3 vote any change to ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which now state that ICANN is a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation. Third, the Community Mechanism as Sole Member 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.’ “ Do you have any comments in relation to this? 4. 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. After the public consultation period ASO representatives 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. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. 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 second Draft Report there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (p. 40 para 9): “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 section describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (p. 44 para 275): “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. 5. Powers In the second Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows: - Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 7.1 of the second Draft Report, pp 55-57) [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 7.2 of the Second Draft Report pp 57-58) - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 4.5 of the second Draft Report p 37) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 7.3 of the second Draft Report pp 58-60) - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 7.4 of the second Draft Report pp 60- 63) 6. Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model The first Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, with the SO/ACs as the members (Membership Model). An alternative model was also investigated, whereby the SO/ACs would become designators (Designator Model). During the public consultation and thereafter, objections were expressed to both of these models. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the second Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Membership Model. This new model is understood to have the following benefits: - It provides the required legal enforceability that the Designator Model and Membership Model could not. - It removes the problematic requirement for some SOs and ACs that they become legal persons, whether to participate as a member in the Membership Model or to enforce rights in both the Membership Model and Designator Model. - It avoids the problem of different statutory rights between SOs and ACs that become members and SOs and ACs that were not members, associated with the Membership Model. - By allowing action only upon support of the community through the Community Mechanism, it limits the issues related to the statutory rights of members associated with the Membership Model, which would allow members to dissolve ICANN and bring derivative suits. The details of the Sole Membership Model can be found in section 6 (pp 47-53). The following aspects of the model are worthy to be highlighted: - SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - SO/ACs would participate directly in the Sole Member by providing instructions to the Sole Member to exercise the community powers. - In order to instruct the Sole Member, SO/ACs may choose to have voting rights. Voting rights will be allocated votes in the following way: o ASO, GNSO and ccNSO, 5 votes each o GAC and At-Large, 5 votes each o SSAC and RSSAC, 2 votes each Early indications are that the ASO, ccNSO, GNSO and ALAC would be the initial set of voting participants in the Sole Member (with remaining and future SOs and ACs able to opt-in to voting participation). There is no requirement or expectation that a participating SO or AC cast all its votes identically for a given issue (meaning all 5 in support or all 5 against). - For Director removal, Directors appointed by an SO could only be removed by that specific SO or community. The Sole Member would merely implement their decisions. Do you have any comments with regard to this model? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Call for Public Comment on IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Serge Radovcic 31 Aug '15

31 Aug '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION COORDINATION GROUP (ICG) CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION PROPOSAL For the past 12 months, many in the Internet community have worked hard to formulate a plan for the transition of stewardship of the IANA functions away from the U.S. Government and into the hands of the broader Internet community. Working with and on behalf of the Internet Number Community, the CRISP Team built a plan for the IANA numbering functions, and this now forms part of the transition plan developed by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group for all of the IANA functions. We are now very close to the end of this long and complex process, and the Number Community has devoted many hours to meetings and discussions around the plan. At this stage of the process, to ensure the success of the transition, it is vital that the global Internet community expresses its support for the ICG proposal. Therefore, we encourage members of the RIR communities to review the ICG’s draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and register their support or any concerns they may have: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop… Comments can be submitted via an online form or by emailing <public-comments(a)ianacg.org> until 8 September 2015 at 23:59 (UTC). Please note that all questions on the online form about the proposal are optional. The form can be accessed at: https://comments.ianacg.org/form If you agree with the key priorities in the Number Community’s contribution to the proposal – which are focused on ensuring stability, security, reliability, quality of service and community empowerment – please submit your statement of support today! Your comment could be as simple as this: I, as a member of the Number Community, am in favour of the ICG proposal on the IANA stewardship transition. If for any reason you do not agree with the draft proposal, it is essential that you take the time to comment and describe your viewpoint and underlying reasoning. For more information, please review the CRISP Team’s own analysis, which shows how the ICG proposal reflects and supports the CRISP proposal, and the wishes of the global Number Community. It is available here: https://www.nro.net/crisp-response-icg-proposal

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 Aug '15

27 Aug '15

Dear Colleagues, As you know, the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has combined all proposals from the three operational communities and published a draft proposal. We are now in the public comment period where the ICG is asking for feedback on the proposal. I would like to encourage you all to submit your comments to the ICG, as described below. It it essential for the success of this transition, that it can show sufficient support from the Internet community. Please not that there is no obligation to respond to all the questions from the ICG, and also that a simple general expression of support is also helpful. Please feel free to use the attached CRISP Team response to the combined proposal as a reference in considering your comments. Kind regards, Nurani Vice-chair, CRISP ———————————— http://nro.net/crisp-team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for submission of comment to the combined ICG proposal and the CRISP Team draft response > Date: 27 augusti 2015 01:30:06 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > We would like to share the attached CRISP Team response to the draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for public comment. > > IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment > https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… > > As described in the call for Public Comment by the ICG: > > "It is critical that the ICG build a public record that reflects broad community support for the proposal and justifies the proposal’s conformance with the NTIA criteria before the proposal can be submitted to NTIA. > Thus, commenters are encouraged to file comments in support of the proposal even if they have no concerns to express about the proposal." > > You can contribute to the process in three ways as described below. > > 1. Submit your own comment to the ICG > We strongly encourage you to submit your comment to the ICG. > This helps the ICG to build public record that the combined proposal has support of the broad community. > > - It is not a requirement to respond to all questions from the ICG. > Submission of comments expressing a general support for the proposal itself would be helpful enough, without responding to specific aspects of the proposal. > - Please feel free to use the CRISP Team response as a reference, in considering contents for your own submission. > Words in bold letters cover a general observation which could be applicable to anyone in the Number Community. > Details specific to the CRISP Team are in italics. > > Deadline of the submission: 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC > - You can submit your comment using the online form or by e-mail to <public-comments(a)ianacg.org>. > For details see: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… > > 2. Help spread the word > Encourage others to submit comments to the ICG. > > 3. Express support to the CRISP Team response to the ICG > Support expressed by e-mail to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> before 7 September 2015 23:59 UTC will be recorded as the level of support from the Number Community to the CRISP Team response. > We will share this in our response to the ICG, but will not share the names of individuals who expressed support. We therefore encourage you to submit your own comment to the ICG in addition, as described in 1. > > > We are looking forward to your contributions in this important phase of the process, as an opportunity to express support towards the transition which will be lead to bottom-up, community based oversight mechanism for the IANA functions. > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISP Team > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 26th Teleconference Agenda and Webex Information - Wednesday August 26th 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 25 Aug '15

25 Aug '15

fyi. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 26th Teleconference Agenda and Webex Information - Wednesday August 26th 13:00 UTC > Date: 24 augusti 2015 14:52:50 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues > > Please find below agenda and webex information for next CRISP Team teleconference. > > Draft Agenda > > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Meeting Notes > b. Update on communications plan > d. Update on IPR status > d. Update on CRISP Comment to the ICG > > 3. SLA ver.2 > > 4. AOB > --- > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > 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… > > regards > > German Valdez > NRO > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 25th Teleconference August 20th 2015 13:00 UTC - Draft Agenda and Webex Details -
by Nurani Nimpuno 20 Aug '15

20 Aug '15

FYI. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 25th Teleconference August 20th 2015 13:00 UTC - Draft Agenda and Webex Details - > Date: 18 augusti 2015 15:32:33 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > > Dear Colleagues > > Please find below information on coming CRISP Team Teleconference on Thursday August 20th 2015 > > > Draft Agenda > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Meeting Notes > b. CRISP observation on IPR (for CWG) > > 3. CRISP Comment to the ICG > > 4. Coordination with Other communities:IPR > > 5. SLA ver.2 > > 6. AOB > > ===== > > CRISP Team 25th Meeting > Thursday, August 20, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=md27a9f1a50db7d7fad4dd0268fa34… > Meeting number: 705 893 045 > Meeting password: crisp > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=409966… > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 705 893 045 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 24th Meeting Aug 12th 1:00 PM UTC 2015
by Nurani Nimpuno 12 Aug '15

12 Aug '15

FYI. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 24th Meeting Aug 12th 1:00 PM UTC 2015 > Date: 12 augusti 2015 09:00:22 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > We will have the CRISP Team 24th Meeting Aug 12th 13:00 UTC. > > Please find below the draft agenda and how to join by Webex. > > Anyone is welcome to join as observers as usual. > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Meeting Notes > b. CRISP Team Charter > c. Communications > > 3. Coordination with Other communities:IPR > > 4. CRISP Comment to the ICG > > 5. SLA ver.2 > > 6. AOB > > > Meeting URL: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mcd2e68692e24820ab9a522e400552… > > Meeting Password: crisp > > Audio connection: > > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > > Global call-in numbers <javascript:void(0)> > > Show toll-free dialing restrictions > <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> > > Access code: 701 092 065 > > > > Izumi > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Call for Comments for the Second Draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services
by Nick Hyrka 07 Aug '15

07 Aug '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR COMMENTS FOR THE SECOND DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT (SLA) FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES NRO – PUBLIC CONSULTATION Open until: 31 August 2015, 23:59 UTC Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was produced on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until June 14th 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 Discussions about the development of the SLA have occurred in all RIR meetings at: APNIC 39 (2-6 March 2015), ARIN 35 (12-15 April 2015), RIPE 70 (11-15 May 2015), LACNIC 23 (18-22 May 2015) and AFRINIC 22 (3-5 June 2015). Results of this discussion are documented in the NRO website at: https://www.nro.net/sla-development Second Draft SLA As a result of the public consultation of the first draft of the SLA and the RIR meetings discussions, a second draft of the SLA has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version with the first draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-comments All interested parties are now encouraged to review and comment on this second version of the draft proposal; including members of the RIRs, ICANN, and their communities; members of the CRISP Team and the ICG; and any other organisations and individuals. This call for public comments will remain open until 31 August, 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Comments can be submitted by any interested party to the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. Subscription to this list is open and available at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer About the Second Draft SLA The draft SLA has been developed by a team of legal experts from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet number community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of this draft is NOT the result of negotiations with ICANN or any other parties. It is written in such a way so that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The draft includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible collectively before ICANN. It includes background and definitions. This draft SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet number community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps During this final public comment period, the CRISP team is encouraged to review the draft SLA and its consistency with the principles of the Internet number community proposal. ICANN in particular is encouraged to review the draft in detail, and to submit any and all final comments during this period. All comments received by the deadline will be processed by the legal team of the RIRs and, as appropriate, included in a further and final draft of the SLA which will be presented to ICANN as the proposed final SLA. It is hoped that this document will be agreed by ICANN without further changes.

1 0

Call for Comments on CCWG-Accountability's 2nd Draft Proposal
by Nick Hyrka 04 Aug '15

04 Aug '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR COMMENTS ON CCWG-ACCOUNTABILITY’S 2ND DRAFT PROPOSAL The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has published its 2nd Draft Proposal with proposed improvements to ICANN’s accountability framework. You can find the proposal here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stre… In a previous public comment period in May 2015, CCWG-Accountability sought feedback on the direction of its proposal and preferences among the alternatives that were proposed. CCWG-Accountability has incorporated this input and is now seeking agreement on whether or not the proposal meets the community’s requirements. The comment period closes on 12 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Comments can be submitted via a web page here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-2015-08-03-en Two webinars will be held this week to discuss the proposal on 4 August 2015 from 19:00 – 21:00 UTC and 7 August 2015 from 07:00 – 09:00 UTC. More information is available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681 Next Steps After the public comment period ends, CCWG-Accountability will reconvene to continue its work, aiming to finalise the Work Stream 1 proposal before submitting this to the Chartering Organisations and eventually to the ICANN Board of Directors.

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement from the CRISP Team on the ICG proposal
by Nurani Nimpuno 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

Dear colleagues, The combined IANA Stewardship Transition proposal put together by the IANA Coordination Group has now been published. The combined proposal is based on the proposals from the three operational communities (names, numbers and protocol parameters). You will find links to the combined proposal and related information in the mail below. The CRISP team would like to ask you all to read the proposal and provide your comments during the public comment period 31 July - 8 September. Please note that you are not required to answer all the questions in the form. And if you want to simply give a general endorsement, that is also both possible and constructive in this process. If you want to know more about this process please have a look at: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Vice chair, CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 3 augusti 2015 18:28:10 EEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement from the CRISP Team on the ICG proposal > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The CRISP Team is pleased to see the proposals from the three operational communities, protocol parameters, number resources and names are consolidated, and is now published by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). > > Public comment web site: https://comments.ianacg.org > > This is a key step in the process towards submission of the proposal developed by the multistakeholder community to the NTIA, with the proposal out for the public comment until 8 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. > > The CRISP Team will be submitting our comment and respond to the set of questions from the ICG, including our observations on whether the consolidated proposal appears compatible with the number community proposal. > We are planning to share our comment in advance on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. > > The CRISP Team also encourages you to submit your comments during the public comment process from the number resources community. > > If you would like to understand more about the consolidate proposal by the ICG, Webinars will be organized at: > > Thursday 6 August 2015 from 19:00-20:30 UTC (time zone convertor here: http://icgsec.asia/1fB5GMF) > Friday 7 August 2015 from 11:00-12:30 UTC (time zone convertor here: http://icgsec.asia/1IpVZfn) > > https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-to > -host-webinars-in-conjunction-with-call-for-public-comment > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Call for Comments on ICG's Draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
by Nick Hyrka 03 Aug '15

03 Aug '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organisation (NRO). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR COMMENTS ON ICG’S DRAFT IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION PROPOSAL The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) has published its draft IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal for public comment: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-stewardship-transition-prop… Comments can be provided via an online form or by emailing <public-comments(a)ianacg.org> until 8 September 2015 at 23:59 (UTC). Comments need not be in-depth, simple statements of support are appreciated. All comments received will be publicly archived. The online form is available here: https://comments.ianacg.org/form More information can be found on the ICG’s public comment page here: https://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/combined-proposal-public-comment-per… The ICG will also be hosting two webinars to discuss the proposal on 6 and 7 August 2015. More information is available here: https://www.ianacg.org/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg-t… The ICG’s proposal integrates the separate proposals developed by the names, numbers and protocol parameters communities. The Internet Number Community’s Proposal was submitted to the ICG by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team back in January 2015 and is available here: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf The Internet Number Community’s Proposal In the Internet Number Community Proposal, ICANN continues as the IANA Functions Operator for the IANA Numbering Services. A service level agreement between ICANN and the RIRs would be used to ensure that the IANA functions continue to be performed to the Number Community’s requirements. An independent review panel, made up of representatives from each RIR community, periodically reviews ICANN’s performance in meeting these identified service levels. Key priorities here were ensuring stability, security, reliability, quality of service and community empowerment. The community is very satisfied with ICANN’s performance as IANA Functions Operator and, as ICANN’s role is lightweight and purely administrative, there was no need for the proposal to introduce additional operational complexity. More detail can be found in the infographic here: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Number_Community_Proposal_Overview.p… The CRISP Team and the NRO Executive Council are enthusiastic about the progress on the transition so far, and confident that the proposal reflects the will of the Internet Number Community. Next Steps Following the public comment period, the ICG will work on finalising its proposal and intends to publish the final document in October 2015, during ICANN 54 in Dublin. The ICANN Board of Directors will then deliver this document to the NTIA for review. Throughout these next steps, it is important that the Internet Number Community continues to express its views. You can join the NRO IANA Transfer Mailing List <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> to follow the discussions and updates on the process will be published on www.nro.net.

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] [mat-wg] Network Neutrality - Latest on Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

I would suggest that it could be useful if either MAT or Cooperation invited somebody from the local regulator in Bucharest to come along and explain what they will now do, in line with the regulation, about “network neutrality” and in particular about the measurements to be made: what measurements, how they will be made, who by and how they will then be used. Gordon > On 10 Jul 2015, at 22:29, Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> wrote: > >> http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/07/08-roaming-c… > > you are proposing we plan to measure this? how? > > randy

1 0

Network Neutrality - Latest on Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/07/08-roaming-c… There is a link to the regulation as PDF. "How will this become a law? The agreed text will undergo technical finalisation. It then needs to be formally approved by the Council and the Parliament. The Council is expected to formally adopt it in the autumn 2015. This does not need to take place in the Telecom Council: any Council configuration has the power to adopt the legal act. The regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the EU Official Journal.”

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder and webex details CRISP Team Call Thursday July 9th 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Jul '15

09 Jul '15

Fyi. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 9 juli 2015 04:12:22 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder and webex details CRISP Team Call Thursday July 9th 13:00 UTC > > > Hi > > > Below you fill find agenda and webex details for CRISP Team scheduled teleconference (Second Thursday of the month) > > > === > > Agenda > > 1. Agenda review. > > 2. Action Items > > 3. General status update > a. Follow up from ICANN53 > b. Timelines submitted to the ICG > c. CRISP comment on Review Committee > d. SLA text status > e. Any other discussions in global/regional community > > 4. Coordination with other communities: IPR > > 5. Communications/Messaging (RIRs, ICG) > > 6. Follow up on the CRISP Charter > > 7. AOB > > > 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… > > regards > > German Valdez > NRO > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for Comments for a Draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter
by Nurani Nimpuno 06 Jul '15

06 Jul '15

Fyi. Please note the deadline for comments on the proposed Review Committee charter for the IANA numbering services, tonight UTC 23:59. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 6 juli 2015 17:12:35 CEST > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for Comments for a Draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter > > Dear Colleagues, > > > This is to share the draft comment to be submitted from the CRISP Team on Review Committee Charter. > We may still have minor changes, but basically, we don't observe any inconsistencies with the number community proposal. > > I'd also like to once again remind everyone that the comment period set by NRO is closing soon at UTC23:59 6th July. We encourage you to submit comments on the draft Review Committee Charter, with more details found at: https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-internet-number-comm… > > ---- > The CRISP Team would like thank the NRO for this opportunity to comment on the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter, Public Draft v1.0. > > The comment from the CRISP Team focuses on whether there are any inconsistencies with the number community proposal. In this light, we observe no inconsistencies with the numbers community proposal Section "III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee" with details described below. > > [Section III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee (Description about the Role)] > > The RIRs shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review. The Review Committee will, as needed, undertake a review of the level of service received from the IANA Numbering Services Operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding the performance of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, including especially any observed failure or near-failure by the IANA Numbering Services Operator to meet its obligations under the proposed agreement. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely to oversee the performance of the IANA Numbering Services, and the Review Committee's advice and comment will be limited to the processes followed in the IANA Numbering Services Operator's performance under the proposed agreement. > > --> Reflected in "Functions/Objectives" Clauses 1-3 of Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter Public Draft v1.0. > > As an additional observation, the number community proposal limits the scope of the Review Committee's advice related to the IANA Numbering Services. > Clause 1 of the charter describes "The Review Committee's main function" which may give room for additional functions as needed. > We do not observe inconsistencies if additional functions will be related to advice around the performance of the IANA functions but it may be worth giving more clarity in the language. > > [Section III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee: (Description about Transparency)] > Activities of the Review Committee shall be conducted in an open and transparent manner. Reports from the Review Committee shall be published. > --> Reflected in "Proceedings" Clauses 8 and 10, "Transparency" Clauses 11-13 of Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter Public Draft v1.0. > > [Section III.A.4. Establishment of a Review Committee :( Description about Composition)] > The Review Committee should be a team composed of suitably qualified Internet Number Community representatives from each RIR region. The selection of the Review Committee members should be conducted in an open, transparent, and bottom-up manner appropriate for each RIR region. There should be equal representation from each RIR region within the Review Committee. > > --> Reflected in "Composition" Clauses 4 and 5 of Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter Public Draft v1.0. > > We believe this process of publishing the draft for community feedback ensures that the implementation of the proposal is consistent with the consensus of the number community, and appreciate that RIRs, jointly as the NRO, have published the draft to be open for comments. > > With this draft charter of the Review Committee published, as well as the first draft of the SLA text which has closed its public comments on 14th June, the CRISP Team has confidence on the smooth preparation of implementation of the Number Community proposal in timely manner. > > ---- > > Izumi Okutani > CRISP Team > > > >> On 2015/06/23 13:17, German Valdez wrote: >> Dear Colleagues >> >> Please refer to the below call for comments published today in the NRO website >> >> https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-internet-number-comm… >> >> Regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO >> >> >> ==== >> >> NRO �� PUBLIC CONSULTATION >> >> CALL FOR COMMENTS FOR A DRAFT INTERNET COMMUNITY REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER >> >> Open until: 6 July 2015, 23:59 UTC >> >> On 15 January, 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). >> >> One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community Proposal, described in section III.A.4, is the establishment of a Review Committee to ensure that the service level defined in the proposed SLA for the IANA Numbering Services is maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator. Further description of the Review of IANA Numbering services is described in Article 8 of the draft SLA. >> >> All interested parties are now encouraged to review and comment on the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter. The document is available at >> >> https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter >> >> This call for public comments will remain open until 6 July, 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Comments can be submitted by any interested party to the ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. Subscription to this list is open and available at: >> >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

