- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

CRISP Team 3rd Teleconference Wed December 17th Webex Details
by Nurani Nimpuno 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

Dear Colleagues, Please find below the details of the third CRISP Team teleconference. CRISP teleconferences are open to observers. (All CRISP related information is gathered at: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team) Kind regards, Nurani On behalf of the RIPE CRISP Team ---------------------------------------------------------- Nurani Nimpuno Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod http://www.netnod.se Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 3rd Teleconference Wed December 17th Webex Details > Date: 11 december 2014 17:08:55 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > > Hi > > This is an invitation to follow the CRISP Team 3rd Teleconference that will be held on Wednesday December 17th at 13:00 UTC. > > CRISP Teleconference are opened for observers. > > Webex Details below > > regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > ====== > > > CRISP Team 3rd Teleconference > Wednesday, December 17, 2014 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 704 944 471 > 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: 704 944 471 > 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

Third document from SSAC on IANA Stewardship Transition Published
by Patrik Fältström 16 Dec '14

16 Dec '14

SSAC has just made the third document of three on IANA Stewardship Transition available. The three documents are: SAC-067 : Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-067-en.pdf> SAC-068 : SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-068-en.pdf> SAC-069 : SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-069-en.pdf> The first two (SAC-067 and SAC-068) are documents trying to objectively present The IANA Function and The Contract between ICANN and NTIA respectively. The third is an SSAC evaluation of the current situation, or as we (SSAC) say ourselves: > In this Advisory, the SSAC considers issues that may affect the security and stability of the DNS both during and after the transition of the NTIA’s stewardship role for the IANA Functions We in this document make the following recommendations: > Recommendation 1: The operational communities (protocol parameters, names, and numbers) that have been invited to submit proposals should determine 1) whether or not the requirements and deliverables defined in the IANA Functions Contract should be retained, and if so which ones; 2) whether or not additional external controls are necessary for requirements that should be retained; and 3) if additional external controls are necessary, how and by whom they should be administered. > > Recommendation 2a: Each of the communities should determine whether or not existing mechanisms outside of the IANA Functions Contract are sufficiently robust to hold the IANA Functions Operator accountable to the affected communities for the proper performance of the IANA Functions after the IANA Functions Contract expires; and if they are not, the communities should determine what additional accountability mechanisms will be needed. > > Recommendation 2b: Each of the communities should review and (if necessary) enhance its policy development process to ensure that all of the instructions that it provides to the IANA Functions Operator are clear and implementable. > > Recommendation 3: Each of the communities should investigate and clarify the process for handling the possibility of governmental sanctions and restrictions (e.g., the protocol for obtaining OFAC2 licenses where U.S. sanctions might interfere with the ability to execute proper instructions to IANA) following the stewardship transition. > > Recommendation 4: As part of the transition process, each of the affected communities should consider the extent to which the importance of transparency and freedom from > improper influence in the performance of the IANA Functions might require additional mechanisms or other safeguards. > > Recommendation 5: Noting the stability and efficiency of existing structures, processes, and mechanisms for the management of the root zone, the SSAC recommends that any proposal to replace NTIA’s final authorization of root zone changes with an alternative be at least as reliable, resilient, and efficient as the current process. > > Recommendation 6: Effective arrangements should be made for the reliable and timely performance of all aspects of the root zone management process post-transition, including inter-organization coordination if the post-transition RZM process involves more than one root zone management partner. > > Recommendation 7: NTIA should clarify the processes and legal framework associated with the role of the Root Zone Maintainer after transition. Regards, Patrik Fältström SSAC Chair

1 0

Minutes from the CRISP team teleconference 11 December 2014
by Nurani Nimpuno 15 Dec '14

15 Dec '14

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the minutes from the CRISP team teleconference that took place on 11 December 2014. All CRISP related information is available from the NRO website: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team 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 ---------------------------------------------

1 0

Minutes from the first CRISP teleconference
by Nurani Nimpuno 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached the minutes from the first CRISP team teleconference. All CRISP related information is available from the NRO website: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team Kind regards, Nurani

5 4

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft for discussion
by Andrei Robachevsky 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Colleagues, This is the initial draft shared on the ianaxfer mailinglist that the CRISP Team is taking as a baseline for discussions. I think it would be better if you direct your comments directly to the ianaxfer mailinglist. Regards, Andrei -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft for discussion Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:03:46 +0200 From: Alan Barrett <apb(a)cequrux.com> To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net The attached draft document will be discussed during the CRISP teleconference, which has just begun. This is a rough draft intended as input to the discussion process. --apb (Alan Barrett)