ICANN 53: Another Milestone in the IANA Stewardship Transition
by Chris Buckridge 01 Jul '15

01 Jul '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the recent ICANN 53 meeting, with a particular focus on the events relating to the IANA stewardship transition and ICANN accountability. You can read this report at: https://www.ripe.net/reports/icann-53 Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Call for Comments for a Draft Internet Community Review Committee Charter
by Serge Radovcic 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). _______________________________________________________________ NRO – PUBLIC CONSULTATION CALL FOR COMMENTS FOR A DRAFT INTERNET COMMUNITY REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER Open until: 6 July 2015, 23:59 UTC On 15 January, 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community Proposal, described in section III.A.4, is the establishment of a Review Committee to ensure that the service level defined in the proposed SLA for the IANA Numbering Services is maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator. Further description of the Review of IANA Numbering services is described in Article 8 of the draft SLA. All interested parties are now encouraged to review and comment on the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter. The document is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter This call for public comments will remain open until 6 July, 2015 at 23:59 UTC. Comments can be submitted by any interested party to the ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. Subscription to this list is open and available at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 22nd Meeting Wednesday June 24th 2015 13:00 UTC - Webex Information
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Jun '15

23 Jun '15

FYI. kind regards, Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 22nd Meeting Wednesday June 24th 2015 13:00 UTC - Webex Information > Date: 23 juni 2015 16:21:15 GMT−3 > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find information of the crisp team teleconference on June 24th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > regards > > German > > === > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > 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… > > Toll-free calling restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Can't join the meeting? Contact support here: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda for 21st CRISP Team Teleconerence Re: CRISP Team 21st Meeting June 11th 1:00 PM
by Nurani Nimpuno 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

FYI. Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda for 21st CRISP Team Teleconerence Re: CRISP Team 21st Meeting June 11th 1:00 PM > Date: 11 juni 2015 12:42:43 CEST > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please find below the draft agenda for 21st CRISP Team Teleconerence at > UTC 13:00 11th June. > > The call is open to observers as usual. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. Follow up to the from NRO EC-CRISP call > > 3. Confirm discussions status > a. Each RIR region > b. Global list > > 4. CRISP SLA Review > a. Confirm the need of revision > b. Confirm next steps > > 5. Submission of Timelines to the ICG > a. Clarifying the roles of CRISP/RIRs > b. Next Steps > > 6. CWG-Stewardship proposal 3rd version > a. Observations > b. How to communicate questions/possible inconsistencies (if any) > > 7. ICANN53 > a. ICG Meeting > b. Face to face meetings > > 8. AOB > --- > > Izumi > > On 2015/06/10 10:16, German Valdez wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> below is webex information for the tomorrow Thursday June 11th 1:00 PM >> UTC 21st CRISP Team scheduled meeting. >> >> >> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m31c9ec30fcbe5ab39d62d984dfbf2… >> Meeting number: 709 316 083 <tel://709%20316%20083> >> Meeting password: crisp >> >> >> JOIN BY PHONE >> 0800-051-3810 <tel://0800-051-3810> Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> +44-203-478-5289 <tel://+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 >> >> >> regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

RIPE NCC report on EuroDIG 2015
by Chris Buckridge 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on last week’s EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance) meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria: https://www.ripe.net/reports/eurodig-2015 Best regards Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Update: SLA for IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, A report from the discussion on the Draft Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services (SLA) that took place at the RIPE Meeting is available on the NRO website: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developm… We would also like to remind you that the deadline for public comments to the draft SLA is Sunday 14 June 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The document is available here: http://www.nro.net/sla In order to stimulate the discussion on the draft SLA the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Legal Team has prepared a document with compiled responses to comments already received until 17 May. The document is available here: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Draft-SLA-comments_17May2015.pdf This document will be updated with more comments in the coming days. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli RIR Legal Team

1 0

WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) On IANA Naming Related Functions: Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
by Jaap Akkerhuis 07 Jun '15

07 Jun '15

All, The Subject says it all. For the full announcement, see <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en>. jaap

2 3

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for comments on the CRISP Review of the SLA
by Nurani Nimpuno 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the CRISP Team’s review of the IANA Numbering Services SLA Draft produced by the RIR legal team. We welcome comments on this review on the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list until Tuesday 9 June UTC23:59. Kind regards, Nurani On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Call for comments on the CRISP Review of the SLA > Date: 4 juni 2015 01:21:00 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > As announced by the NRO, the SLA text based on the numbers community proposal is open for the community consultation by the NRO. > > https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num… > > We would like to share the CRISP Team's review of the SLA, and welcome comments from the community on the review before: Tue 9th June UTC23:59. > > The CRISP Team review was based on the principles below: > > - The review focuses and limits its scope on whether the SLA is consistent with the numbers community proposal. > - Specific legal provisions in the SLA are therefore outside the scope of this review. > - We note that not all elements of the numbers community proposal which is to be implemented in the SLA; > There are implementation to be handled outside the SLA, such as transfer of the IPR which belong to the public domain (e.g.IANA trademark, iana.org domain), and setting up of the Review Committee. > > Feedback from the community on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> will be taken into consideration with the same principles as described above. > > Overall, the CRISP Team found that the SLA is consistent with the numbers community proposal. > However there are a few points where we observed more clarifications are needed, could be read as more definitive than what has bene agreed, or the SLA text could be interpreted as not being consistent. > Please see the attached review for more details. > > We note that on Article 10, there were some differences in opinion on whether it is consistent with the numbers community proposal. > Further discussion in the CRISP Team did not reveal any opposition to the version of the response we are sharing now with the community, before the deadline for comments within the CRISP Team. > > After closing the community feedback, we are planning to submit the CRISP Team's SLA review incorporating relevant community feedback to the NRO by 14th June UTC23:59 deadline. > > > Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice Chair of the CRISP Team > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

CCWG Report - Deadline for comments on 3 June 23:59 UTC
by Athina Fragkouli 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability is seeking public comments until tomorrow, 3 June, 23:59 UTC. The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] This initial Draft Proposal is focused on draft Work Stream 1 recommendations. Work Stream 1 relates to those changes to ICANN’s accountability arrangements that must be in place, or committed to, prior to the IANA stewardship transition. More information can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20… The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the numbers community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the Draft Report, and reply to the questions listed in the document. At the same time we would like to draw the numbers community’s attention to the following matters, as we believe that they are of interest to the numbers community and we would appreciate the community's feedback: 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of ICANN’s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” Do you feel that this description is accurate? 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws (page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion of the notion of “private sector led multistakeholder”, which is put in square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on whether ICANN’s core values include the employment of RIR global policies. Do you agree with the removal of the notion “private sector led multistakeholder”? 3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs (75% vote). One of these provisions 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.” As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue, which would not be considered as fundamental. Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach? 4. 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 commented that, even though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures 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. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. 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. 5. Powers The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community empowerment: - Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of the Draft Report, pp 47-48). We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG. - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the Draft Report pp 48-49) - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report pp 49-50) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp 50-52) - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53) These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members. Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal (pp 42-45). Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the suggested structure? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

Report on the WSIS Forum 2015
by Chris Buckridge 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, More than 1,500 people gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, from 25-29 May for the tenth annual WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) Forum. Organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the agenda of the WSIS Forum is a mix of policy statements from ITU Member States and other Internet-related organisations (including ICANN and the Internet Society), and workshops on specific issues such as cybersecurity, capacity building and the IANA stewardship transition. RIPE NCC Executive Board member Salam Yamout took part as a panelist in a session on "Fostering Open Access to International Fiber”: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/214 The event also provided opportunities to discuss the upcoming WSIS+10 review, which will be primarily an inter-governmental process looking back at progress made on achieving the goals of the original WSIS events in 2003 and 2005. Webcast archives of all WSIS Forum sessions are available at: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Webcast/Archive IANA Stewardship at WSIS Forum 2015 The agenda included a panel session, "IANA Stewardship Transition – A Live Example of a Multistakeholder Process", which focused on the processes involved in developing a proposal for future stewardship of the IANA functions: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/Agenda/Session/269 The panel included representatives of the three IANA "affected communities" (names, numbers and protocol parameters), along with speakers from business, academia/civil society and government. While some governments noted that participation in these kinds of processes is still challenging, there was general agreement that the IANA stewardship transition represents an important example of the multistakeholder model being applied to global policy decision-making. Looking Ahead to WSIS+10 Many of the governments and organisations that delivered policy statements during the WSIS Forum noted the upcoming WSIS+10 review, which will culminate in a two-day High Level Meeting of the General Assembly this December. The process (or "modalities") leading up to this meeting are still being determined, as are the likely outcomes, though the preparation process will kick off in earnest during the week of 8-12 June, with an Expert Group Meeting on “Advancing a Sustainable Information Society for All”, followed by two days of intergovernmental discussions: http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/ The focus of many participants at the WSIS Forum was the importance of highlighting the WSIS commitment to and focus on development, with some even suggesting moves to explicitly link the WSIS Action Lines (developed as part of the 2003-2005 process) to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will replace the Millennium Development Goals (which expire shortly) and shape the UN's global development efforts. The ITU has published a matrix detailing possible linkages between the specific WSIS Action Lines and SDGs: http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/sdg/Content/wsis-sdg_matrix_document.pdf Others noted, however, that such linkages are unlikely, as the SDGs themselves are in the final stages of a multi-year negotiation process. Alongside the official WSIS Forum programme, several technical, civil society and academic organisations organised an informational WSIS+10 lunch during the week, which highlighted the importance of coordination and information sharing between all stakeholders involved, particularly given the uncertainties still surrounding the process. More information on the lunch is available at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/way-forward-wsis10-review-process If you have any questions or comments about the WSIS Forum or the ongoing WSIS+10 preparations, please feel free reply to this email or to raise them here on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Regular CRISP Team Meetings
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 May '15

27 May '15

fyi. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 12 maj 2015 08:27:41 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Regular CRISP Team Meetings > > > Hi > > The CRISP team has agreed to hold regular scheduled meeting twice per month. > > The dates agreed are the 2nd Thursday and 4th Wednesday of each month, all meetings will be held at 13:00 UTC. > > Each next meeting will be subject to confirmation by the CRISP team as part of the last item of the agenda in all teleconferences. > > Reminders and webex details will be sent in advance to this list. > > Next meeting will take place on > > Wednesday May 27th 2015 at 13:00 UTC (webex details below) > > After that the tentative schedule of the 6 next meetings are as follows > > Thursday June 11 > Wednesday June 24 > Thursday July 9 > Wednesday July 22 > Thursday August 13 > Wednesday August 26 > > Regards > > German Valdez > > ===== > > CRISP Meeting 4th Wednesday each month > The 4th Wednesday of every month, from Wednesday, May 27, 2015, to Wednesday, December 23, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC) | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m078e6a61a4be9e2761e4cf1689452…> > 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…> | Toll-free calling 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

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team Meeting Wednesday May 27th 1:00 PM UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 27 May '15

27 May '15

FYI Nurani On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 27 maj 2015 11:48:32 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Reminder CRISP Team Meeting Wednesday May 27th 1:00 PM UTC > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please see below the agenda for the coming CRISP Team call today at UTC13:00 27th May. > As usual, anyone is welcome to participate as an observer. > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Notes from the last meeting > b. Submission of comment to the CWG proposal > > 3. Community discussions > a. RIPE, LACNIC meetings > b. Others regions > c. Global list > d. Reconfirm the CRISP role in SLA discussions > > 4. SLA Review as the CRISP Team > a. Feedback to the draft > b. Confirm steps and time-line before submission > > 5. Follow up on CWG proposal > a. Analysis of SLA exchange with ICANN/PTI > b. Coordination on IPR > > 6. Agenda for NRO EC-CRISP meeting > > 7. Next Meeting > > 8. AOB > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > > On 2015/05/26 19:38, German Valdez wrote: >> Webex information below. >> >> 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 <tel://707%20107%20621> >> Meeting password: crisp >> >> >> JOIN BY PHONE >> 0800-051-3810 <tel://0800-051-3810> Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> +44-203-478-5289 <tel://+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> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

IANA Stewardship on the Agenda at RIPE NCC Roundtable Lunch for Governments and Regulators
by Chris Buckridge 21 May '15

21 May '15

Dear colleagues, Following on from many successful Roundtable Meetings for Governments and Regulators, the RIPE NCC organised a Roundtable Lunch for public sector participants adjacent to the RIPE 70 Meeting in Amsterdam on Thursday, 14 May 2015. Approximately 20 representatives of governments, regulators and industry participated. The focus of the lunch agenda was the IANA stewardship transition, which was discussed in the RIPE 70 plenary session earlier in the week. The lunch was an opportunity for governments to share their perspectives and ask questions of RIPE CRISP team representatives and RIPE NCC staff. The RIPE NCC also shared a presentation with attendees on recent developments in RIPE policy, though time constraints meant that there was no opportunity for discussion of this topic. Copies of both presentation slide decks are available on the website: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/may-2015/presentations The Roundtable Lunch was held between the two sessions of the RIPE 70 Cooperation Working Group, which also allowed government participants to contribute to the Cooperation WG discussions on topics including net neutrality, security and human rights in technology. If you have any questions regarding these Roundtable Meetings, please send an email to <roundtable(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

FYI: translations of CWG-Stewardship 2nd Draft Proposal posted
by Jaap Akkerhuis 21 May '15

21 May '15

Where you can find the translations: The translated documents are currently posted on the CWG-Stewardship wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/DoQ0Aw The documents and a notice are posted on the public comment page here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… The Notice (in English): Due to the late availability of the translated versions of the proposal, those who are reliant on these translated versions to provide input will have the ability to submit their comments until 26 May at 23:59 UTC. For these submissions, CWG-Stewardship requires a covering note explaining that the comments were dependent on the translated versions. For any other submissions the existing deadline of 20 May at 23:59 UTC applies. For any questions, please email grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org.

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Comment from the CRISP Team
by Nurani Nimpuno 19 May '15

19 May '15

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the comments submitted from the CRISP Team on the 2nd draft of the CWG-Stewardship names proposal. It is not a result of a consultation within the numbers community, but simply an attempt by the CRISP team to highlight issues in the names proposal that may affect the numbers community. I would really encourage anyone interested to provide feedback on the names proposal directly through their public comments process before the deadline 20 May UTC 23:59. (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0…) Kind regards, Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 19 maj 2015 00:36:28 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Comment from the CRISP Team > > Dear Colleagues, > > > We would like to share the comment submitted from the CRISP Team on the 2nd draft of CWG-Stewardship on the names proposal. > > We hope this could serve as a reference in considering any comments you may wish to submit for their public comments process which closes at UTC 23:59 20th May. Please see more details about CWG-Stewardship proposal at : https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… > > Further, we very much value your feedback on the comments submitted from the CRISP Team. > A simple expression of support on this mailing list/to the CWG-Stewardship public comment process would be encouraging for us, while we equally welcome feedbacks which express different views from the CRISP Team. > > Please also feel free to make clarifications on any points about the comment submitted from the CRISP Team. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi and Nurani, on behalf of the CRISP Team > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Comment from the CRISP Team > Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 07:15:47 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: comments-cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-22apr15(a)icann.org, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)netnod.se> > > Dear CWG-Stewardship, > > > Thank you for the opportunity to submit public comments on the 2nd draft of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions. > We would like to congratulate the CWG-Stewardship on the coordination and efforts that have resulted in the proposal recently published for public comment. > > Please find attached the comment from the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (The CRISP Team) on your proposal. > > We hope this input would be helpful for coordination between the proposals from the operational communities in future steps and we are open to have continued communication with the CWG-Stewardship Chairs, as well as to make clarification about our comments as needed. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > Chair and Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP team Meeting : Mon 18th May
by Nurani Nimpuno 18 May '15

18 May '15

My very sincere apologies for this last minute forward. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 13 maj 2015 19:56:45 CEST > To: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Cc: "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP team Meeting : Mon 18th May > > Hi > > PLease find below webex details. > > Apologies in advance I won’t attend this meeting as I’ll be in transit to MAG meeting. LACNIC staff will provide the secretariat support during this call/ > > German > > > > >> On 14 May 2015, at 3:05 am, Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> wrote: >> >> CRISP Team, >> >> >> Outside our regular call schedule, I would like to suggest having a CRISP Team call on 18th May UTC13:00. >> >> Apologies for a very short notice and for not providing other candidates. >> Nurani and I believe we need to discuss the comments we will be submitting from the CRISP Team to the names proposal before their close of the public comments on 20th May. >> >> Michael and John have very helpfully has worked on the comprehensive and comparative analysis for the names and our proposal, so once this is shared, I encourage you all to share your feedback on the mailing list before the call. >> To submit the comments two days after our call, we need to indentify the issues to raise as the numbers community online as much as possible before the call. >> >> >> Hi German, >> >> Would appreciate it if you could help us send the webex invitation to the global inaxfer(a)nro.net <mailto:inaxfer@nro.net> list. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Izumi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CRISP mailing list >> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp > > > You can forward this invitation to others. > Hello, > German Valdez invites you to join this WebEx meeting. > > CRISP Meeting May 18th > Monday, May 18, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc730f2d38c9ddd7976a50091e34b5…> > Meeting number: 702 200 705 > 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: 702 200 705 > Global call-in numbers <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=390113…> | Toll-free calling restrictions <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5
by Salam Yamout 17 May '15

17 May '15

Dear Athina Thank you for below. The CCWG draft is indeed complicated and you have revealed the questions of interest. So here are my opinions: 1- Revised Mission - It is OK to refer to the ASO MOU between ICANN and RIRs as long as it does not contradict the CRISP proposal principles and the new (to be) SLA agreement. Are we sure that the old ASO MOU between ICANN and RIRs will be valid in the future after the IANA transition? 2- I agree with the removal of the notion "private sector led multistakeholder” 3- US Headquarters. I do not agree with the ASO representatives approach that the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue which would not be considered as fundamental. This is because we need the assurance of law enforcement in case of disputes or problems. So the definition of the of the governing law is fundamental to the enactment of the policy. We all know that what can be right in one country can be wrong in another country so we need to know which law is part of our accountability process. 4- Appeal MEchanisms. I agree with ASO representatives that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources. 5- Powers. I do have comments on the new suggested structure. a- How can the IRP be independent and selected and compensated by ICANN? Question: If ICANN is turned into a member based organization, will it always have 29 members divided between SOs/ACs as described in the CCWG proposal? Best Salam Yamout On May 16, 2015, at 1:00 PM, 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://www.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. CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the numbers community > (Athina Fragkouli) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:15:01 +0200 > From: Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the > numbers community > Message-ID: <5555FF65.2000405(a)ripe.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Dear colleagues, > > The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability > (CCWG) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft > Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: > > CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… > [PDF, 1.72 MB] > > CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… > [PDF, 2.05 MB] > > The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the numbers community to > review and give feedback on any specific points in the Draft Report, and > reply to the questions listed in the document. > > At the same time we would like to draw the numbers community?s attention > to the following matters, as we believe that they are of interest to the > numbers community and we would appreciate the community's feedback: > > 1. Revised Mission > > The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN?s mission > (more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting > process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of > ICANN?s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for > Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative > description reads as follows: > > ?In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN?s > Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.? > > Do you feel that this description is accurate? > > 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values > > The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws > (page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows: > > ?Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led > multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from > the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) > promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) > ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy > development process;? > > Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent > and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion > of the notion of ?private sector led multistakeholder?, which is put in > square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on > whether ICANN?s core values include the employment of RIR global policies. > > Do you agree with the removal of the notion ?private sector led > multistakeholder?? > > 3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws > > The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of > Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in > particular regarding ICANN?s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has > suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept > of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the > Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is > that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, > SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other > hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs > (75% vote). > > One of these provisions 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.? > > As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be > incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this > provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by > the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of > Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental > principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue, > which would not be considered as fundamental. > > Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach? > > 4. 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 commented that, even > though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and > forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is > outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures 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. > > Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the > CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be > excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been > developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. > > 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. > > 5. Powers > > The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community > empowerment: > > Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of the > Draft Report, pp 47-48) - We would like to note that this power was > listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG. > - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the > Draft Report pp 48-49) > - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report > pp 49-50) > - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp > 50-52) > - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53) > > These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN?s structure into a > membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members. > Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal > (pp 42-45). > > Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the > suggested structure? > > Thank you, > > Athina Fragkouli > ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5 > *********************************************

1 0

CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the numbers community
by Athina Fragkouli 15 May '15

15 May '15

Dear colleagues, The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the numbers community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the Draft Report, and reply to the questions listed in the document. At the same time we would like to draw the numbers community’s attention to the following matters, as we believe that they are of interest to the numbers community and we would appreciate the community's feedback: 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of ICANN’s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” Do you feel that this description is accurate? 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws (page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion of the notion of “private sector led multistakeholder”, which is put in square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on whether ICANN’s core values include the employment of RIR global policies. Do you agree with the removal of the notion “private sector led multistakeholder”? 3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs (75% vote). One of these provisions 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.” As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue, which would not be considered as fundamental. Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach? 4. 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 commented that, even though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures 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. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. 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. 5. Powers The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community empowerment: Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of the Draft Report, pp 47-48) - We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG. - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the Draft Report pp 48-49) - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report pp 49-50) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp 50-52) - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53) These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members. Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal (pp 42-45). Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the suggested structure? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [NRO secretariat] [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 19th Meeting May 7th 1:00 PM UTC 2015
by Andrei Robachevsky 07 May '15

07 May '15

FYI, Andrei Robachevsky -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [NRO secretariat] [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 19th Meeting May 7th 1:00 PM UTC 2015 Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:39:41 +1000 From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net Sorry for last minute notification. Agenda and Webex details for CRISP Team 19th meeting. Regards German > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> > *Subject: **Re: [NRO secretariat] [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 19th Meeting > May 7th 1:00 2015 PM UTC* > *Date: *6 May 2015 12:03:16 pm AEST > *To: *<crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>>, "secretariat(a)nro.net > <mailto:secretariat@nro.net> Secretariat" <secretariat(a)nro.net > <mailto:secretariat@nro.net>> > > Thanks German. > > Would you help us share this invitation to the ianaxfer(a)nro.net > <mailto:ianaxfer@nro.net> list as well, if this it not yet shared? > > > CRISP Team, > > Please share this to your regional lists. > I also welcome your feedback on the draft agenda below. > > > ---- > Draft Agenda: > > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Action Items > a. Minutes from the last call > b. Fix regular Meeting Schedule > c. Arrange a call with CWG-Stewardship Chairs > d. Follow up from the GAO Interview > > 3. Confirm the current status > a. Preparing implementation by RIRs > b. Feedback from Global list > c. Feedback RIR regional lists + Preparation for RIPE70 > d. Feedback from other communities > > 4. Reconfirm the role of the CRISP Team in community consultation on > implementation > > 5. Update on the meeting with CWG-Stewardship Chairs > a. Key points relevant to the numbers > b. Next steps > > 6. Next Meeting > > 7. AOB > ---- > > > Izumi > > On 2015/05/01 19:59, German Valdez wrote: >> You can forward this invitation to others. >> >> Hello, >> German Valdez invites you to join this WebEx meeting. >> >> *CRISP Team 19th Meeting* >> Thursday, May 7, 2015 >> 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr >> >> *Join WebEx meeting* >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m576475b86b33f866cfe001f369705…> >> >> Meeting number:701 321 579 >> 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: 701 321 579 >> Global call-in numbers >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=387582…> >> | >> Toll-free calling restrictions >> <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >> >> Add this meeting >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=me60890866556c087255f2194811e4…> >> to >> your calendar. >> >> Can't join the meeting? Contact support. >> <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 >> > >

1 0

CCWG-Accountability Publishes Draft Report
by Athina Fragkouli 06 May '15

06 May '15

Dear colleagues, The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] This initial Draft Proposal is focused on draft Work Stream 1 recommendations. Work Stream 1 relates to those changes to ICANN’s accountability arrangements that must be in place, or committed to, prior to the IANA stewardship transition. More information can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20… The CCWG-Accountability is seeking public comments until 3 June, 23:59 UTC. For the better understanding of the CCWG-Accountability work, you are invited to join a webinar that will provide an overview of their work and answer any questions you may have. Two webinars will held at different times to facilitate participation across time zones (the content of these webinars will be identical): 11 May from UTC 11:00 – 12:30 11 May from UTC 19:00 – 20:30 For further details please see: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53773485 An analysis on specific issues that may affect the numbering community will be available shortly. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition at RIPE 70
by Paul Rendek 05 May '15

05 May '15

Dear colleagues, RIPE 70 is approaching next week, and the IANA stewardship transition will once again be an important issue for discussion and consideration by the community. Unlike previous RIPE Meetings, discussion of IANA stewardship will be held in the plenary session to take place on Tuesday, 12 May, from 16:00-18:00 CEST. This presentation will be delivered by the RIPE CRISP team members; Nurani Nimpuno, Andrei Robachevsky and RIPE NCC staff representative Paul Rendek, and RIPE NCC Legal Counsel, Athina Fragkouli. The presentation will take the following format, allowing time for community discussion and feedback: 1. Update on the CRISP process to date and the Internet numbers community proposal on IANA stewardship 2. Presentation of the draft Service Level Agreement prepared by RIR legal staff 3. Update on developments in other IANA-affected community (names, protocol parameters), discussion of concerns and expectations in moving towards a single IANA stewardship proposal As background to this discussion, the following documents are available for you to read: Internet Numbers Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRODiscussionList_20150116.pdf Draft Service Level Agreement for IANA Numbering Services: https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num… CRISP team information and archive material: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team Background information on IANA stewardship transition: https://ripe.net/iana-stewardship-transition RIPE 70 will also include an update on the work of the ICANN Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability by Athina Fragkouli, who serves as an Address Supporting Organisation representative on the group. This update will take place during the plenary session on Friday, 15 May, from 9:00-10:30 CEST. All RIPE CRISP team members will be on-site at the RIPE Meeting throughout next week, and we look forward to speaking with meeting attendees about the IANA stewardship transition issues. Best regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team

1 0

Call for Comments for a Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Nick Hyrka 01 May '15

01 May '15

Dear colleagues, There is a call for comments for a draft Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services. Please find more information on the NRO website here: https://www.nro.net/news/call-for-comments-for-a-draft-sla-for-the-iana-num… The call for comments will remain open until 14 June 2015 at 23:59 (UTC). Kind regards Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] 2nd Draft of IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions published
by Nurani Nimpuno 28 Apr '15

28 Apr '15

FYI. Kind regards, Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)netnod.se> > Date: 28 april 2015 21:41:28 CEST > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] 2nd Draft of IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions published > > Dear colleagues, > > We would like to draw your attention to the 2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions, which has now been published: > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-0… > > On this page, you will find the full proposal, the Chairs' Foreword summarising the proposal, instructions on how to provide feedback on the proposal, and a Public Comment Input Template. The comment period for this draft proposal is open until 20 May 2015. > > We would like to encourage anyone interested in the Names Community's proposal to read it and to provide feedback within the comment period. > > The CRISP team has started the work of conducting an analysis of the Names Community's proposal to identify any issues that may affect the Numbers Community. We hope to share this analysis with the community, once completed. > > As you are awre, the CRISP chairs have also contacted the chairs of the Names Community, requesting them to communicate any issues they identify in their proposal that might affect the Numbers Community, before the final submission to the ICG. (See the forwarded mail below.) > > We are scheduling a teleconference with the chairs of the Names Community to discuss this. > > Kind regards, > > Izumi Okutani, CRISP chair > Nurani Nimpuno, CRISP vice chair > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> Date: 24 mars 2015 09:37:35 CET >> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> >> To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> >> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions >> >> FYI, based on discussions within the CRISP Team, I have made this request to CWG-Names chairs so we would be informed of any dicussions in the CWG-Names which affects the numbers community. >> Still waiting for their response. >> >> Regards, >> Izumi >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Request for Communication with CWG-Stewardship on Naming Related Functions >> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:57:55 +0900 >> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> >> To: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info>, Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> >> CC: Alan Barrett <apb(a)cequrux.com> >> >> Dear Jonathan and Lise, >> >> >> I am writing to you as Chair of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, responsible for preparation of the numbers community's response to the ICG's Request for Proposals. >> >> It was helpful to have the update on the CWG for Naming Related Functions progress at the session in Singapore, including the revised timeline of the process proposed by the CWG-Names, with a CWG-Names proposal submission in June later this year. This revised timeline increases the need for collaborative and constructive work in the ICG as well as between all three stakeholder communities to progress efficiently with the timeline. We remain positive that a proposal satisfactory to all parties, can be produced through this process. >> >> The ICG's decision to seek proposals from the three separate affected communities reflects the distinct needs, mechanisms and historical development of these three communities. At the same time, developing a proposal that satisfactorily addresses stewardship of all the IANA functions is a priority for all parties. >> >> With this in mind, I would like to request that the Chairs of the CWG-Names communicate directly to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the CRISP team, regarding any proposals or developments that might affect the numbers community in advance, and not wait for the final submission to the ICG. >> >> This level of direct communication and collaboration will allow all communities to consider the impact and potential compatibility issues among the proposals ahead of the ICG consolidation process, consult appropriately within their communities, and, if necessary, develop appropriate responses efficiently, rather than wait for inputs from the numbers community after the ICG consolidates proposal from all the operational communities. Such bottom-up consideration by all communities will be essential to the authority and success of any final proposal to the NTIA. >> >> I look forward to hearing of your continued progress, and to work collaboratively with you to achieve a successful outcome for all, of the IANA Stewardship transition. >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Izumi Okutani, Alan Barrett >> CRISP Team Chair, Vice-Chair >> ___________________ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Agenda and Webex info for CRISP Team 18th Meeting April 23rd 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Apr '15

23 Apr '15

fyi. Nurani Nimpuno > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 23 april 2015 06:44:57 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Agenda and Webex info for CRISP Team 18th Meeting April 23rd 2015 13:00 UTC > > Hi > > Please find below, agenda and webex information for CRISP Team meeting to be held on Friday April 23rd at 13:00 UTC > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Update on the CRISP Team Composition > a. Welcome new member: Janvier Ngnoulayea > > 3. Action Items > a. Minutes from the last call > b. Share future steps with the community > c. Confirm about IPR and the IETF Trust with the IETF > d. Arrange a call with CWG-Stewardship Chairs > e. Doodle poll on future call schedule (have some regularity) > > 4. Confirm community feedback > a. ARIN35 > b. Other RIR regions > c. Global list > > 5. Update on GAO interview > > 6. Update on the call with NRO EC > a. Overview: What was confirmed, follow up items > b. The role (if any) of the CRISP Team in community consultation > c. The role (if any) of the CRISP Team in NRO website of discussions at RIR meetings > > 7. Preparation for ICANN Board panel > a. Jurisdiction > b. Country of the IANA function operator > c. Implications for delay in submission of the proposal > d. Ability for RIR community to chose the IANA operator > e. IPR > f. Gap between traditional negitiations and open community process > > 8. Next Meeting > > 9. AOB > > === > >> >> >> CRISP Team 18th Meeting >> Thursday, April 23, 2015 >> 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr >> >> Join WebEx meeting <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m4067a2dd09675ad7f7ae25a317a69…> >> Meeting number: 704 615 073 >> 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: 704 615 073 >> Global call-in numbers <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=383953…> | Toll-free calling restrictions <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >> >> >> Regards >> >> German Valdez >> > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on the GCCS 2015
by Chris Buckridge 21 Apr '15

21 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on our participation in the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS) 2015 that was held in The Hague on 16-17 April: https://www.ripe.net/reports/gccs2015 Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Report on 2015 Russian IGF
by Maxim Burtikov 17 Apr '15

17 Apr '15

Dear colleagues, The sixth annual Russian Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was held on 7 April 2015 in Moscow, Russia. The meeting attracted over 500 participants and focused on Internet governance and regulation, as well as the technical, political and economic aspects of ICT development. In the opening plenary, concerns were raised about the stability and resiliency of the Russian Internet (Runet). Representatives from the Russian Telecommunications Ministry and the Russian Parliament joined a number of attendees expressing concern at the case of registrars closing the accounts of Crimean domain holders following sanctions by the United States. Several speakers described this as a dangerous precedent and a serious problem for global Internet governance, with several noting that the Internet by its nature should be trans-border. The Internet of Things (IoT) was a major topic of discussion, and seen by many participants as an inevitable development, though still some way off. IPv6 was recognised as necessary for the IoT and the role of the RIPE NCC and other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) in helping to facilitate this was acknowledged. Privacy and security issues associated with IoT were also a cause for concern, with many feeling that they were not yet being addressed. The meeting included discussions on the importance of dialogue between industry and government. The main message from the Ministry was that the Russian Government was actively seeking industry’s feedback and provided multiple channels for this. Some speakers made the contentious observation that there has been a lack of engagement on the side of industry, and while others disagreed with that observation, all parties agreed that effective dialogue was vital. Kaveh Ranjbar, RIPE NCC Chief Information Officer, participated in a panel session entitled “We Share the Same Technology Regardless of Ideology”. This was a broad discussion on security, technology and standards – primarily within the context of the IoT – with a focus on the importance of stable, accepted standards in facilitating Internet growth. More information, including video archives, is available on the Russian IGF website <http://rigf.ru/en/>. Best, Maxim RIPE NCC

1 0

Upcoming Digital Rights Europe Conference #DRE2015
by Niall O'Reilly 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

Hello, Coop-WGers. In case this isn't already on your radar, it looks like a really interesting conference: https://www.digitalrights.ie/speakers/ Best regards, Niall O'Reilly

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 4
by Salam Yamout 13 Apr '15

13 Apr '15

Congratulations Nurani! On Apr 10, 2015, at 1:00 PM, 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://www.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. Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement of the new CRISP Team Vice > Chair (Nurani Nimpuno) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:53:15 +0200 > From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)netnod.se> > To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement of the new > CRISP Team Vice Chair > Message-ID: <FA6A4DD8-536B-4C4C-BB0D-B3875D34A3EA(a)netnod.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > FYI. > > Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> Date: 10 april 2015 05:30:48 CEST >> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> >> To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> >> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement of the new CRISP Team Vice Chair >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> I am pleased to announce that Nurani Nimpuno has been elected as the new Vice Chair of the CRISP Team. >> Based on the election was conducted at the 17th CRISP Team call on 8th April, she has replaced Alan Barrett who has been serving as the Vice Chair. >> >> Following his appointment as the CEO of AFRINIC, Alan Barrett will be resigning from the CRISP Team after 19th April 2015. >> He will continue to serve as an ICG member representing NRO. >> >> Many thanks to Alan for the great contributions he has made to the CRISP Team and the numbers community in developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for the IANA Numbering Services. >> Congratulations to Nurani as the new Vice Chair of the CRISP Team! >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Izumi Okutani >> Chair, the CRISP Team >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 4 > *********************************************

2 1

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next Steps in the Process and the Community Engagement
by Nurani Nimpuno 10 Apr '15

10 Apr '15

FYI. An update from the APNIC 38 meeting in Fukuoka last month, and an outline of the next steps in the process. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 10 april 2015 20:35:48 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Next Steps in the Process and the Community Engagement > > Dear Colleagues, > > > As a follow up from APNIC39 Conference which was held in Fukuoka in March 2015, which discussed the next steps on preparation of implementation for the numbers proposal, summary of major discussion points are now available from the NRO website. > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/sla-developm… > > I would like to highlight three key points from the meeting. > > 1. The ability to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator > In course of developing the SLA, it was consulted at the meeting whether the ability to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator is a critical and essential part of the SLA contract. > It was confirmed at the meeting that : > > - The ability to choose the IANA Numbering Services operator is seen as one of the most important elements in ensuring the accountability of the IANA numbering function operator. > - As defined in the numbers community proposal, the possibility of changing the operator from ICANN in the future should remain open, which is expected to be reflected in the SLA. > - APNIC confirmed that the RIR would work on an SLA that is consistent with the numbers community proposal, to reflect the intention of the community. > > 2. Transparency in providing feedback on the implementation > - The proposal consolidated by the CRISP Team was developed based on the requirements announced by the NTIA in March 2014, with consensus from the numbers community. > Therefore, in case there are any concerns for implementation to be consistent with the numbers community proposal, including the ability to choose an operator for the IANA numbering services, it should be > communicated to the community's attention in a transparent manner. > > 3. Future steps in the community consultation on implementation > - The plan is to carry the community consultation over the course of the coming months at the RIR meetings - this APNIC meeting is the first of these. > - During this period, all regions will have the chance to discuss issues relevant to the drafting of the SLA. > - After all the regional consultations are complete and all these processes have run their course, we should have a final agreed SLA as the outcome, which would then be part of the implementation of the numbers community proposal. > > From this stage, the RIRs will be responsible in preparing implementation of the IANA stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and consulting with the community on its implementation as needed, based on the numbers community proposal. > > In preparation for implementation, RIRs will be consulting with the community at the coming RIR meetings, as well as on the global ianaxfer(a)nro.net and each regional mailing lists as when appropriate. > > The CRISP Team have completed its role of developing the community based proposal for the IANA Numbering Services after its submission to the ICG but continues to be engaged in : > - Clarifying the intention of the proposal to the RIRs in preparing its implementation, in transparent manner with the community > - Share observation to the RIRs on community feedback received about implementation, whether it is consistent with the proposal > - Follow up with the RIRs on the status and latest timeline of the preparation of implementation > > As the next RIR meeting, where the community will be consulted on the status of implementation, ARIN35 Meeting will be held in San Francisco with a CRISP Panel at 11:00 AM-12:00 PM (UTC-7) Monday, 13 April, 2015. > Panelists will report on the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team's proposal, which was submitted to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group, as well as talk about current status and the next steps. > > http://www.cvent.com/events/arin-35-public-policy-and-members-meeting/agend… > > Online participation is possible for those who cannot attend the meeting physically, and I encourage the community members to join the community consultation at ARIN35. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement of the new CRISP Team Vice Chair
by Nurani Nimpuno 10 Apr '15

10 Apr '15

FYI. Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 10 april 2015 05:30:48 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Announcement of the new CRISP Team Vice Chair > > Dear Colleagues, > > > I am pleased to announce that Nurani Nimpuno has been elected as the new Vice Chair of the CRISP Team. > Based on the election was conducted at the 17th CRISP Team call on 8th April, she has replaced Alan Barrett who has been serving as the Vice Chair. > > Following his appointment as the CEO of AFRINIC, Alan Barrett will be resigning from the CRISP Team after 19th April 2015. > He will continue to serve as an ICG member representing NRO. > > Many thanks to Alan for the great contributions he has made to the CRISP Team and the numbers community in developing the IANA stewardship transition proposal for the IANA Numbering Services. > Congratulations to Nurani as the new Vice Chair of the CRISP Team! > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda Re: CRISP 17th Teleconference Wednesday April 8th 2015 20:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

FYI. Please find below the agenda for tonight's CRISP Team conference call. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 8 april 2015 12:00:20 CEST > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda Re: CRISP 17th Teleconference Wednesday April 8th 2015 20:00 UTC > > Colleagues, > > > Please see below the draft agenda for the coming CRISP Team call at > UTC20:00 8th Apr. > > As in all CRISP Team calls, it is open to anyone to join as an observer. > > > Regards, > Izumi > > ---- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Election of the Vice-Chair > (To be chaired by non-voting member) > > 3. Actions Review > a. Notes from the last meeting > b. FAQ, CRISP Slides > c. Message to ICG about CWG-Stewardship > d. Share future steps with the community > e. Confirm with NRO about RIR's official response > (on proposal, future steps) > > 4. Update > a. ICG > b. RIR communities (including ARIN35) > c. CWG-Stewardship (Names) Co-Chairs, IETF > d. GAO > > 6. Confirm Status & Next Steps > a. SLA, Review Committee > b. Community engagement, engagement with RIRs > c. IPR > > 7. Next Meeting > > 8. AOB > ---- > > On 2015/04/08 13:05, German Valdez wrote: >> Hi >> >> CRISP 17th Teleconference will take place on Wednesday April 8th 2015 at >> 20:00 UTC. Meeting as usual is open to observers >> >> Sorry for the short notice. >> >> regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO >> >> >> *CRISP Team 17th Meeting* >> Wednesday, April 8, 2015 >> 8:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 2 hrs >> >> *Join WebEx meeting >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18…> >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18… >> >> Meeting number: 700 520 727 >> 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: 700 520 727 >> Global call-in numbers >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=382164…> | >> Toll-free calling restrictions >> <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP 17th Teleconference Wednesday April 8th 2015 20:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

FYI. Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 8 april 2015 06:05:30 CEST > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP 17th Teleconference Wednesday April 8th 2015 20:00 UTC > > Hi > > CRISP 17th Teleconference will take place on Wednesday April 8th 2015 at 20:00 UTC. Meeting as usual is open to observers > > Sorry for the short notice. > > regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > CRISP Team 17th Meeting > Wednesday, April 8, 2015 > 8:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 2 hrs > > Join WebEx meeting <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18…> > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9a21de42cf3b6330390d4f0824c18…> > Meeting number: 700 520 727 > 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: 700 520 727 > Global call-in numbers <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=382164…> | Toll-free calling 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