1 1

CRISP Team Holds First Teleconference
by Nurani Nimpuno 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, The Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team held its first public teleconference on 9 December 2014 at 13:00 UTC. Nurani Nimpuno, Andrei Robachevsky and Paul Rendek participated in the call from the RIPE community. A number of preliminary decisions were made during the teleconference. Izumi Okutani (APNIC community representative) was elected as the Chair of the CRISP team, with Alan Barrett (AFRINIC community representative) elected as Vice Chair. It was also agreed that a second CRISP team mailing list should be established for internal discussion between the CRISP team members, though the focus on transparency via the ianaxfer(a)nro.net must remain a priority for the group. This transparency will also extend to regular feedback from the RIPE CIRSP team to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group on CRISP team progress. It was noted by all that the timeline for the CRISP team to complete its work is very aggressive, with plans to have the final document produced by 15 January 2015. With that in mind, a draft timeline of teleconferences was discussed, with the next call scheduled to take place on 11 December at 13:00 UTC (that is, in two days' time). Ahead of that call, CRISP team members will share any drafting work already undertaken at the regional level, along with a report on recent discussions held between the Regional Internet Registry directors and the RIR staff CRISP team members. As with today's teleconference, information on how to join the upcoming CRISP teleconferences as an observer will be sent to the Cooperation Working Group. Best regards, Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team ---------------------------------------------------------- Nurani Nimpuno, Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod <nurani(a)netnod.se> http://www.netnod.se

3 3

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 2nd Teleconference Thursday December 11th 2014 @ 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 11 Dec '14

11 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, You will find details on the second teleconference of the CRISP team below. Please note that these teleconferences are open to silent observers. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno On behalf of the RIPE CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Date: 10 december 2014 08:35:30 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team 2nd Teleconference Thursday December 11th 2014 @ 13:00 UTC > > > Hi > > Below it's webex information to join to the 2nd CRISP Team teleconference to be held on December 11th 2014 @ 13:00 UTC > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > > > > > > > > German Valdez invites you to join this WebEx meeting. > > CRISP Team 2nd Teleconference > Thursday, December 11, 2014 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 703 084 125 > 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: 703 084 125 > 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

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda - CRISP Team Teleconference 1 - Tuesday, 9 December 2014
by Nurani Nimpuno 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

Dear Colleagues, For your information. Please note that the CRISP teleconferences are open to the public. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Nurani Nimpuno Head of Outreach & Communications, Netnod http://www.netnod.se Begin forwarded message: > From: Paul Rendek <rendek(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft Agenda - CRISP Team Teleconference 1 - Tuesday, 9 December 2014 > Date: 7 december 2014 11:51:18 CET > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am pleased to see that we have agreed on the first teleconference of the CRISP team to be held on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 @ 13:00 UTC. > > Below, please find a draft agenda for the proposed meeting. Michael Abejuela brought forward a few items that I believe are all covered in the draft agenda. > > If there are any other items not covered by this agenda please bring them forward to be included prior to the teleconference. > > I have added the webex/phone details below as a reference. I look forward to seeing you all on the teleconference call this week. > > Kind Regards, > > Paul Rendek > Director of External Relations > RIPE NCC > > === > Draft Agenda for CRISP teleconference 1 > > 1. Working Method > • Chair, Vice-Chair of the CRISP team > • ianaxfer(a)nro.net mailing list > • Teleconferences > • Quorum > • Timeline for teleconferences > • Decision-making mechanism > • Drafting tools > > 2. Scope of Activity > > 3. Producing an ICG RFP Response > • Survey of current drafting activity > • RIRs > • Other communities (IETF, CWG) > • Process for making progress > • Divide into sections, sub-teams > • Existing arrangements, > IANA stewardship process > description > • Proposed arrangements > • Timeline for drafting > > > > CRISP Team 1st Teleconference > Tuesday, December 9, 2014 > 1:00 pm | UTC | 2 hr > > Join WebEx meeting > Meeting number: 703 261 254 > 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: 703 261 254 > Global call-in numbers | 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

Initial text for the Post-Transition Oversight and Accountability Arrangements
by Andrei Robachevsky 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

Dear colleagues, As RIPE-selected members of the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team, part of our preparation for this process has involved drafting some initial text in response to the IANA Coordination Group’s Request For Proposals (RFP). This text takes what we understand to be the RIPE community’s position and principles and distills them into a specific proposal. In preparing this text we have noted the drafting work of other stakeholders, including the ARIN CRISP team and the IETF’s ianaplan Working Group. To be clear, this text will form the basis of our position as we begin discussions with representatives from the other RIR communities; the final response to the ICG’s RFP may look somewhat different, depending on outcome of the full CRISP team's discussions. We would like to share our draft text on Section 3 of the RFP document, which covers the details of the proposal itself. We would appreciate any community feedback on the proposal we have drafted: ======= > 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. 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 provided by ICANN or the ongoing community processes for development of policies relating to those services. 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. The Internet numbering community proposes that a new contract be established between the IANA functions operator and the five Regional Internet Registries (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 global Policy Development Process (gPDP). The agreement would include specific requirements for performance and reporting, 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. The agreement should also require the IANA operator to appropriately coordinate with any other operator of IANA-related registry services. 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. - The RIRs will coordinate with their communities and the ICANN Board to develop an IANA Service Level Agreement by June 2015. The processes for developing, agreeing and implementing policy relating to management of the global Internet number resource pools would require no change to accommodate this new arrangement. The text of the ICANN ASO MoU (https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-…) 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. - The RIRs will coordinate with coordinate with the NRO NC to identify any areas covered by the RIR Governance Matrix that require further attention and address those issues by June 2015. ====== We will share further information on the timing of the upcoming CRISP team teleconference shortly. Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team