[anti-abuse-wg] Meeting with Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)
by Marco Hogewoning 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

On 20 Mar 2015, at 11:13, Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg(a)c4inet.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:31:53PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > >> In response to feedback from the RIPE community, a more detailed >> report of this meeting has been prepared and is available here: >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/lea-meetings/ripe-ncc-law-enforcement-me… > > Can I suggest that this be posted on ncc-announce also? I'm sure the > level of "partnership" with LEAs is of interest to the wider > membership beyond the subscribers of anti-abuse-wg. Dear Sascha, We have cooperated with NCA over the past several years to organise this specific annual event. We work together to shape the agenda, making sure it has relevance to the LEAs, and NCA also helps to make sure the relevant agencies receive an invitation. We have also taken your suggestion and shared this report with the membership via the ncc-announce mailing list. Regards Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC

1 0

Meeting with Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)
by Marco Hogewoning 20 Mar '15

20 Mar '15

Dear Colleagues, We recently held our seventh meeting for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), in partnership with the British National Crime Agency (NCA) and the other RIRs. Held on 12 March 2015, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss trends and developments that might impact the operations of LEAs and to gather the global law enforcement community’s perspective. A number of key points arose throughout the day: - The RIPE NCC highlighted that much of the information that LEAs required was publicly available and did not require a Dutch court order - Attendees agreed that the current multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance was preferable, but felt that LEAs and governments needed to engage more effectively within the existing structures - The relatively slow adoption of IPv6 and the spread of IP address sharing technologies such as Carrier Grade NAT will increasingly create issues around identifying specific end users - LEAs felt that cooperation with the private sector is extremely important and could improve greatly, but it was also understood that this came with additional costs In response to feedback from the RIPE community, a more detailed report of this meeting has been prepared and is available here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/lea-meetings/ripe-ncc-law-enforcement-me… We would like to thank the NCA for its help in putting together this day and are looking forward to continue our engagement with the global law enforcement community. We are happy to answer any questions you may have about this meeting or our LEA engagement activities in general. Regards, Marco Hogewoning External Relations Officer - Technical Advisor RIPE NCC

4 3

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft agenda Re: WebEx meeting invitation: CRISP Team 16th Teleconference Friday, March 13 2015
by Nurani Nimpuno 13 Mar '15

13 Mar '15

Please find below the agenda for the CRISP Call today. (Apologies for the lateness of this mail.) Kind regards, Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft agenda Re: WebEx meeting invitation: CRISP Team 16th Teleconference Friday, March 13 2015 > Date: 11 mars 2015 04:51:42 CET > To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net>, "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > > CRISP Team, > > > Please see below the draft agenda for the coming CRISP Team meeting this > Friday, 13th March. > > I welcome your feedback on anything else you'd like to discuss. > > Thanks German for the inivitation for the meeting to the CRISP Team > mailing list. > > Would you help us send the invitation to the global IANAXFER list as > well? I'll follow up about the agenda. > > ---- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Agenda for 15th Meeting > b. Response to the ICG on incompatibilities > c. Questions from the ICG > > 3. Key updates > a. Update from ICG discussions (if any) > b. Discussions at APNIC39 Conference > > 4. Next steps: Preparing Implementation > a. SLA and Review Committee > b. the role of the CRISP Team > > 5. Handling of comments for the proposal > a. From the ICG > b. Informal feedback from others > c. FAQ > > 6. Other operational communities > a. Names discussions > b. Handling of IPR > > 7. Future Call > a. Needs basis/pre-plan monthly > > 6. AOB > ---- > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > > On 2015/03/10 22:37, German Valdez wrote: >>> >>> *CRISP Team 16th Teleconference* >>> Friday, March 13, 2015 >>> 1:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 2 hrs >>> >>> *Join WebEx meeting* >>> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m6e865d620513c70c8eab435c0e4dc…> >>> >>> Meeting number: 701 646 062 >>> 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: 701 646 062 >>> Global call-in numbers >>> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=376300…> | >>> Toll-free calling restrictions >>> <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >>> >>> Add this meeting >>> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mcb35d3ee6ba599275ee56bf933e99…>to >>> your calendar. >>> >>> Can't join the meeting?Contact support. <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. >>>

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] WebEx meeting invitation: CRISP Team 16th Teleconference Friday, March 13 2015
by Nurani Nimpuno 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

FYI. The CRISP team will hold its 16th teleconference this Friday 14:00 CET. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno On behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] WebEx meeting invitation: CRISP Team 16th Teleconference Friday, March 13 2015 > Date: 10 mars 2015 14:37:58 CET > To: <crisp(a)nro.net> > > > Dear Team > > Please find below the webex information for this Friday Teleconference. > > Please let me know if I can forward the invitation in the global list. > > Thanks > > German > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> Date: 10 March 2015 11:24:57 pm AEST >> From: German Valdez <messenger(a)webex.com> >> Reply-To: <german(a)nro.net> >> To: <german(a)nro.net> >> Subject: (Forward to others) WebEx meeting invitation: CRISP Team 16th Teleconference >> >> You can forward this invitation to others. >> Hello, >> German Valdez invites you to join this WebEx meeting. >> >> CRISP Team 16th Teleconference >> Friday, March 13, 2015 >> 1:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 2 hrs >> >> Join WebEx meeting >> Meeting number: 701 646 062 >> 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: 701 646 062 >> Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions >> >> Add this meeting to your calendar. >> >> Can't join the meeting? Contact support. >> >> 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 > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

IANA Stewardship and ICANN Accountability Dominate ICANN 52 Discussions
by Chris Buckridge 23 Feb '15

23 Feb '15

Dear colleagues, The 52nd ICANN meeting was held in Singapore from 8-12 February, attracting around 1800 participants on-site, as well as numerous remote participants. The issues surrounding the transition of IANA stewardship and ICANN accountability were again at the top of the agenda, and RIPE community members and RIPE NCC staff contributed to these discussions. Discussion of the CRISP Team Proposal As discussed in the RIPE Cooperation Working Group and elsewhere, the Internet numbers community submitted its proposal for future stewardship of the number-related IANA functions to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. This proposal, and the counterpart proposal regarding the IANA protocol parameter registries developed within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), were discussed in various ICANN 52 sessions, with representatives of the CRISP team, including Izumi Okutani (CRISP team Chair), Alan Barrett (CRISP team Vice-chair) and Nurani Nimpuno (RIPE CRISP team representative) contributing to discussions and ensuring all aspects of the numbers community IANA stewardship proposal were correctly understood. The meeting provided opportunities for the RIR senior staff, CRISP team members, members of the ICG, ICANN staff, NTIA staff and representatives of the other IANA affected communities to discuss implementation and operational questions arising from the community proposals already delivered. It also provided an opportunity for initial discussions between legal personnel from the RIRs and ICANN regarding development of the Service Level Agreement covering operation of the IANA Numbering Services (as defined in the numbers community IANA proposal). Links to all of the sessions dealing with IANA stewardship transition are available at: https://ripe.net/iana-discussions ICANN Accountability The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met numerous times during the week to continue its work identifying and developing solutions to accountability concerns, with a particular focus on those issues which the group identifies as critical ahead of the IANA stewardship transition. The link between these accountability solutions and a successful transition of the IANA stewardship was again emphasised by participants including Lawrence Strickling, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). RIPE NCC’s Athina Fragkouli is participating in the CCWG-Accountability as an ASO representative (alongside Izumi Okutani, Fiona Asonga and Jorge Villa), and will seek feedback from the RIPE community and provide updates as the group’s work progresses. Progress on the Naming Community Proposal Discussions during the week also focused heavily on the proposal currently under development by the Cross-Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (commonly referred to as the CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship’s recent announcement regarding a revised timeline that would see its proposal delivered to the ICG in June 2015 was of particular interest. There were also discussions on the substantive concerns about whether ICANN itself or a new, external contracting company would hold the stewardship of the names-related IANA functions. The Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship have released a statement summarising developments coming out of ICANN 52: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2015-02-12-en In addition, the ICANN Board issued a statement clarifying that it will promptly forward the proposals received from the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability to the NTIA, without modification: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-02-12-en Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process "
by Nurani Nimpuno 07 Feb '15

07 Feb '15

Dear colleagues, Please find below the email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. The mail addresses concerns raised by some members of the list after the submission of the CRISP proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). We very much welcome your input in this discussion, as some of the points raised concerns the amount of community support this proposal holds. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " > Date: 4 februari 2015 20:54:59 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear all, > > > This is the CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR > proposal development process ", which is another post to icg-forum. > > Again, I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is > likely to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the RIR > proposal development process " > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:43:25 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: icg-forum(a)icann.org > CC: crisp(a)nro.net <crisp(a)nro.net> > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html > > The concerns expressed by Mr Hill were considered in depth during the > CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on the > ianaxfer mailing list with Mr Hill as well as other community members. > > The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus > position of the community. > > > Richard Hill wrote: > >> Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP > mailing list >> (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute > resolution. >> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had appropriate > legal >> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see: >> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html > > Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were well > documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were > discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio > archives of these calls are available at https://nro.net/crisp-team). > Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of community > comments and concerns posted at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the text of > our response to the ICG RFP: > > “The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.” > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement Principles. > This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer > mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level > principles. > > The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by Mr > Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in the > proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR > communities, as quoted earlier. > > The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the > ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly > supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR > legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji (7 > Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12 > January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this view. > All of these mails can be read at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html > > A further concern noted by Mr Hill: >> That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when important >> details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the global >> multi-stakeholder community? > > The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that the > community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is reflected > in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over these > functions via a contractual relationship. It is the responsibility of > the parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team > believes that by directing the RIRs to consult with their communities > and by laying down the principles mentioned above, we have established a > framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate in > the best interests of the community. > > Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the > outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. As > noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list, > many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr Hill. > From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the > ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is available > at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > > I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s position in > regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to discuss > any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful. > > > Yours sincerely, > > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

5 4

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] IANA stewardship transition session at ICANN52 Singapore (2/8 & 2/9)
by Nurani Nimpuno 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

FYI. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 6 februari 2015 14:00:55 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] IANA stewardship transition session at ICANN52 Singapore (2/8 & 2/9) > > Colleaugues, > > > There will be two sessions at ICANN32 Singapore Meeting that cover the > IANA stewardship transition. > > You can join both sessions remotely. > > The seond session will be sharing overview of proposals/situation of all > three operational communities of the IANA function, and have discussions > with the participants. There will be presentation on the CRISP Team's > work for the number resources. > > > * Sunday, 8 February 2015 17:30 to 19:00 SGT > - IANA Stewardship Transition/Enhancing ICANN Accountability > Information Session > - > http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-iana-stewardship-accountability > > * Monday, 9 February 2015 10:15 to 13:00 SGT > - Responses to the ICG RFP Regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition > - http://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2015-02-09 > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns"
by Nurani Nimpuno 06 Feb '15

06 Feb '15

Dear colleagues, Please find below another email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to the global ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. As stated in my previous mail, we very much welcome the RIPE community's continued input in this discussion on the ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: 4 februari 2015 20:53:49 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear all, > > > I would like to share the CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process > Concerns", which has been posted to icg-forum. > > I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which is likely > to be a reference to the ICG. > > Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. > > > > Regards, > Izumi > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "CRISP - Process Concerns" > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:37:01 +0900 > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > To: icg-forum(a)icann.org > > Dear ICG members, > > > On 22 January 2015 Guru Acharya wrote to the icg-forum list with a > number of concerns about the CRISP team process. > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00024.html > > The CRISP Team was not able to confirm concrete evidence/facts on these > concerns, as explained below. > > We also note that while present as an observer on a number of CRISP > teleconferences, we did not observe Guru Archaya raising any of these > concerns on ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list or on any of the regional > community lists on which the CRISP process was being discussed. > > > Guru Acharya writes: > >> I would like to highlight the following concerns about the process > adopted >> by CRISP, which disqualify it from satisfying the criteria of following a >> bottom-up multi-stakeholder process as mandated by the NTIA. >> >> 1) Top-down composition and selection of CRISP team: The CRISP team was a >> closed group selected by the RIR executive committee by way of an > interview >> process. Interested participants were excluded from the working group if >> they did not successfully qualify for the interviews conducted by the RIR >> executive committee. The selection criteria for the candidates was > not made >> public by the RIR executive committee. This is important given that >> non-CRISP participants were excluded from the decision-making process. > > > Before setting up the CRISP Team, RIRs published the process for > producing a single proposal from the global IP addressing community to > the NTIA, and there was an opportunity for discussions on the public > <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list as below: > > On 16 October the five RIRs published a process for producing a single > proposal from the global IP addressing community to the NTIA. > https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship… > > According to this process the CRISP team would consist of 15 members, > two appointees from each RIR region who are not RIR staff, and one RIR > staff member from each region, who shall assist with the submission > development effort. Each RIR was to appoint their CRISP team members by > a method of its own choosing by 15 November 2014. There was some > discussion on the public <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list on 21 October > about standardising a CRISP team selection process across all five RIR > regions, but no broader community support was expressed for this change. > See: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-October/000016.html > > Following this announcement each of the five RIRs announced an open call > for participants, to which any one could express their interest, as well > as the process according to which the selection of the CRISP members > would be conducted. The process and relevant announcements of each RIR > are described in the Internet Number Community Response to the ICG RFP > (sections VI.B.1-VI.B.5 on "Community Process"). > > In most cases the RIR executive committees made the final selection of > CRISP representatives from community volunteers. At no point in the > process were any explicit objections raised to any of the CRISP team > members, nor were any appeals made by volunteers not selected to join > the CRISP team. > >> >> 2) Top-down decision-making by the CRISP team: While the general > public was >> invited to provide comments for the draft proposals prepared by > CRISP, they >> were excluded from the decision-making process. Commenters were merely >> informed that their input had either been accepted or rejected by the > CRISP >> team after due consideration. Notably, non-CRISP participants were not >> allowed to contribute to CRISP's tele-conferences or CRISP's internal >> mailing list, where the actual decision-making took place. Mere >> consultation of the general public without their involvement in the >> decision-making process does not constitute a bottom-up multi-stakeholder >> process. > > > Each of the RIR communities had conducted discussions on the IANA > stewardship transition for the IANA Numbering Services and the role of > the CRISP Team is to consolidate it as a single global proposal. > > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… > > The proposal to establish a CRISP team was distributed to all of the RIR > communities and the <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list established on 16 > October 2015. The first CRISP team teleconference was held on 9 December > 2015. This provided the community with nearly two months during which > they could comment on or object to any elements of the proposal to set > up the CRISP team (as noted above, there was some discussion around 21 > October relating to CRISP team selection processes, but there was not > community support for changing the proposed process). > > The CRISP team members agreed with the arrangements laid out in the > proposal (while developing some additional mechanisms, including the > internal CRISP mailing list and a working definition of quorum for the > group). CRISP team members also understood a key part of their role to > be facilitating input from the regional communities, and this was > evident throughout the process - teleconference notes from the third > teleconference onwards record various CRISP team members conveying input > from their regional mailing lists. > > Invitations to join the CRISP Team Teleconferences as observers were > sent to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list, which were forwarded to mailing > lists of RIR regions by the CRISP Team members. > > Subscription to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list was open to anyone, and > there was no restrictions on posting comments to the list, including > making comments about the CRISP Team discussions at any of the CRISP > Team Teleconferences. > > A concrete record of all the concerns raised by the community on various > mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and made available at: > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NRODiscussionList_20150116.pdf > > This spreadsheet indicated the issue, the initial mail in which the > issue was raised, the CRISP team's discussion of the issue and the > current CRISP team position. This clearly demonstrates that the process > of community participation facilitated by the CRISP team worked smoothly > to address a wide range of community input throughout the process. > >> >> 3) Lack of information and transparency: The CRISP team had two mailing >> lists. The mailing list used internally by the CRISP team was a closed >> mailing list that was not publicly archived till after the proposal was >> finalised. This resulted in community evaluation of the process and >> proposal in the absence of requisite information about the reasons > for any >> decisions. > > As noted in the initial CRISP team proposal and charter, "The CRISP team > shall also work through a public mailing list and the archive of such > mailing list will be publicly available. The name of the mailing list > will be <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>. > > At its initial teleconference, CRISP team members suggested that a > separate mailing list for use by CRISP team members only would be useful > in the interest of efficiency and to allow quick editing iterations on > the proposed response. > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-December-9-meeting-DRAFT-NOTES… > > While there was general agreement, concerns about transparency were also > noted, resulting in a commitment to publish archives of the internal > list at the time of publishing the first draft (19 December 2014). The > archive was publicly available from this point and some CRISP team > members shared a link to the archive with their communities directly. A > direct link to this mailing list archive was posted to the ianaxfer > mailing list and on the NRO CRISP webpage after 8 January 2015 due to an > oversight, while the archives were publicly made available when the > first draft of the proposal was published on 19 December. > > The archive of the internal mailing list is available at: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/ > > It is possible to confirm from our announcements that links to the > archives of the CRISP team mailing list was intended to be shared from > publication of the first draft proposal: > > "Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, > minutes and agendas of all CRISP teleconferences and a public archive > of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are available at: > https://nro.net/crisp-team" > > https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-commun… > > https://www.nro.net/news/internet-number-community-iana-stewardship-proposa… > > >> >> 4) Refusal to deal with essential aspects of the proposal: The CRISP team >> refused to deal with essential aspects of proposal such as the contract >> renewal process, contract duration, jurisdiction, arbitration process, >> review process, high level details of the contract, intellectual property >> rights, charter of the review team and service levels. The CRISP team > cited >> these essential aspects as outside the scope of the CRISP mandate. If the >> CRISP mandate is indeed so limited, then its incomplete proposal > should be >> returned to the RIR community with the suggestion of expanding the > mandate >> of the CRISP team. Note that the charter of the CRISP team, which was >> prepared by the NRO EC in a top-down manner, does not suggest that such >> essential aspects should be excluded from the proposal. This limited >> interpretation of the agenda and issues by the CRISP team is against the >> ethos of a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. > > As noted above, a concrete record of all the concerns raised by the > community on various mailing lists was prepared by the CRISP team and > made available at: > https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 > > This spreadsheet, the records and notes from CRISP teleconferences and > the archived mails on both the internal and public mailing lists > demonstrate that the CRISP team closely considered all issues, concerns > or suggestions raised by the community via ianaxfer(a)nro.net or the > regional discussion lists. Where specific suggestions were not reflected > in the proposal, detailed justification was provided to the community > via the ianaxfer mailing list. > > While the CRISP team did note certain constraints on its remit, as it > understood that remit, the issues noted by Guru Acharya were addressed > specifically in the following mails to the public <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > mailing list: > > Contract details in general, including renewal process, duration: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000213.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000135.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000143.html > > Jurisdiction: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Arbitration process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000331.html > > Review process: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000134.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000172.html > > Intellectual property rights: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000145.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2014-December/000127.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000342.html > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000173.html > > Charter of the review team: > https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000320.html > > While developing the proposal, the CRISP team was conscious about its > remit and responsibility. In the process of addressing issues and the > elements of the proposal the team felt that it was important to identify > the critical components and implementation requirements, rather than > work out the actual implementation details. Our position was that the > latter should be developed by qualified RIR legal teams following the > best practices in this field. As stated in the response to the ICG "The > RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft the > specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, the > RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and that > the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below." > [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number Community, > p11] > > We believe that the proposal submitted to the ICG meets the expectations > of the numbers community, while not extending into areas beyond the > authority or expertise of the CRISP team. > > I hope that this effectively addresses the issues raised in this email, > and I would be happy to expand further on any issues you feel could > benefit from more explanation. > > > Yours sincerely, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, the CRISP Team > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

3 2

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Webex Invitation CRISP Team Teleconference Thursday February 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 05 Feb '15

05 Feb '15

FYI. (Apologies for the lateness of this mail.) Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Webex Invitation CRISP Team Teleconference Thursday February 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 4 februari 2015 16:38:13 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find below webex information for CRISP Team Teleconference to be held on Thursday February 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > > > CRISP Team 15th Meeting > Thursday, February 5, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 704 052 432 > 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: 704 052 432 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Contribute to the EuroDIG 2015 Planning Meeting
by Chris Buckridge 26 Jan '15

26 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, On Tuesday, 27 January (tomorrow), EuroDIG, the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, will hold an open planning meeting in Sofia, Bulgaria, for the annual EuroDIG meeting, which will also be held in Sofia in June: www.eurodig.org/get-involved/planning-meeting/ The planning meeting is open to the public, with remote participation options available. Participants will consider themes and topics for inclusion on the EuroDIG agenda, based on the submissions received during last year’s open call. This is an important opportunity to help shape the European Internet governance discussion and ensure that issues of importance to the RIPE community are included on the agenda. A few thoughts on how to participate: - As noted above, there will be remote participation available, allowing you to follow all discussions in real time via Webex: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?MTID=m0928b71d1e86068d0d651… - RIPE NCC staff and other participants will be tweeting throughout the day, noting any important developments or topics - you can follow via the #EuroDIG hashtag, and RIPE NCC staff will be monitoring tweets with this hashtag, so you can contribute to the discussion in this way. - A report on outcomes from this meeting will be sent to the Cooperation Working Group mailing list, and further discussion here is welcome. The RIPE NCC is an institutional partner of EuroDIG and is pleased to be contributing to the planning and coordination of the upcoming EuroDIG 2015 event. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

ICG Update on Circle ID
by Chris Buckridge 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Hi all, After the flurry of recent activity on this list regarding the CRISP team’s work on a numbers community proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), things have been comparatively quiet over the last few days. But the IANA stewardship transition process is far from over - ICG Chair, Alissa Cooper, has posted an article discussing the global process so far and the next steps for the ICG. It makes for a good summary of events so far and preview of what to expect over the coming months: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150120_iana_transition_planning_proceeding_… In addition, the RIPE NCC has posted an short video on the RIR community and CRISP processes to date and a high-level preview of next steps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihB4ZyDvFwM Hopefully both of these will help inform the RIPE community’s continuing participation in the IANA stewardship transition process. Best regards, Chris — Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA from the Internet Number Community
by Nurani Nimpuno 16 Jan '15

16 Jan '15

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the Internet numbers community's response to the RFP issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG), submitted by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team. As the CRISP Chair Izumi Okutani notes, we have observed several explicit expressions of support for our proposal, and we believe that there was consensus from the Internet numbers community on the CRISP proposal. We would like to thank everyone in the RIPE community who has contributed with input and guidance in this process. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team (Paul Rendek, Andrei Robachevsky & Nurani Nimpuno) Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA from the Internet Number Community > Date: 16 januari 2015 00:26:26 CET > To: icg-proposal(a)icann.org > Cc: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Alissa Cooper and the ICG members, > > > On behalf of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP > Team), I respectfully submit the attached response to the IANA > Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the > IANA from the Internet Number Community. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > Chair, CRISP Team > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

2 1

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft Agenda for 14th CRISP TeamTeleconference
by Nurani Nimpuno 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft Agenda for 14th CRISP TeamTeleconference > Date: 15 januari 2015 13:46:53 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>, "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please find below the draft agenda for coming 14th CRISP Team > Teleconference at UTC13:00 15th Jan. > > CRISP Team 14th Teleconference > Thursday January 15th 13:00 UTC > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db… > <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db…> > > As in all CRISP Team calls, it is open to observers. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Reivew > a. Minutes > b. Header of the proposal > > 3, Summary of the comments status > > 4. Outstanding issues > > 5. Definitions > > 6. Announcement > > 7. Cover Letter > > 8. Issues list > > 9. Next Steps > a. Reconfirm the pen > b. Reconfirm Timeline > > 10. AOB > --- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draf Agenda for CRISP Team 13th Teleconference Re: CRISP Team Next Week Teleconferences
by Nurani Nimpuno 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

FYI Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draf Agenda for CRISP Team 13th Teleconference Re: CRISP Team Next Week Teleconferences > Date: 14 januari 2015 12:06:39 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please find below the draft agenda for coming 13th CRISP Team > Teleconference at UTC13:00 14th Jan. > > As in all CRISP Team calls, it is open to observers. > >> CRISP Team 13th Teleconference >> Wednesday January 14th 13:00 UTC >> > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6… > <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6…> > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. NRO CRISP Website improvement > > 3. Confirm texts to be incorporated > a. Suggested edits > b. Consulting the community about SLA > c. Review Committee selection > d. Contract Fee > e. Move description of RIRs, NRO, NRO EC > f. reconfirm numbering scheme > g. II.B.3.i. NTIA > h. IIIA3 SLA > i. I.D. > j. VI. description of APNIC region process > > 4. What to revert back > > 5.Agree on a common term > a. Internet number community > b. the IANA Number Services Operator > c. singular/plural > > 6. Confirm Timeline > > 7. Next Meeting > > 8. AOB > > --- > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > The CRISP Team > > > On 2015/01/10 0:18, German Valdez wrote: >> Hi >> >> CRISP Team agreed to hold teleconferences everyday from Monday January 12th to Thursday January 15th at 13:00 UTC >> >> Below is the Webex link to each of this calls. CRISP Teleconferences are open for observers. >> >> CRISP Team 11th Teleconference >> Monday January 12th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m4d32f787812d13e9be87b1b7894cc… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m4d32f787812d13e9be87b1b7894cc…> >> >> CRISP Team 12th Teleconference >> Tuesday January 13th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m2d8a95c8e162b85ecaf1a201f8f52… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m2d8a95c8e162b85ecaf1a201f8f52…> >> >> CRISP Team 13th Teleconference >> Wednesday January 14th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6…> >> >> CRISP Team 14th Teleconference >> Thursday January 15th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db…> >> >> Kind regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CRISP mailing list >> CRISP(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft agenda for 12th CRISP Team Telelconference Re: CRISP Team Next Week Teleconferences
by Nurani Nimpuno 13 Jan '15

13 Jan '15

fyi Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft agenda for 12th CRISP Team Telelconference Re: CRISP Team Next Week Teleconferences > Date: 13 januari 2015 13:08:24 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please find below the draft agenda for coming 12th CRISP Team > Teleconference at UTC13:00 13th Jan. > > As in all CRISP Team calls, it is open to observers. > > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. NRO CRISP Website improvement > c. HTML and text versions > d. Metadata in docx file > > 3. Confirm discussions status > a. each RIR region > b. global list > > 4. Editorial suggestions > a. Confirm status > b. Paul Wilson's suggested changes > c. Timeline to work > > 5. Confirm status of editorial suggestions > a. Community review SLA > b. Review Committee > c. Contract Fee > > 6. CRISP Team positions per issue > a. Continue discussions in RIR meetings > b. Consistence in IPR description > IIIA2 and IIIA3iii > c. Comment from Pindar Wong > d. Further input about cost > > 7. Timeline and how we work for the final submission > a. Schedule > b. Who does what > > 8. Next Meeting > > 9. AOB > --- > > > On 2015/01/10 0:18, German Valdez wrote: >> Hi >> >> CRISP Team agreed to hold teleconferences everyday from Monday January 12th to Thursday January 15th at 13:00 UTC >> >> Below is the Webex link to each of this calls. CRISP Teleconferences are open for observers. >> >> CRISP Team 11th Teleconference >> Monday January 12th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m4d32f787812d13e9be87b1b7894cc… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m4d32f787812d13e9be87b1b7894cc…> >> >> CRISP Team 12th Teleconference >> Tuesday January 13th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m2d8a95c8e162b85ecaf1a201f8f52… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m2d8a95c8e162b85ecaf1a201f8f52…> >> >> CRISP Team 13th Teleconference >> Wednesday January 14th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6…> >> >> CRISP Team 14th Teleconference >> Thursday January 15th 13:00 UTC >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db…> >> >> Kind regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Second draft of the Internet numbers community proposal on the transition of the IANA stewardship.
by Maria Häll 13 Jan '15

13 Jan '15

Dear all The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team have published the second draft of the Internet numbers community proposal on the transition of the IANA stewardship. I strongly support this draft proposal, as an important step to strengthen the Internet numbers community’s position further on in this process. Thx to the CRISP team for all your work! _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll (speaking only as myself) Co-chair Coop WG / CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network

2 1

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Final call for comments closed Re: Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
by Nurani Nimpuno 13 Jan '15

13 Jan '15

Dear Colleagues, Thank you all for your valuable input on the CRISP draft proposal. Please see the mail below from the CRISP Chair Izumi Okutani about the next steps in incorporating the input received and developing the final version to be submitted to the ICG. Kind regards, Nurani On behalf of the CRISP RIPE team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Final call for comments closed Re: Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments > Date: 13 januari 2015 03:32:49 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Thank you for all the inputs you have given to the second draft of our > proposal. > > > The CRISP Team now has moved into developing our proposal to be > submitted to the ICG on 15th Jan based on the comments received before > 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC. > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > The CRISP Team > > On 2015/01/13 2:57, Izumi Okutani wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> This is a reminder that the CRISP Team will close to receive all >> comments for the second draft of our proposal as of : >> >>> Second draft comments close : 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC >> >> >> Please send in all your comments before the above time, for the CRISP >> Team to consider your input in developing the final proopsal to be >> submitted to the ICG. >> >> >> Thank you to those who have expressed and shared your comments on this >> list already. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Izumi Okutani >> The CRISP Team >> >> >> On 2015/01/09 1:21, Izumi Okutani wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> >>> Please find the second draft of the Internet numbers community's >>> response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship >>> Coordination Group (ICG). >>> >>> This draft has been prepared by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship >>> Proposal (CRISP) Team, with considerations of feedback received from the >>> global community on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. >>> >>> We have incorporated the following key points in the second draft: >>> >>> - Additional description on contract details, review committee and >>> intellectual property rights >>> - Description revised on Section V. NITA Requirements and VI. >>> Community Process for more clarity >>> - No changes are made to key elements of the proposal >>> >>> The CRISP Team have considered all comments expressed on >>> <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list before the deadline of 5th Jan 2015, and >>> would now like to make the final call for comments from the global >>> community on the draft proposal, before submitting to the ICG. >>> >>> Second Draft proposal: >>> ------------------------ >>> Clean Version : >>> <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft> >>> >>> Redline Version: >>> <http:/www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft-change-control> >>> >>> The deadline for providing feedback: Mon, 12 January 2015 23:59 UTC >>> Feedback should be sent to : <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list >>> >>> Community Inputs Considered by the CRISP Team: >>> ------------------------------------------ >>> You can check the status of the issues raised by the community and >>> proposed the CRISP Team positions at: >>> >>> <http://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015> >>> >>> Key dates: >>> ----------- >>> Second draft to be published : 8 Jan 2015 >>> Second draft comments close : 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC >>> Final proposal to be sent to ICG : 15 Jan 2015 >>> >>> How to Engage in Discussions: >>> ----------------------------- >>> All global discussions, for the CRISP team to consider as community >>> feedback, will be conducted at <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. >>> All the CRISP Team discussions are open to observers. >>> >>> Next Step: >>> ----------- >>> In developing the final draft based on further feedback, the CRISP >>> Team will ensure it has completed considerations of all substantial >>> issues raised by the global community, which are compiled in the >>> published issues list. The proposal will only incorporate issues that >>> the CRISP team believes have received consensus support from the >>> community. >>> >>> References: >>> ------------ >>> * Discussions by the CRISP Team >>> Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, >>> minutes and agendas of all the CRISP Team teleconferences and a >>> public archive of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are >>> available at: >>> https://nro.net/crisp-team >>> >>> * Other links: >>> - The ICG request for proposals: >>> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en> >>> >>> - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region: >>> <http://www.nro.net/timeline-engagement> >>> >>> - First Draft proposal (Edited version) >>> <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
by Nurani Nimpuno 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, Today the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team publishes the second draft of the Internet numbers community proposal on the transition of the IANA stewardship. This is intended as a final call for community feedback ahead of the submitting the finalised proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) on Thursday, 15 January. We understand that many in the RIPE community have a strong interest in this process, and feedback provided in this working group and elsewhere has been crucial in reaching the current draft. While there is still an opportunity to provide comments on the current text, we would also like to strongly encourage RIPE community members in favour of this proposal to express their support on this list or via the ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list. A quantifiable level of community support may be important in strengthening the Internet numbers community’s position later in the IANA stewardship transition process. As previously, the timeline for responding is quite tight, with a deadline of Monday, 12 January, for all comments. Best regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments > Date: 8 januari 2015 17:21:08 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear colleagues, > > > Please find the second draft of the Internet numbers community's > response to the Request For Proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship > Coordination Group (ICG). > > This draft has been prepared by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship > Proposal (CRISP) Team, with considerations of feedback received from the > global community on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. > > We have incorporated the following key points in the second draft: > > - Additional description on contract details, review committee and > intellectual property rights > - Description revised on Section V. NITA Requirements and VI. > Community Process for more clarity > - No changes are made to key elements of the proposal > > The CRISP Team have considered all comments expressed on > <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list before the deadline of 5th Jan 2015, and > would now like to make the final call for comments from the global > community on the draft proposal, before submitting to the ICG. > > Second Draft proposal: > ------------------------ > Clean Version : > <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft> > > Redline Version: > <http:/www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-second-draft-change-control> > > The deadline for providing feedback: Mon, 12 January 2015 23:59 UTC > Feedback should be sent to : <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list > > Community Inputs Considered by the CRISP Team: > ------------------------------------------ > You can check the status of the issues raised by the community and > proposed the CRISP Team positions at: > > <http://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015> > > Key dates: > ----------- > Second draft to be published : 8 Jan 2015 > Second draft comments close : 12 Jan 2015, 23:59 UTC > Final proposal to be sent to ICG : 15 Jan 2015 > > How to Engage in Discussions: > ----------------------------- > All global discussions, for the CRISP team to consider as community > feedback, will be conducted at <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. > All the CRISP Team discussions are open to observers. > > Next Step: > ----------- > In developing the final draft based on further feedback, the CRISP > Team will ensure it has completed considerations of all substantial > issues raised by the global community, which are compiled in the > published issues list. The proposal will only incorporate issues that > the CRISP team believes have received consensus support from the > community. > > References: > ------------ > * Discussions by the CRISP Team > Details of all the CRISP team's work to date, including recordings, > minutes and agendas of all the CRISP Team teleconferences and a > public archive of the internal CRISP team mailing list, are > available at: > https://nro.net/crisp-team > > * Other links: > - The ICG request for proposals: > <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en> > > - The IANA Stewardship Transition Discussion in each RIR region: > <http://www.nro.net/timeline-engagement> > > - First Draft proposal (Edited version) > <http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

4 3

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Next Week Teleconferences
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

Fyi Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 9 januari 2015 16:18:28 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Cc: crisp(a)nro.net > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team Next Week Teleconferences > > Hi > > CRISP Team agreed to hold teleconferences everyday from Monday January 12th to Thursday January 15th at 13:00 UTC > > Below is the Webex link to each of this calls. CRISP Teleconferences are open for observers. > > CRISP Team 11th Teleconference > Monday January 12th 13:00 UTC > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m4d32f787812d13e9be87b1b7894cc… > > CRISP Team 12th Teleconference > Tuesday January 13th 13:00 UTC > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m2d8a95c8e162b85ecaf1a201f8f52… > > CRISP Team 13th Teleconference > Wednesday January 14th 13:00 UTC > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m9744d9eed680a5d820d85058dd3f6… > > CRISP Team 14th Teleconference > Thursday January 15th 13:00 UTC > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m7dbe974c18e86ed3657559764a7db… > > Kind regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Agenda for the 10th call
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

fyi Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Agenda for the 10th call > Date: 9 januari 2015 11:22:18 CET > To: "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > > CRISP Team, > > > This is the draft agenda for today's call, at UTC13:00 9th Jan. > > It's not a must to disucuss agenda item 6 today. > > We are receiving e-mail inputs for item 5, so hopefully not as bad as it > looks! > > I'll send this to the IANAXFER list shortly but still feel free to add > anything else. > > > ---- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. Announcements to relevant stakeholders > > 3. Confirm pending issues > a. LACNIC region chart > b. Numbering scheme in Section III > c. Possibility of reformatting Section III > d. PDF of issues list > e. CRISP Website improvements > > 4. Confirm comments received > a. Each RIR region > b. Global list > > 5. CRISP Team position per issue > a. More details of dispute resolution > b. Reflect low input in RIR processes Section VI > c. Option of having NRO as an operator > d. Change in ICANN Bylaws for global PDP > e. SLA text is a must to approve the proposal > f. No of past arbitration cases: to backup the proposal > g. How to know whether arbitration works > h. Editorial comments (Link, LACNIC region coverage) > > 6. Preparation for the final draft > a. Who will take care of which section > b. Timeline of each preparation phase > c. Time to submit to ICG > d. Updating issues list > > 7. Next Meeting > a. Reconfirm schedule of future CRISP Calls > b. Date of the 11th Call > > 8. AOB > ---- > > > Thanks, > Izumi > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Webex information CRISP Team 10th Teleconference Friday January 9th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

fyi Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Webex information CRISP Team 10th Teleconference Friday January 9th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 8 januari 2015 10:21:58 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>, <crisp(a)nro.net> > > > Hi > > Please find below webex information for the CRISP Team 10th Teleconference to be held on Friday January 9th 2015 at 13:00 > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > CRISP Team 10th Teleconference > Friday, January 9, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 704 117 664 > Meeting password: crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 704 117 664 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Last minute CRISP Team Teleconference January 8th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Jan '15

08 Jan '15

fyi Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Last minute CRISP Team Teleconference January 8th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 8 januari 2015 14:13:42 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > > Hi > > On behalf of CRISP Team I’m attaching a webex invitation to follow their meeting right now. > > Meeting was called in very last minute to finalise details for the publication of the second draft proposal for the ICG > > Meeting is running right now and you are invited to join and follow the discussion/ > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > > Thursday, January 8, 2015 > 12:47 pm | UTC | 1 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 707 924 572 > Meeting password: 12345 > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 924 572 > Toll-free calling restrictions > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft Agenda for the 7th call Re: CRISP Team 9th Teleconference, Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Draft Agenda for the 7th call Re: CRISP Team 9th Teleconference, Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 7 januari 2015 12:17:30 CET > To: crisp(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Below is the draft agenda for the coming 7th CRISP Team Teleconference on Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC. > > This is open to any observers as usual. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. Version Control of the drafts > c. Announcement of the comments closed on the IANAXFER list > > 2. Issues after the last call > a. Contract details (continued discussions) > b. Defining Review Commitee process > c. Community engagement in developing contract > > 3. Confirm status of issues > a. Issues to be reviewed on the ML (no discusssions at the call) > b. Reflecting CRISP Team positions per issues > (IRP, Review Commitee, SLA) > c. Issues Status list > > 4. Preparation for the 2nd draft announcement > a. draft announcement & its timing > b. Deadline of comments to be submitted for texts > c. Timing to share the updated version within CRISP Team > > 5. Next call > > 6. AOB > --- > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > CRISP Team > > On 2015/01/06 4:54, Maria Gayo wrote: >> Please find below webex information for the 9th CRISP Team teleconference to be >> held on Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC >> >> Regards >> >> María Gayo >> (on behalf of the NRO Secretariat) >> >> >> -------- >> >> ***CRISP Team 9th Teleconference* >> >> Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 >> >> 1:00 pm UTC >> >> *Join Webex meeting >> *https://lacnic.webex.com/lacnic/j.php?MTID=me72f52dfbfd3075087e0f7d746af0391 >> >> Meeting number: 576 519 399 >> >> Meeting password: lcn2015 >> >> *Join by phone* >> >> 1-877-668-4490 Call-in toll-free number >> >> 1-408-792-6300 Call-in toll number >> >> Access code: 576 519 399 >> >> *Add this meeting to your calendar :* >> >> https://lacnic.webex.com/lacnic/j.php?MTID=m2d0e4b80f02040f773c0643a4b428587 >> >> Can´t join this meeting? Contact support https://lacnic.webex.com/lacnic/mc or >> florencia(a)lacnic.net <mailto:florencia@lacnic.net> Phone: 598-26042222 >> >> Embedded Image >> *María Gayo* >> Coordinadora de Comunicaciones >> Communications Coordinator >> *# 4206* >> Embedded Image >> *Casa de Internet de >> Latinoamérica y el Caribe* >> Rambla Rep. de México 6125 >> 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay >> +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net <http://www.lacnic.net> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CRISP mailing list >> CRISP(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Thank you for the feedback and update on CRISP Team Status
by Nurani Nimpuno 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

FYI. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Thank you for the feedback and update on CRISP Team Status > Date: 7 januari 2015 09:48:14 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > CRISP Team would like to thank everyone who have provided your inputs to > the first draft of our proposal. > > We have closed comments for the first draft, and completed to form CRISP > Team's position on all issues express on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list > at the 8th CRISP Team call, at UTC13:00 Mon 5th Jan. > > CRISP Team is now working to publish the second draft, which is planned > to be published on Thu 8th Jan. We will make an announcement on this > mailing list, and call for comments from the global community once it is > published, as we did for the first draft. > > In the meantime, attached is the status list of issue raised on > <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> for you to confirm status of CRISP Team > considerations. Please note this is to be updated as our work progresses. > > We are planning to publish the updated issues status list when we > publish our second draft. > > Thank you once again for taking your time to review the first draft of > our proposal and sharing your views. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani > CRISP Team Chair > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 9th Teleconference, Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 07 Jan '15

07 Jan '15

FYI. A placeholder extra teleconference has been scheduled today at 14.00 CET, to discuss any outstanding issues before the finalisation of the 2nd draft of the CRISP proposal. The CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Maria Gayo <mgayo(a)lacnic.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 9th Teleconference, Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC > Date: 5 januari 2015 20:54:09 CET > To: crisp(a)nro.net > Reply-To: mgayo(a)lacnic.net > > Please find below webex information for the 9th CRISP Team teleconference to be held on Wednesday 7th January 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > > > Regards > > María Gayo > (on behalf of the NRO Secretariat) > > > -------- > > CRISP Team 9th Teleconference > > Wednesday, January 7th, 2015 > > 1:00 pm UTC > > Join Webex meeting https://lacnic.webex.com/lacnic/j.php?MTID=me72f52dfbfd3075087e0f7d746af0391 > > Meeting number: 576 519 399 > > Meeting password: lcn2015 > > Join by phone > > 1-877-668-4490 Call-in toll-free number > > 1-408-792-6300 Call-in toll number > > Access code: 576 519 399 > > Add this meeting to your calendar : > https://lacnic.webex.com/lacnic/j.php?MTID=m2d0e4b80f02040f773c0643a4b428587 > > Can´t join this meeting? Contact support https://lacnic.webex.com/lacnic/mc or florencia(a)lacnic.net Phone: 598-26042222 > María Gayo > Coordinadora de Comunicaciones > Communications Coordinator > # 4206 > Casa de Internet de > Latinoamérica y el Caribe > Rambla Rep. de México 6125 > 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay > +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda for 8th Teleconfererence Re: CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 05 Jan '15

05 Jan '15

fyi Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda for 8th Teleconfererence Re: CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC > Date: 5 januari 2015 11:40:43 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > Please see the draft agenda for CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January > 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC. > > Observers are welcome to join the call as usual. > > --- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. Recordings of past meetings > c. Version control of drafts > > 3. Confirm new comments since the 7th call > a. Each RIR region > b. Global list > > 3. Follow up of issues discussed > a. IPR > b. Contract > c. Review Commitee > > 4. Issues not yes discussed > a. Details of the Review Process > b. RIR Accountability, > c. Determining consensus for the final draft > > 6. Preparation for the 2nd draft > a. Topics to be reflected in the 2nd draft > b. Announcement > > 7. Next Meeting > > 8. AOB > --- > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > CRISP Team > > On 2015/01/03 0:03, German Valdez wrote: >> Hi >> >> Please find below webex information for the 8th CRISP Team teleconference to be held on Monday January 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC >> >> Regards >> >> German Valdez >> NRO >> >> >> ====== >> >> CRISP Team 8thTeleconference >> Monday, January 5, 2015 >> 1:00pm | UTC | 2 hr >> >> Join WebEx meeting >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc7fe8904fb98d0e4132409b1f6362… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc7fe8904fb98d0e4132409b1f6362…> >> >> Meeting number: >> 701 103 817 >> Meeting password: >> crispteam >> >> Join by phone >> 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) >> Accesscode: 701 103 817 >> Global call-in numbers | >> >> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=359012… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=359012…> >> >> Toll-free calling restrictions >> >> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >> >> >> Add this meeting to your calendar. >> >> Can't join the m Contact support. >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note thatsession. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Last Day to Comment on IANA Stewardship Draft
by Chris Buckridge 05 Jan '15

05 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, A reminder that today is the last day for commenting on the first draft of the Internet numbers community’s IANA stewardship proposal. The draft, produced by the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, is available at: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-First-Draft1.pdf After the comment period closes, the CRISP team will prepare a second public draft, based on the feedback received. The timeline for the remaining CRISP team work is: Second draft to be published: 8 Jan 2015 Final proposal to be sent to IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG): 15 Jan 2015 The CRISP team will hold its eighth teleconference today, 5 January, at 13:00 UTC. Details on how to join the call as an observer are included at the end of this email. More background on the IANA stewardship transition process is available at: https://www.ripe.net/iana-oversight-transition Details on the CRISP team, including members, timelines and working methods, are available at: https://nro.net/crisp-team Best regards, Chris Buckridge RIPE NCC ====== CRISP Team 8thTeleconference Monday, January 5, 2015 1:00pm | UTC | 2 hr Join WebEx meeting https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc7fe8904fb98d0e4132409b1f6362… Meeting number: 701 103 817 Meeting password: crispteam Join by phone 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) Accesscode: 701 103 817 Global call-in numbers: https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=359012… Toll-free calling restrictions: http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf

1 0

Video archives of CRISP teleconferences available
by Nurani Nimpuno 05 Jan '15

05 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, Just a quick note to let you know that video archives of all CRISP teleconferences are publicly available (on youtube) from the NRO website (in addition to the audio files and minutes published). You will find all CRISP related information, including the latest draft proposal text, a matrix of all input received, and the process timeline at: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team -- Nurani Nimpuno Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod <nurani(a)netnod.se>, http://www.netnod.se Box 30194 | SE-104 25 Stockholm | Sweden ---------------------------------------------

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 04 Jan '15

04 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, Please find details below about the 8th CRISP teleconference. The CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC > Date: 2 januari 2015 16:03:18 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>, <crisp(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find below webex information for the 8th CRISP Team teleconference to be held on Monday January 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > ====== > > CRISP Team 8thTeleconference > Monday, January 5, 2015 > 1:00pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc7fe8904fb98d0e4132409b1f6362… > > Meeting number: > 701 103 817 > Meeting password: > crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Accesscode: 701 103 817 > Global call-in numbers | > > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=359012… > > Toll-free calling restrictions > > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > > Add this meeting to your calendar. > > Can't join the m Contact support. > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note thatsession. > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published
by Nurani Nimpuno 03 Jan '15

03 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, Firstly, a very happy new year to all of you! :) I hope you all had a well deserved rest. As you may know, the CRISP team, tasked with coming up with a proposal for the Internet numbers community on the IANA stewardship transition, has published a first draft. We would warmly welcome any comments you have on this draft, on the global <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. The deadline for feedback on this draft is 5 January. The second draft will be distributed on 8 January, and the very final proposal is due for submission 15 January. Kind regards, Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team -- Nurani Nimpuno Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod <nurani(a)netnod.se>, http://www.netnod.se Box 30194 | SE-104 25 Stockholm | Sweden --------------------------------------------- Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published > Date: 2 januari 2015 19:17:09 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > This is a friendly reminder that the deadline for providing feedback to the first draft of the proposal from Internet Number Community on IANA Stewardship is: 5 January 2015. > > Based on the request made by a community member on this mailing list, please find below the text format of the first proposal. This is identical to the edited version of the first proposal published at: > > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-Draft-24122014-c… > > We continue to welcome your feedback on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> mailing list. > > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani > Chair, Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for > Proposals on IANA from the RIR community > 1. Proposal type > > Identify which category of the IANA functions this submission proposes to address: > > [ ] Names > [ 口] Numbers > [ ] Protocol Parameters > > > > I. Description of Community’s Use of IANA > > This section should list the specific, distinct IANA services or activities your community relies > on. For each IANA service or activity on which your community relies, please provide the following: > > · A description of the service or activity. > · A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. > · What registries are involved in providing the service or > activity. > · A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between > your IANA requirements and the > functions required by other customer communities > > ------- > · A description of the service or activity. > > The relevant IANA activities to the number resource communities are the allocation of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and Autonomous System Numbers (“ASNs”) to the Regional Internet Registries (“RIRs”) as well as the delegation of the “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS trees in accordance with the allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. > > · A description of the customer(s) of the service or activity. > > The RIRs manage the registration and distribution of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and ASNs) to members within their service regions. The five RIRs in operation at this point in time are: > > AFRINIC Serving Africa Founded in 2005 > APNIC Serving the Asia Pacific region Founded in 1993 > ARIN Serving North America Founded in 1997 > LACNIC Serving South America and the Caribbean Founded in 2001 > RIPE NCC Serving Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East Founded in 1992 > > The five RIRs manage the distribution and registration of Internet number resources at the regional level, having received blocks of unused resources from the global pools managed by the IANA operator. The RIRs also facilitate the policy development processes of their > respective communities. > > The five RIRs have a long-standing and straightforward operational relationship with IANA. IANA maintains the global pools of Internet number resources from which the RIRs receive allocations to distribute to their communities. The RIRs also coordinate with IANA to correctly register any resources that are returned to the global pools. Collectively, the system for administering Internet number resources is referred to as the "Internet Number Registry System" and is described > in detail in RFC 7020. > > ------- > · What registries are involved in providing the service or > activity. > > The most relevant IANA registries are the IPv4 address registry, the IPv6 address registry, and the ASN registry. Delegation of “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA”domain names also requires interaction with the .ARPA zone registry. > > ------- > · A description of any overlaps or interdependencies between > your IANA requirements and the > functions required by other customer communities. > > The Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) is responsible for policy relating to the entire IP address space and AS number space. Through the IANA protocol parameters registries, the IETF delegates unicast IP address ("IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and "IPv6 Global Unicast Allocations Registry") and AS number space (“ASN Registry) to the RIR system [RFC7020]. Note that within each IANA registry, there are also reserved values or ranges, and special-purpose registries, which are outside the Internet Numbers Registry System and instead administered under the direction of the IETF. The delineation of the specific ranges delegated to the Internet Number Registry system is provided in RFC 7249. It is expected that the boundary between IETF-managed and Internet Number Registry-managed parts of the number spaces may change from time to time, with agreement between the IETF and the RIRs. Potential reasons for changes include the possibility > that the IETF may release some previously reserved space for general use, or may reserve some previously unused space for a special purpose. > The global Internet community also depends upon the IANA operator for administration of the special-purpose “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” DNS zones which are associated with IPv4 and IPv6 number resources respectively. These zones are delegated to IANA by the Internet Architecture Board (“IAB”) and “[s]ub-delegations within this hierarchy are undertaken in accordance with the IANA’s address allocation practices” (RFC3172). The IANA operator administers these zones as “agreed technical work items” per the IETF- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) IANA MoU. It is important to note that this work is outside the scope of the National > Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) contract. > > Relevant links: > IETF-ICANN MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority: > https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en > “The Internet Numbers Registry System”, RFC 7020: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020 “Internet > Numbers Registries”, RFC 7249: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7249 > > > > II. Existing, Pre-Transition Arrangements > > This section should describe how existing IANA-related arrangements work, prior to the transition. > > A. Policy Sources > > This section should identify the specific source(s) of policy which must be followed by the IANA functions operator in its conduct of the services or activities described above. If there are distinct sources of policy or policy development for different IANA activities, then please describe these separately. For each source of policy or policy development, please provide the following: > > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > · A description of how policy is developed and established and > who is involved in policy development and establishment. > · A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. > · References to documentation of policy development and dispute > resolution processes. > > ------- > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > > The Internet number resource registries. > > It is important to note that allocations of Internet number resources from IANA to the RIRs and its registrations in IANA registries, as well as delegations of “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains, described in Section I, are conducted between IANA and the RIRs without involvement by the NTIA. > > ------- > · A description of how policy is developed and established and > who is involved in policy development and establishment. > > The policies under which the IANA operator manages the global pools of Internet number resources (excluding those address ranges reserved by the IETF for specific technical purposes) are developed and agreed by the five RIR communities via open, transparent and bottom-up policy development processes. Each RIR community engages in its own regional policy development process; these processes are open to all stakeholders regardless of specific background or interest. Links to each of the five regional Policy Development Processes (“PDPs”) are included under in the RIR Governance Matrix published on the Number Resource Organization (“NRO”) website [www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance- matrix]. > > Any individual may submit a global proposal. Each RIR community must ratify an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive Council (“NRO EC”) then refers the coordinated proposal to the Address Supporting Organization (“ASO”) Address Council (“ASO AC”), which reviews the process by which the proposal was developed and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum of Understanding (“ASO MoU”), passes it to the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification as a global policy. > > There are currently three global policies relating to management of the global pools of IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses and AS Numbers [https://www.nro.net/policies]: > > (a) IANA Policy for Allocation of IPv6 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries; > (b) IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries; and > (c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. > > There is a fourth global policy agreed by the RIR communities, ICP-2, "Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries". > > The global Policy Development Process (“gPDP”) described in “Global Policy Development Process Document” [https://www.nro.net/documents/global-policy-development- process] is used for all of the number-related IANA activities described in Section I, but the policy that > “IN-ADDR.ARPA” and “IP6.ARPA” domains must be delegated following IPv4 and IPv6 address allocations is specified by the IETF (most recently in RFC 3172). > > ------- > · A description of how disputes about policy are resolved. > > The gPDP is formally described in "Attachment A" of the ASO MoU, signed by ICANN and the RIRs in 2004 (and signed by AFRINIC when it was established as the fifth RIR in 2005). This MoU includes provisions for resolving disputes between ICANN and the RIRs or their communities. It is important to note that while the gPDP allows for the ICANN Board to dispute the outcome of a consensus community decision (escalating to mediation between ICANN and the RIRs), it does not include any role for the IANA contract holder (currently the NTIA). The ASO MoU is an agreement between the RIR communities and ICANN; NTIA has no oversight role in policy-making as regards management of the global Internet number resource pools, and its transition out of its current role would have minimal effect on the policy-making framework. > > A separate MoU, the NRO MoU, establishes the NRO as "a coordinating mechanism of the RIRs to act collectively on matters relating to the interests of the RIRs", and includes provisions for dispute resolutions between RIRs on issues relating to global policy development or implementation. > > It is the responsibility of the NRO Number Council (“NRO NC”), a group comprising three community members selected by each of the five RIR communities, to confirm that the documented RIR PDPs have been followed in the development and approval of a new policy or policy change. Further, this group reviews the policy followed by each of the RIR communities to assure itself that the significant viewpoints of interested parties were adequately considered,and only after this confirmation does it then consider forwarding global policy proposals to the ICANN Board for ratification. > > The NRO NC also acts in the role of the ICANN ASO AC, and as such, presents the agreed global policy proposal to the ICANN Board for ratification and operational implementation. > > The ICANN Board reviews the received global number resource policy proposals and may ask questions and otherwise consult with the ASO Address Council and/or the individual RIRs acting collectively > through the NRO. The ICANN Board may also consult with other parties as the Board considers appropriate. If the ICANN Board rejects the proposed policy, it delivers to the ASO ACa statement of its concerns with the proposed policy, including in particular an explanation of the significant viewpoints that were not adequately considered during the regular RIR processes. By agreement of all RIRs, the ASO AC may forward a new proposed policy (either reaffirming the previous proposal or > a modified proposal) to the ICANN Board. If the resubmitted proposed policy is rejected for a second time by ICANN, then the RIRs or ICANN shall refer the matter to mediation. > > In case of disputes where mediation has failed to resolve the dispute, the ICANN ASO MoU agreement provides for arbitration via ICC rules in the jurisdiction of Bermuda or such other location as is agreed between the RIRs and ICANN. It is also worth noting that the RIRs have been participating (as the ASO) in the periodic independent review processes for Accountability and Transparency (ATRT) that is called for per ICANN’s Bylaws. > > ------- > · References to documentation of policy development and dispute > resolution processes. > > Relevant links: > ICANN ASO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso- mou > NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding > About the NRO Number Council: https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/the-nro-number-council RIR > Governance Matrix: https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix > Global Policies: https://www.nro.net/policies > > > > B. Oversight and Accountability > > This section should describe all the ways in which oversight is conducted over IANA’s provision of the services and activities listed in Section I and all the ways in which IANA is currently held accountable for the provision of those services. For each oversight or accountability mechanism, please provide as many of the following as are applicable: > > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > · If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, > identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. > · A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight > or perform accountability functions, including how individuals > are selected or removed from participation in those entities. > · A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting > scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). > This should include a description of the consequences of the > IANA functions operator not meeting the standards established > by the mechanism, the extent to which the output of the > mechanism is transparent and the terms under which the > mechanism may change. > · Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal > basis on which the mechanism rests. > > ------- > · Which IANA service or activity (identified in Section I) is > affected. > > The Internet number resource registries. > > ------- > · If the policy sources identified in Section II.A are affected, > identify which ones are affected and explain in what way. > > A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not have any significant impact on the continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system. > > There is no contractual obligation directly to the Internet number resource community for the IANA operator to provide IANA registry services for the Internet number registries; IANA services for > the Internet number registries are provided by ICANN since its formation as a result of the NTIA IANA Functions contract and hence IANA services for the Internet number registries are presently > subject to change per that agreement. > > ------- > · A description of the entity or entities that provide oversight > or perform accountability functions, including how individuals > are selected or removed from participation in those entities. > > All institutional actors with a role in management of Internet number resources are accountable to the open communities that make and agree on the policies under which those resources are distributed and registered. The mechanisms used to ensure and enforce this accountability differ for each of these actors. > > 1. NTIA > ICANN, as the current operator of the IANA functions, is obligated by the NTIA agreement to carry out management of the global IP address and AS Number pools according to policies developed by the communities. > > While the IANA operator escalation and reporting mechanisms are public in nature, the Internet number community is primarily represented in oversight of the IANA operator performance by the RIRs, which are member-based based organizations with elected governance boards. > Currently, the NTIA does not have an oversight role in this regard. > > The ultimate consequence of failing to meet the performance standards or reporting requirements is understood to be a decision by the contracting party (the NTIA) to terminate or not renew the IANA > functions agreement with the current contractor (ICANN). > > 2. The Regional Internet Registries > > Administration by the IANA operator consists predominantly of processing of requests from the RIRs for issuance of additional number resources. The five RIRs are intimately familiar with global number resource policies under which the requests are made and maintain communications with the IANA operations team throughout the request process. > > The RIRs are not-for-profit membership associations, and as such are accountable to their members by law. The specific governance processes for each RIR differ depending on where they have been established and the decisions made by their membership, but in all RIRs, members have the right to vote individuals onto the governing Board and to vote on specific funding or operational resolutions. > > At the same time, an RIR's registration and allocation practices are directed by policies developed by its community. Each RIR community's PDP defines how these policies are developed, agreed and accepted for operational implementation. > > The corporate governance documents and PDPs of each RIR and its community are accessible via the RIR Governance Matrix, published on the NRO website. > > ------- > · A description of the mechanism (e.g., contract, reporting > scheme, auditing scheme, etc.). > This should include a description of the consequences of the IANA functions operator not meeting the standards established by the mechanism, the extent to which the output of the mechanism is > transparent and the terms under which the mechanism may change. > > The NTIA IANA Agreement currently defines obligations of the IANA operator for Internet number resources. > > This obligation is specifically noted in section C.2.9.3 of the NTIA agreement: > > C.2.9.3 Allocate Internet Numbering Resources --The Contractor shall have responsibility for allocated and unallocated IPv4 and IPv6 address space and Autonomous System Number (ASN) space based on established guidelines and policies as developed by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. > > The NTIA agreement also lays out specific deliverables for the IANA operator (ICANN) to produce as a condition of the agreement (see "Section F – Deliveries and Performance"), including performance > standards developed in cooperation with the affected parties (in the case of the Internet number resource pools, the affected parties include the RIRs and their communities), customer complaint > procedures and regular performance reporting. > > These deliverables are met by ICANN via monthly reporting on their performance in processing requests for the allocation of Internet number resources; these reports include IANA operator performance against key metrics of accuracy, timeliness, and transparency, as well as the performance metrics for individual requests. The IANA operations team also provides escalation procedures for use in resolving any issues with requests, as per the "IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process". > > ------- > · Jurisdiction(s) in which the mechanism applies and the legal > basis on which the mechanism rests. > > Jurisdiction for this current mechanism is the United States of America under applicable Federal government contracting laws and regulations. > > Relevant links: > NTIA IANA Agreement: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order > ICANN ASO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/icann-address-supporting-organization-aso- mou > NRO MoU: https://www.nro.net/documents/nro-memorandum-of-understanding > IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process: http://www.iana.org/help/escalation- procedure > IANA Performance Standards Metrics Report: http://www.iana.org/performance/metrics > RIR Governance Matrix: https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-governance-matrix > > > > III. Proposed Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements > > This section should describe what changes your community is proposing to the arrangements listed in Section II.B in light of the transition. If your community is proposing to replace one or more existing arrangements with new arrangements, that replacement should be explained and all of the elements listed in Section II.B should be described for the new arrangements. Your community should > provide its rationale and justification for the new arrangements. > > If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described > here. > > If your community is not proposing changes to arrangements listed in Section II.B, the rationale and justification for that choice should be provided here. > > ------- > The elements of this proposal are as follows: > > (1) ICANN to continue as the IANA functions operator on number > resources; > (2) Service level agreement with the IANA functions operator on > number resources; and > (3) Establishment of a Review Committee, with representatives > from each RIR, to advise the NRO EC on the review of the > IANA functions operator’s performance and meeting of > identified service levels. > > To maintain stability and continuity in operations of the Internet number-related IANA services, very minimal changes to the arrangements listed in Section II.B are proposed, including the identification of the proposed initial IANA functions operator. As noted in numerous NRO > communications over the past decade, the RIRs have been very satisfied with the performance of ICANN in the role of IANA functions operator. Taking this into account, and considering the strong desires expressed in the five RIR communities' IANA stewardship discussions for stability and a minimum of operational change, the Internet numbering community believes that ICANN should remain in the role of IANA functions operator for at least the initial term of the new contract. > > A decision by the NTIA to discontinue its stewardship of the IANA functions, and therefore its contractual relationship with the IANA functions operator, would not have any significant impact on > the continuity of Internet number-related IANA services currently provided by ICANN. However, it would remove a significant element of oversight from the current system. > > The following is a proposal to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract that more directly reflects and enforces the IANA functions operator's accountability to the open, > bottom-up numbers community. Other than the replacement of the NTIA with the five RIRs as the party(ies) with whom the IANA functions operator would contract for provision of Internet number-related IANA services, the overall arrangements in Section II.B would remain with no change. > > The proposed arrangement involves the same IANA service or activity, policy sources identified in Section II.A are unaffected, the entities that provide oversight or perform accountability functions (the RIRs) remain the same, the consequence for failure to meet performance standards remains termination or decision not to renew the IANA functions agreement with the then-current contractor, and jurisdiction will be dependent on the chosen IANA functions operator. > > The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be established between the IANA functions operator and the five RIRs. The contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the global Internet number pools according to policies developed by the regional communities via the gPDP as well as management of the delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement would include specific requirements for performance and reporting commensurate with current mechanisms, and would specify consequences should the contractor fail to meet those requirements, the means for the resolution of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of the contract. IANA operations should be > reliable and consistent, with any registry changes made in an open and transparent manner to the global community. The agreement should also require the IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry services. > > To ensure the service level defined in the proposed contract is maintained and provided by the IANA functions operator, the NRO EC will conduct periodic reviews of the service level of the IANA number resource functions that serves each RIR and their respective communities. The NRO EC shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review. Any such Review Committee should be a team composed of representatives from each RIR region that will, as needed, undertake a review of the level of service received from the IANA functions operator and report to the NRO EC any concerns regarding any observed failure by the IANA functions operator to meet its contractual obligations under the proposed contract. Any such Review Committee will advise the NRO EC in its capacity solely to oversee the performance of the IANA number resource functions and the Review Committee’s advice and comment will be limited to the processes followed in the IANA functions operator’s performance under the proposed contract. > > If your community’s proposal carries any implications for the interface between the IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A, those implications should be described > here. > > This proposal carries no implication for the interface between IANA functions and existing policy arrangements described in Section II.A. The text in "Attachment A" of the ICANN ASO MoU meets the current and anticipated requirements for a community-driven global policy development process. > > As an additional measure of security and stability, the RIRs have documented their individual accountability and governance mechanisms, and asked the community-based Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) to undertake a review of these mechanisms and make > recommendations for improvements that may be warranted given the nature of the stewardship transition for Internet number resources. > > > IV. Transition Implications > > This section should describe what your community views as the implications of the changes it proposed in Section III. These implications may include some or all of the following, or other > implications specific to your community: > > · Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity > of service and possible new service integration throughout the > transition. > · Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. > · Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence > of the NTIA contract. > · Description of how you have tested or evaluated the > workability of any new technical or > operational methods proposed in this document and how they > compare to established arrangements. > > ------- > · Description of operational requirements to achieve continuity > of service and possible new service integration throughout the > transition. > · Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. > > The intent of the proposal described above is to: > > 1. Minimize risks to operational continuity of the management of the Internet number- related IANA functions, and; > 2. Retain the existing framework for making those policies that describe the management of the global Internet number resource pools, as this framework is already structured to ensure open, bottom-up development of such policies. > > Under current arrangements, the NTIA is responsible for extending or renewing the IANA functions agreement, and setting the terms of that contract. A new contract with the five RIRs and the IANA functions operator as signatories would shift the responsibility for renewing, setting terms or terminating the contract to the RIRs, who would coordinate their decisions via the NRO EC (made up of the RIR Directors and Chief Executives). Decisions made regarding the contract would be based on operational circumstances, past performance and input from open, regional communities. > > The shift from the existing contractual arrangement to another contractual arrangement (perhaps relying on a set of distinct contracts) covering the IANA functions operator’s ongoing management > of all the IANA functions should result in no operational change for management of the global Internet number resource pools. This will help minimize any operational or continuity risks associated with stewardship transition. > > By building on the existing Internet registry system (which is open to participation from all interested parties) and its structures, the proposal reduces the risk associated with creating new organizations whose accountability is unproven. > > The necessary agreement proposed for IANA operation services for the Internet number registries can be established well before the NTIA target date for transition (September 2015), as there are no changes to existing service levels or reporting that are being proposed, only a change in contracting party to align with the delegated policy authority. > > ------- > · Description of any legal framework requirements in the absence > of the NTIA contract. > > The necessary legal framework in the absence of the NTIA contract will be fulfilled by the proposed agreement between the IANA functions operator and the five RIRs. As stated in Section III above, > the contract, essentially an IANA Service Level Agreement, would obligate the IANA functions operator to carry out those IANA functions relating to the global Internet number pools according to policies developed by the regional communities via the gPDP as well as > management of the delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA domains. The agreement would include specific requirements for performance and reporting commensurate with current mechanisms, and would specify consequences should the contractor fail to meet those requirements, the means for the resolution of disputes between the parties, and the terms for renewal or termination of the contract. IANA operations should be reliable and consistent, with any registry changes made in an open and transparent manner to the global community. > > The agreement should also require the IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry services. The contract would also provide for jurisdiction and governing law regarding the new arrangement. > > ------- > · Description of how you have tested or evaluated the > workability of any new technical or > operational methods proposed in this document and how they > compare to established arrangements. > · Risks to operational continuity and how they will be addressed. > > This proposal does not propose any new technical or operational methods. There is inclusion of a proposed Review Committee to be established by the five RIRs acting cooperatively and coordinating > through the NRO EC; however, this does not carry any new operational method as the IANA functions operator would remain accountable to the party with whom it is contracting, in this case, the five RIRs in place of the NTIA. The proposed Review Committee is a tool for the five RIRs to evaluate and review performance of the IANA functions provided. > > > > V. NTIA Requirements > > Additionally, NTIA has established that the transition proposal must meet the following five requirements: > > · Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; > · Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the > Internet DNS; > · Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and > partners of the IANA services; > · Maintain the openness of the Internet. > · The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a > government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. > > This section should explain how your community’s proposal meets these requirements and how it responds to the global interest in the IANA functions. > > ------- > The proposal for the IANA stewardship transition for the Internet number registries builds upon the existing, successful framework used by the Internet number community today. The major characteristics of this approach include: > > 1. Global number policy development which is open and transparent to any and all participants > 2. Continuance of existing IANA service levels, escalation processes, and reporting mechanisms > 3. Maintenance of independent review and ratification for developed global Internet number resource policy > 4. Continued use of periodic third-party independent reviews of accountability and transparency of processes > 5. No change of the existing IANA operator for maximum stability and security of operational processes and systems > 6. Accountable, member-based, globally-distributed RIR organizations providing routine IANA operational oversight for the Internet number registries > 7. No new organization is proposed. However, a new process within the RIR structures is proposed, where a Review Committee is established to advise and assist the NRO EC in its periodic review of the service level provided by the IANA functions operator. > > As a result of the approach taken (and its characteristics as outlined above), it is clear that the proposal from the Internet number community meets the stated NTIA requirements. > > > VI. Community Process > > This section should describe the process your community used for developing this proposal, including: > > · The steps that were taken to develop the proposal and to > determine consensus. > · Links to announcements, agendas, mailing lists, consultations > and meeting proceedings. > · An assessment of the level of consensus behind your > community’s proposal, including a description of areas of > contention or disagreement. > > ------- > 1. Regional and global process > > Each of the five RIR communities is discussing the IANA stewardship issues via mailing lists, at their RIR meetings and in other community forums. While these discussions have been uniformly open and transparent, with all discussions archived on mailing lists and meeting records, each community has adopted a specific process of their own choosing to reach an agreed community output. > > The results from the five regional processes fed a global process that produced this document. More details about the regional and global processes are given below, interspersed with links to relevant documents. > > 2. AFRINIC regional process: > The AFRINIC community held a consultative meeting on 25 May to 6 June 2014 during the Africa Internet Summit (AIS'2014) in Djibouti in the "IANA oversight transition" workshop. As a follow up to the meeting, AFRINIC setup a mailing list to provide a platform for the African > Internet community to discuss the IANA Oversight Transition process. The mailing list was announced on July 4, 2014 to develop a community position. The list and its archives can be found at: > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ianaoversight > > A Dedicated web portal was setup for sharing information on the IANA stewardship transition with the AFRINIC community and is also available at http://afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition > > AFRINIC also conducted a survey seeking community input on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The results of the survey are published > at: http://afrinic.net/images/stories/Initiatives/%20survey%20on%20the%20iana%2… > %20transition.pdf > > > The last face-to-face meeting at which IANA oversight transition consultations were held with the community was during the AFRINIC-21 meeting in Mauritius, 22-28 November 2014. The recordings of > the session are available at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/vod > > Discussions continued on the ianaoversight(a)afrinic.net mailing list, until the closure of the comments from the number resources communities set by the CRISP Team on 12th Jan 2015. > > 3. APNIC regional process: > APNIC, as the secretariat for the APNIC community has set up a public mailing list (announced on 1 Apr 2014) to develop a community position, and have discussions about the proposal from the region on IANA stewardship transition: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/IANAxfer > > Webpage, dedicated to sharing up-to-date information on the IANA stewardship transition was set up, for the APNIC community members and wider community members who are interested in this issue can be updated: http://www.apnic.net/community/iana-transition > > Draft proposal was discussed at the dedicated session at the APNIC 38 Meeting, which saw the general community consensus. The meeting provided > remote participation tools to enable wider participation from communities across Asia Pacific and beyond, with live webcasts well as Adobe Connect virtual conference room. > > https://conference.apnic.net/38/program#iana > > The discussions continued on the "ianaxfer(a)apnic.net." mailing list, > until the closure of the comments from the number resources communities set by CRISP Team as 12th Jan 2015. > > 4. ARIN regional process: > > <TBD> > > 5. LACNIC regional process: > > > <TBD> > > 6. RIPE regional process: > The RIPE community agreed at the RIPE 68 Meeting in May 2014 that the development of a community position on IANA stewardship should take place in the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, and via that working group's public mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg- lists/cooperation > > The RIPE NCC, as secretariat for the RIPE community, also facilitated discussions on the IANA stewardship in national and regional forums across the RIPE NCC service region. Summaries of these discussions were posted to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list and on the RIPE website: > https://www.ripe.net/iana-discussions > > Between September and November 2014, RIPE community discussion centered around developing a set of principles reflecting the communities primary concerns in the development of an alternative IANA stewardship arrangement. These discussions are reflected in the discussions on the mailing list from that time: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation- wg/ > > Discussions at the RIPE 69 Meeting in November 2014 saw general community consensus on the principles discussed on the mailing list, and support expressed for the three community members selected to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team. > > RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session: https://ripe69.ripe.net/programme/meeting- plan/coop-wg/#session1 > RIPE 69 Closing Plenary Session: https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10112/ > > ------- > 7. Global process (CRISP Team) > On 16 October 2014, the NRO EC proposed the formation of a Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship > > Proposal (CRISP) team to develop a single Internet numbering community proposal to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). Each RIR community selected three members (two community members and one RIR staff) to participate in the team. The participants selected were: > > AFRINIC Region > Alan P. Barrett – Independent Consultant > Mwendwa Kivuva – Network Infrastructure Services, University of Nairobi Ernest Byaruhanga (Appointed RIR staff) > > ARIN Region > Bill Woodcock – President and Research Director of Packet Clearing House > John Sweeting – Sr. Director, Network Architecture & Engineering at Time Warner Cable > Michael Abejuela (Appointed RIR staff) > > APNIC Region > Dr Govind – CEO NIXI > Izumi Okutani – Policy Liaison JPNIC > Craig Ng (Appointed RIR staff) > > LACNIC Region > Nico Scheper - Curacao IX > Esteban Lescano - Cabase Argentina > Andrés Piazza (Appointed RIR staff) > > RIPE NCC Region > Nurani Nimpuno – Head of Outreach & Communications at Netnod > Andrei Robachevsky – Technology Programme Manager at the Internet Society Paul Rendek (Appointed > RIR staff) > > Steps and timeline for proposal development and links to announcements, mailing lists, and > proceedings - https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for… > engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process > > ------- > 8. Assessment of consensus level > <TBD> > > <END> > > On 2014/12/29 20:43, Izumi Okutani wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> CRISP Team has published an editorial version of the Internet >> numbers community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the >> IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG): >> >> http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1 >> >> From the initial draft we published on 19th Dec [*], we have made >> editorial changes only. No changes are made in contents of the proposal. >> >> [*] >> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-First-Draft1.pdf >> >> The editorial changes are intended to clarify our answers to RFP, by >> re-ordering answers in the same order as questions listed in each >> Section. Some small additions have been made to address points that had >> not been answered in the earlier draft. Finally, there are some changes >> made for stylistic reasons. >> >> The deadline of the comments to be submitted to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> >> mailing list remains the same: Monday 5th Jan 2015. >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions about version 1.1 of our >> draft proposal, and we continue to welcome feedback from the community. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

3 4

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 02 Jan '15

02 Jan '15

Fyi. The CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 2 januari 2015 16:03:18 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>, <crisp(a)nro.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 8th Teleconference January 5th 2015 @ 13:00 UTC > > Hi > > Please find below webex information for the 8th CRISP Team teleconference to be held on Monday January 5th 2015 at 13:00 UTC > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > ====== > > CRISP Team 8thTeleconference > Monday, January 5, 2015 > 1:00pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=mc7fe8904fb98d0e4132409b1f6362… > > Meeting number: > 701 103 817 > Meeting password: > crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Accesscode: 701 103 817 > Global call-in numbers | > > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=359012… > > Toll-free calling restrictions > > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > > Add this meeting to your calendar. > > Can't join the m Contact support. > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note thatsession. > > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda for 7th CRISP Teleconference Re: CRISP 7th Teleconference Friday January 2nd at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 02 Jan '15

02 Jan '15

FYI. Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda for 7th CRISP Teleconference Re: CRISP 7th Teleconference Friday January 2nd at 13:00 UTC > Date: 2 januari 2015 01:50:29 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > This is the draft agenda for the coming 7th CRISP Teleconference on Friday January 2nd at 13:00 UTC. > > The call is open to observers as usual - please see the invitation from the NRO Secretariat for details of joining the call. > > ---- > 1. Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Mintutes from the last meeting > b. Recordings > c. Publish Issues status list on NRO Website > d. Issues raised (IRP,Contract,Review Team) > > 3. Feedback from the community > a. Other RIR community list > b. Status of continued topics > c. New topics raised > > 4. Next Steps > a. CRISP Team's general direction per issue > b. Volunteers to work on wording and communication > c. Updating the issues list > > 5. Next Meeting > > 6. AOB > ---- > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > > > On 2014/12/31 20:13, Maria Gayo wrote: >> >> >> >> This is an invitation to join the 7th CRISP Teleconference. >> >> Regards >> >> >> María Gayo >> (on behalf of the NRO Secretariat) >> >> Webex details below >> >> -------------- >> >> >> *CRISP Team 7th Teleconference* >> >> Friday, January 2, 2015 >> >> 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr >> >> *Join WebEx meeting* >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m0b67a2ead64ae579fec90d2cf3b63…> >> >> Meeting number: >> >> >> >> 700 449 709 >> >> Meeting password: >> >> >> >> crispteam >> >> *Join by phone* >> >> *0800-051-3810* Call-in toll-free number (UK) >> >> *+44-203-478-5289* Call-in toll number (UK) >> >> Access code: 700 449 709 >> >> Global call-in numbers >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=359012…> | >> Toll-free calling restrictions <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >> >> Add this meeting >> <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m29807507d0cdda74b855bdc6249d6…>to >> your calendar. >> >> Can't join the meeting? Contact support. <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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Embedded Image >> *María Gayo* >> Coordinadora de Comunicaciones >> Communications Coordinator >> *# 4206* >> Embedded Image >> *Casa de Internet de >> Latinoamérica y el Caribe* >> Rambla Rep. de México 6125 >> 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay >> +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net <http://www.lacnic.net> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ianaxfer mailing list >> ianaxfer(a)nro.net >> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 7th Teleconference Friday January 2nd at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 01 Jan '15

01 Jan '15

Dear colleagues, Please find details below about the 7th CRISP teleconference. The CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Maria Gayo <mgayo(a)lacnic.net> > Date: 31 december 2014 12:17:43 CET > To: crisp(a)nro.net > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Team 7th Teleconference Friday January 2nd at 13:00 UTC > Reply-To: mgayo(a)lacnic.net > > > This is an invitation to join the 7th CRISP Teleconference. > > Regards > > > María Gayo > (on behalf of the NRO Secretariat) > > Webex details below > > -------------- > > > CRISP Team 7th Teleconference > Friday, January 2, 2015 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: > 700 449 709 > Meeting password: > crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 700 449 709 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Add this meeting to your calendar. > > Can't join the meeting? Contact support. > > 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. > -- > María Gayo > Coordinadora de Comunicaciones > Communications Coordinator > # 4206 > Casa de Internet de > Latinoamérica y el Caribe > Rambla Rep. de México 6125 > 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay > +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published
by Nurani Nimpuno 01 Jan '15

01 Jan '15

FYI. Nurani Nimpuno Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Editorial version of Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship, Proposal published > Date: 29 december 2014 12:43:23 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > CRISP Team has published an editorial version of the Internet > numbers community's response to the Request For Proposals issued by the > IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG): > > http://www.nro.net/crisp-proposal-first-draft-1-1 > > From the initial draft we published on 19th Dec [*], we have made > editorial changes only. No changes are made in contents of the proposal. > > [*] > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-First-Draft1.pdf > > The editorial changes are intended to clarify our answers to RFP, by > re-ordering answers in the same order as questions listed in each > Section. Some small additions have been made to address points that had > not been answered in the earlier draft. Finally, there are some changes > made for stylistic reasons. > > The deadline of the comments to be submitted to <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > mailing list remains the same: Monday 5th Jan 2015. > > Please let us know if you have any questions about version 1.1 of our > draft proposal, and we continue to welcome feedback from the community. > > > Best Regards, > Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO-NC role in Review Committee
by Hans Petter Holen 31 Dec '14

31 Dec '14

I would like to draw your attention to a particular item in the IANAXFER proposal: It would be appreciated if more community members found some time between the festivities to read and comment on the proposals. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NRO-NC role in Review Committee Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:00:56 +0200 From: Alan Barrett <apb(a)cequrux.com> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net There has been a suggestion that the work of the "Review Committee" proposed in the CRISP draft should be handled by the NRO-NC, or alternatively, that the chair of the NRO-NC should be co-opted to serve on the Review Committee. The CRISP Team believes that is would be wise to to keep the operational performance review process independent of the policy development process. Because the NRO-NC (or ASO-AC) has a role in global policy development, we think that the proposed Review Committee should be independent of the NRO-NC. The draft proposal says "The NRO Executive Council shall establish a Review Committee that will advise and assist the NRO Executive Council in its periodic review. Any such Review Committee should be a team composed of representatives from each RIR region ...". The CRISP Team has not discussed how many members the Review Committee might have, or what procedure the NRO EC might follow in choosing the members. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ ianaxfer mailing list ianaxfer(a)nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP 6th Teleconference Monday December 29th at 13:00 UTC + Agenda
by Nurani Nimpuno 29 Dec '14

29 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, Please find the details of today's CRISP teleconference below. The CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team -- Nurani Nimpuno Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod <nurani(a)netnod.se>, http://www.netnod.se Box 30194 | SE-104 25 Stockholm | Sweden --------------------------------------------- Begin forwarded message: > From: Maria Gayo <mgayo(a)lacnic.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP 6th Teleconference Monday December 29th at 13:00 UTC + Agenda > Date: 26 december 2014 20:16:19 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Reply-To: mgayo(a)lacnic.net > > > > This is an invitation to join the 6th CRISP Teleconference and the agenda > > AGENDA > > TC 13:00 Mon 29th Dec 2014 > > 1.Agenda Review > > 2. Actions Review > a. Minutes > b. Publication of the edited version > c. Version control > d. List issues on NRO-IANAXFER > e. User friendly recordings > > > 3. Review Feedback and actions needed > a. Regional lists > b. Publishing of issues list > c. Addressing each issue > - IRP issues (domain & database) > - Review Committee > - other issues > > 4. Preparation for the 2nd draft > a. Volunteers: drafting text and communications > b. Any Coordination? IETF, ICANN CWG > > > 5. AOB > -------- > > > Regards > > María Gayo > (on behalf of the NRO Secretariat) > > > Webex details below > > ------------------------- > > > CRISP Team 6th Teleconference > Monday, December 29, 2014 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: > 704 502 792 > Meeting password: > crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 704 502 792 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Add this meeting to your calendar. > > Can't join the meeting? Contact support. > > 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. > -- > María Gayo > Coordinadora de Comunicaciones > Communications Coordinator > # 4206 > Casa de Internet de > Latinoamérica y el Caribe > Rambla Rep. de México 6125 > 11400 Montevideo-Uruguay > +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

First Draft, Seeking Feedback: Internet Numbers Community IANA Stewardship Proposal
by Andrei Robachevsky 22 Dec '14

22 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team has now published the first draft of an Internet numbers community proposal for the future of the IANA stewardship. The draft is available here: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-IANA-PROPOSAL-First-Draft1.pdf Feedback from the global numbers community is now being sought. This feedback can be sent to the global NRO IANA stewardship discussion list, <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>, or can be sent to the appropriate regional mailing lists. The RIPE CRISP representatives will be closely following discussions on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list, as well as the global discussion. We would strongly encourage those RIPE community members with an interest in this topic to contribute to the global discussion on <ianaxfer(a)nro.net>. The deadline for all feedback on this first draft is Monday 5 January 2015. The CRISP team will then produce a further draft by 8 January, which will be open for final feedback from the communities before submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January. The RIPE CRISP representatives circulated some draft text of an initial proposal to the RIPE Cooperation WG mailing list on 28 November. We felt that this draft captured the RIPE community input. A key addition in this first CRISP draft is the formation of a community-based Review Committee. This committee would produce an annual, non-binding report on the performance of the IANA operator, a concept that evolved from the Multistakeholder Oversight Numbers Council (MONC) that was originally proposed by the LACNIC community. We feel that this Review Committee addresses the concerns expressed by the LACNIC community, while not creating unnecessary complex new structures. We look forward to hearing from the RIPE community on this important process. Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky, on behalf of the RIPE CRISP representatives Important Links —— Subscribe to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg/ Suscribe to the NRO IANA Transfer mailing list: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer Information on the CRISP team and its work [includes members, charter, teleconference minutes and audio]: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team Public archive of the internal CRISP mailing list: https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/ RIR community timeline for IANA stewardship discussion and links to regional outputs: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for… RIPE NCC IANA stewardship information: https://www.ripe.net/iana-stewardship-transition

2 1

Fwd: CRISP 5th Teleconference Monday December 22nd at 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 22 Dec '14

22 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, Please find information about the fifth teleconference of the CRISP team below. The CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. Kind regards, Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 21 december 2014 12:44:15 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP 5th Teleconference Monday December 22nd at 13:00 UTC > > > Hi > > This is an invitation to join the 5th CRISP Teleconference > > Webex details below > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > ===== > > > CRISP Team 5th Teleconference > Monday, December 22, 2014 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m0348482bacaeff18e36634cd53cce… > > Meeting number: > 707 682 475 > Meeting password: > crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 707 682 475 > Global call-inbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Add this meeting to your calendar. > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Archives of the internal CRISP mailinglist are available online
by Andrei Robachevsky 19 Dec '14

19 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, Let me apologise for a wrong url I provided in my previous mail ("First Draft, Seeking Feedback: Internet Numbers Community IANA Stewardship Proposal") when referring to the public archives of the CRISP internal mailinglist. The correct archives location is: https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/ Regards, Andrei

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Update on Timeline Re: Timeline (Re: [Iana-transition] 1st CRISP Meeting Notes)
by Nurani Nimpuno 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

FYI. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Update on Timeline Re: Timeline (Re: [Iana-transition] 1st CRISP Meeting Notes) > Date: 18 december 2014 04:43:55 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > > I would like to update there has been a change in CRISP team timeline in > publishing the initial draft. > > First draft to be published : 19 Dec 2014 > Second draft to be published : 8 Jan 2015 > Final proposal to be sent to ICG: 15 Jan 2015 > > The next CRISP team Teleconference is scheduled on Thursday December > 18th 2014 at 13:00 UTC. > > To join as an observer, please see a seperate meeting invitation sent > out by German. The call is open to observers as all CRISP Team > Teleconferences. > > > Regards, > Izumi Okutani > > (2014/12/12 20:11), Izumi Okutani wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> >> You can see the latest timeline of our schedule from here: >> >> https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/CRISP-Team-Timeline-141211.pdf >> >> The current plan is to publish and share on this list >> >> - the initial draft on 18th Dec 2014 >> - 2nd draft on 5th Jan 2015 >> >> We'll keep you posted in case there are any changes. >> >> Our next call is schedule on 17th Dec 13:00 UTC, as the Webex invitation >> has already been sent out on this list earlier by German. >> >> >> Regards, >> Izumi >>

1 0

Minutes session 1 and 2 Cooperation WG at RIPE69
by Maria Häll 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

Hi all Here below you find the minutes from both Cooperation WG sessions Thursday 5th November 2014, at RIPE69 in London. We wish you all a Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year! See you soon again! Best, Maria, Meredith, Alain co-chairs Cooperation WG Session 1 - IANA Oversight Transition and Internet Governance After giving a brief background to the IANA stewardship discussions, Chris Buckridge presented on the processes currently underway at the RIR community level (including the formation of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship, or CRISP, team) and global level to develop a stewardship transition proposal to the United States government. He also detailed the current draft RIPE community principles that have been distributed on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list and the subject of some discussion, and gave an outline of what the RIPE NCC believes a Service Level Agreement between the RIRs and the IANA functions operator would look like. He concluded with a summary of discussions to date in the other RIR communities. Athina Fragkouli gave a presentation on the inter-related process going on to ensure and enhance the accountability of all organisational players related to the IANA functions, including the RIRs and ICANN. Paul Rendek led an open discussion of the issues raised in the two presentations and of the RIPE communities position in relation to IANA stewardship. Randy Bush noted that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) already has a Service Level Agreement in place with ICANN regarding ICANN’s management of the IANA functions relating to protocol parameters, and asked if the plans for an RIR-IANA SLA were being coordinated with IETF participants. Athina noted that the RIPE NCC and CRISP team will look to coordinate with the IETF and investigate opportunities to build on what they have already developed. Daniel Karrenberg agreed with Athina, and speaking as a member of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), noted that it is an explicit part of the process that all communities talk to each other while developing their parts of the proposal. He stressed that the current time line cannot be met should the ICG receive incompatible proposals and added that when the CRISP team is constituted, ICG members will do their best to help ensure that the CRISP team does not work in isolation. Patrik Fältström and Chris Buckridge noted the documents produced by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) on the IANA functions themselves and the existing contractual relationships that currently relate to their operation. Randy also noted that there can be no accountability without transparency - he suggested that ICANN has not been a good example of transparency, while some of the RIRs have done better in this regard. Alexander Isavnin noted that organisations are “accountable” to someone, and the question of to whom ICANN or the RIRs are accountable will be important to many stakeholders, particularly in government. He also suggested that informed community contribution to this process will rely on published analysis of the existing documents and arrangements. Salam Yamout, noting the ICANN accountability process, suggested that we think about longer term goals for ICANN and its accountability. Paul Rendek suggested that this highlighted the importance of ensuring that the IANA stewardship and ICANN accountability are considered separately (as Athina noted in her presentation on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group) and particularly the need to emphasise that longer term accountability goals not hinder the IANA stewardship transition. He noted that while the RIRs are not perfect, they can provide an example in terms of what specific ICANN accountability issues will need to be resolved ahead of the IANA stewardship transition. Carsten Schiefner asked whether the RIPE NCC and community were regarding it as settled that ICANN would continue in its role as IANA functions operator. Responding, Daniel Karrenberg noted that while there is not clear consensus for the long-run, minimal change to a working system has been identified as an important goal by the community; in the short-term, that means ICANN continuing in the role. He added that the RIRs have been happy with ICANN's performance of these duties, but he stressed that moving forward, the RIRs need to make sure a contract is in place and that the term and options for termination of that contract are clearly spelled out. He also noted that not specifying ICANN in the role at this stage of the process would be seen as a specific political statement. Tahar Schaa asked what are the risks in this process are, and whether the RIPE NCC has an opinion on whether this is a good thing or a risky thing. Paul Rendek noted that the idea of this transition is not new, and that while there was some risk that this process would end up with no change to the status quo, the status quo was actually working. He noted, however, that a failure to transition the NTIA out of its current role would have political repercussions, as highlighted in discussion at the recent meeting in Brussels with RIPE NCC, CENTR and EU government representatives. Filiz Yilmaz described IANA stewardship as a colossal opportunity and a chance to bring RIR principles to parts of the Internet community where accountability has not been so clear. In terms of risk, she agreed that maximum stability must be prioritised at all stages of the discussion and in any eventual SLA, but we don’t want to see the process get stuck and it is important that the RIR legal teams taking a lead here. Ashley Heineman of the NTIA offered her thanks for the invitation to sit in on the session, and stressed the importance of the NTIA understanding what the communities are thinking. She noted that the NTIA is happy to be a resource in terms of answering questions about their role and the existing contracts. Sandy Murphy noted that the NTIA did not promise that they would accept the final proposal that it receives, and asked whether that has changed. Ashley noted that while this has not changed, the NTIA and the U.S. government are very committed to transition process, and as long as the proposal is within the framework of clear basic requirements laid out in the initial announcement, the NTIA are happy to review with the intention of approving the proposal. Jason Schiller noted that the output of the recent LACNIC meeting suggests that the contracting party would be Number Resource Organization (NRO), while the current RIPE draft says that the RIRs would be the contracting parties. Axel Pawlik noted that the NRO is not incorporated, and that any legal agreement would need to be signed by the RIRs. Patrik Fältström noted that when it comes to merging proposals from the three communities (names, numbers and protocol parameters), the names is unique, as this is the only place that NTIA has an operational role - he stressed that it will therefore be important for the CRISP team to work with communities that have slightly different needs. Paul Rendek agreed that the names community does not have the same kind of communities or processes. Patrik noted that for IANA to work, there needs to be trust between the requestor of IANA changes and the IANA functions operator that makes those changes, and this is a central issue to the stewardship transition discussion. Randy Bush noted that he understands that the IETF and the RIRs have been happy with ICANN’s performance as IANA operator for many years, and that in these cases, IANA is essentially a bookkeeper for the Internet. But he too noted that the situation for names is different. Heather Schiller questioned what about this process would improve the transparency of ICANN itself, and suggested that this was one of the most problematic issues. Paul Rendek noted that the RIRs are not entrenched in ICANN, but that the RIRs can demonstrate our own accountability, and we can help with building the community there. Heather argued that monetisation of the DNS means that in the ICANN context, little attention is paid to the RIRs and the numbering community, but the operation of ICANN is important to this community. Paul agreed, but noted that while ICANN accountability is a long discussion, a proposal for IANA stewardship is needed by next summer. Hans Petter Holen suggested that it is important for the community to look at what RIPE NCC is: an organisation accountable to its members via the Executive Board, and also accountable to RIPE as an open policy forum. He stressed that the IANA operator should be accountable to “us” (the global Internet) - if that means entering into a contract with a non-transparent, open organisation, we need to make sure that our lawyers ensure that we have the contractual power over that organisation. He noted that in terms of names, ICANN needs to be more accountable, but that the big question for the RIR communities is, can we trust an organisation that’s not yet open and transparent? Paul Rendek suggested that no responsible administration (including the NTIA) would release stewardship of these functions to a new, untested process, and therefore we need to stay true to our existing principles, not make up new ones. John Curran noted that the existing policy authorities are already recognised, the current system works and we can keep ICANN in place without much changing. However, such a change could mean that the RIRs are eternally in this stewardship role, meaning the RIRs need to make sure that they are accountable to their communities. The ability for someone else to intervene goes away with the change being proposed. Jim Reid argued that we need to avoid being sidetracked by ICANN accountability issues, which may never be fully solved, and focus on the issues relating to the IANA functions issues, which are clearly understood. Randy Bush disagreed, arguing that the community is responsible not just to people in this room, but to the users, and while taking on ICANN accountability is a large problem, the pressure to get the IANA stewardship transition successfully completed may provide us with the only chance to solve the bigger accountability issue. Ruediger Volk noted that while the RIPE NCC is accountable to the relatively small stakeholder group of RIPE operators, it must also consider users and the broader world, and he noted that in other RIR discussions (in LACNIC for instance), the communities have seen a need to reach out further. He noted that this may be walking into a swamp, but it is a question that the RIPE community needs to ask. Paul Rendek noted that while LACNIC have raised the issue of whether RIR community processes fit the definition of multistakeholder, the RIPE community unquestionably operates according to bottom-up, open, inclusive processes, and we should stay true to those principles in any IANA proposal. Paul Rendek also noted that other discussions about the IANA stewardship issues have been facilitated by the RIPE NCC in regional meetings and network operator groups across the service region. The resounding impression from those events is community members asking “how will this affect my business and my relationship with RIPE NCC?”. Paul closed the discussion and encouraged everyone to continue the discussions on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Session 2 Securing the Internet Post-Snowden: Securing hardware with Cryptech, Randy Bush Randy Bush provided an update on Cryptech, a community project to develop a Hardware Security Module. He briefly described the project, gave an update on its progress to date and outlined what the project needs from the technical community, policymakers, industry partners and supporters generally. Meredith Whittaker asked when the HSMs would be in production. Randy noted that the goal of the project is open source design, rather than actual production, but that as part of their work, the project partners plan to produce around 50 laptop boards in coming month for people to play with. Vesna Manojlovic asked for more specific details on how people in the RIPE community could help. Randy noted that money would be very useful to progressing the project, but that any additional crypto, hardware or software tool chain expertise would also be useful. Shane Kerr asked about plans for certification. Randy noted that while there are no immediate plans for certification, the project partners do have FIPS certification in mind. The expectation is that someone using the Cryptech designs could make a FIPS-certified product. Sasha van Geffen asked whether this was simply shifting the security problem to the production side of things, particularly given the patent environment surrounding chip design. Randy noted that the project includes an academic with expertise in patent law, and all efforts are made to use well‑known open algorithms, so they are not too worried about patents. He conceded that trojans are more of a concern. Sasha clarified that he was asking how they can ensure that their design is actually built into machines as intended. Randy agreed that this is a challenge - if you pay Juniper to put the Cryptech HSM on a board, how do you know that you are getting that design? Designing for testability of the whole production process, not just the random number generator itself, is vital. Meredith Whittaker noted that auditability is a major issue, and also a subject under consideration in the “Caring for the Core Infrastructure Commons” BoF session. Patrik Fältström asked whether the Cryptech team was working with any certification agencies to ensure that those agencies can use the final design, and volunteered his assistance in that. Randy pointed out that they were deliberately not working with agencies, as they are wary of how strongly their engineering decisions are influenced by any part of the culture, but that they believe they can design for certification. But he stressed the importance of engagement of engineers from other places, noting that they have a Russian crypto designer on the team, but are unable to get anyone from China. Measuring and Preserving Freedom of Expression Online Technology, Policy, and the Need to Engage Local Communities, Amelia Andersdotter Amelia Andersdotter, a former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), spoke about the need for better engagement by technical community (and the public more generally) with legislative processes and the parliamentarians that have a role in those processes. Amelia noted her past experience as a recently-unseated Swedish MEP for the Pirate Party, and her hope that she might use this experience to help people engage with the European Parliament. She noted the challenge in having local constituencies engage in larger legislative processes, but noted that Parliament is quite different from national regulators or governments Ministries and departments, as the Parliamentarians are directly accountable to voters, whereas government employees are often more comfortable and stable in their role. Amelie highlighted copyright reform as an issue that can affect people directly, and which is the subject of a current legislative proposal coming from the European Commission. She noted that this proposal has been very contentious, and there has been significant public participation, but she emphasised that the outcome of this discussion will affect the way decisions are made about technical issues. One strategy that Amelia emphasised to effectively influence discussion in the European Parliament was to engage directly with the local councils rather than parliamentarians or larger government structures. This is because the local councils have a key role in selecting the lists of MEP candidates for each party, giving them a stronger voice in the process. Alexander Isavnin thanked Amelia for her presentation, but noted that it spoke only about engaging the institutions of the European Union, and asked how it might relate to engagement in Russia. Amelia noted that the former Russian president had been the only leader to ever discuss full reform of the Berne Convention [for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works], but that that this did not seem to have carried over to the current administration. Alexander asked whether Amelia felt Internet services should be regarded as utility services for everyone and regulated accordingly. Amelia emphasised her belief that a competitive market is important, and while not seeing telecommunications as “critical infrastructure”, it is vital to allow as many people as possible to have access. She stressed the importance of action at the local level, looking at municipalities that have provided wifi access and other initiatives. Carsten Schieffner noted that MEPs are bombarded with many issues, and asked how local communities could make themselves heard. Amelia noted that (absent money to pay lobbyists) you need to find someone whose time and attention will be valuable to an MEP, and again emphasised the role of municipal councillors - she noted that the challenge is getting those local councillors interested in your issue. George Michaelson noted what he saw as very problematic legislative proposals coming out of the European Commission (EC) in recent years last year, and noted his general scepticism of technology when it comes to advancing social issues. Amelia agreed that there had been justified criticism of EC proposals in the past, but that on the copyright issue there has been a useful public consultation, more than 5000 citizens contributing (a summary of these contributions is available on the EC website). But she stressed that, given the large corporations with a stake in these discussions, it is only through public engagement that any idea of the public good will be preserved and reflected in the legislation. What Does it Mean to be a Socially Responsible ISP? Sacha van Geffen Sacha van Geffen of Dutch ISP Greenhost discussed his organisation’s work with activist communities, their approach to privacy preservation and making ecologically responsible choices. Chris Baker from DYN noted that while Tor may be good, it is often used by criminals, and asked what tools Greenhost are using to keep botnets and other abuse in check. Sacha noted that highways also cater to criminals, but agreed that there are good policies you can set to Tor exit nodes to minimise problems. He agreed that there is some collateral damage, but also suggested that criminals have more sophisticated strategies than just using Tor. Chris suggested that it was also better to hedge across a range of technologies rather than focusing on a well-known technology like Tor, which Sacha agreed was important. ISP Interconnection and Consumer Internet Performance, Collin Anderson Collin Anderson, an independent researcher with the University of Pennsylvania and the Open Technology Institute, discussed his collaborative work using open data to measure the impact of ISP relationships on consumer Internet access. Shane Kerr suggested that this might seem to be work that the regulator should be doing, and asked how much impact it was likely to have in directing policies? Colin stated that the success of study is based on the number of civil society organisations citing it, on regulators interacting with the data, and on how much the work informs the public debate. He also noted that research teams like his provide infrastructure that a lot of governments cannot afford at this time, so if any way of getting this data into the governmental conversations is a success.

1 0

Fwd: Invitation CRISP Team 4th Teleconference Thursday 18th December 2014 13:00 UTC
by Chris Buckridge 18 Dec '14

18 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, Please find below the details to join a CRISP team teleconference today at 13:00 UTC. This call was added to the CRISP timeline on yesterday’s teleconference. Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation CRISP Team 4th Teleconference Thursday 18th December 2014 13:00 UTC > Date: 17 Dec 2014 16:57:49 GMT+1 > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > > Hi > > This is an invitation to participate as observer of the next CRISP Team teleconference to be held on Thursday December 18th 2014 at 13:00 UTC. Webex information below > > Information of previous meetings, including webex audio files, can be found at > > http://www.nro.net/crisp-team > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > CRISP Team 4th Teleconference > Thursday, December 18, 2014 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 704 791 188 > Meeting password: crispteam > > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 704 791 188 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > > Add this meeting to your calendar. > > Can't join the meeting? Contact support. > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0