1 0

Webinars Announced: CWG On Naming Related Functions Public Consultation on Draft Transition Proposal
by Jaap Akkerhuis 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

All, No doubt Lots of folks have seen this, but in case you didn't, the announcement is about: "Following the request of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for ICANN to "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management, a Cross Community Working Group (CWG) was tasked with developing a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System (DNS). The CWG has now published its draft transition proposal for public comment. Comments can be submitted until 22 December at 23:59 UTC." and can be found at <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-01-en>. jaap

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition
by Jaap Akkerhuis 29 Nov '14

29 Nov '14

Announcement about "IANA Stewardship Transition Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions" . Chairs' Statement with progress update and route ahead: <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-28-en> jaap

1 0

The RIPE Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) work
by Nurani Nimpuno 28 Nov '14

28 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 69, at the beginning of November 2014, the RIPE community selected three representatives (two community members and one RIPE NCC staff member) to participate in the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) team. The RIPE CRISP team members are: - Andrei Robachevsky (Internet Society) - Nurani Nimpuno (Netnod) - Paul Rendek (RIPE NCC staff) The CRISP team is tasked with preparing a common proposal on behalf of the global numbering community for stewardship of the IANA functions. This proposal is to be passed to the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG), which has asked that proposals from the three affected communities be formatted around a Request for Proposals (RFP) template produced by the ICG. The members of the CRISP team selected by the RIPE community will work with CRISP team representatives from the other regions to develop this RFP. Their work will be guided by the principles agreed by the RIPE community (see below) and they will ensure that the community remains informed as to the progress and direction of discussions in the CRISP team. Communication to the RIPE community will be via the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list. The principles agreed by the RIPE community, as understood (and updated) by the RIPE CRISP team members, are: - The RIPE community asks its selected CRISP team representatives to work with the other RIRs to produce a common proposal for a legally binding agreement (such as a Service Level Agreement) between ICANN and the RIRs to replace the Internet number-related elements of the ICANN-NTIA agreement. - This proposal should meet the requirements of the Request For Proposals (RFP) produced by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). - The proposal should bring the provisions of the agreement related to the services and service levels up-to-date with current requirements where necessary. - This work should be coordinated with the other users of the IANA function as much as practical, with the aim of producing a proposed arrangement that is compatible with the proposed arrangements of the other IANA users. - The RIPE community asks its CRISP team representatives to keep it informed about progress and content of the proposal. - The RIPE community asks the CRISP team to complete the proposal and to submit it to the ICG before 15 January 2015. The RIPE CRISP team have also identified what we see as an additional principle, not currently made explicit: - Changes to the policy-making structures or processes relating to the IANA registries are not within the scope of the IANA stewardship discussion. At this stage, we (as RIPE CRISP team members) would appreciate any feedback from the community on these principles. The timeline for the CRISP team’s work is very aggressive, and we plan to provide regular updates to this working group, both on the substance of the proposal being developed, the text under discussion and the CRISP team's timeline and processes (including information about public teleconferences). Best regards, Nurani Nimpuno on behalf of the RIPE CRISP team

2 1

RIPE NCC and EuroDIG: Open Call for Input [Deadline 31 December]
by Chris Buckridge 27 Nov '14

27 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, EuroDIG, the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, is an open forum that meets annually to discuss Internet governance issues of relevance to Internet stakeholders in Europe. EuroDIG 2015 will take place from 4-5 June 2015 in Sofia, Bulgaria. What issues do you think should be on the agenda? There is currently an open call for input on topics and issues to be considered in the EuroDIG 2015 programme: http://www.eurodig.org/get-involved/call-for-proposals/ This open call will close on 31 December 2014, and all input received will be considered shaping the agenda of the 2015 event. The planning process will include an opportunity for online community evaluation of the input received and an open planning meeting to take place in Sofia in January 2015. The RIPE NCC recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding to serve as a EuroDIG institutional partner for the next three years, contributing with other institutional partners to the event’s planning and coordination. The RIPE NCC’s goal in this role is to help ensure a strong Internet technical community presence in European Internet governance discussions, providing expert technical input and placing governance issues relevant to the technical community on the EuroDIG agenda. RIPE community members are invited to take an active role in contributing to EuroDIG and its planning process - even if you are not able to attend the event in June, this open call is an important opportunity to help shape the European Internet governance agenda. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposed Charter for Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG)
by Athina Fragkouli 20 Nov '14

20 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, Following my presentation to the Cooperation Working Group last Thursday, 6 November, on the process to enhance ICANN accountability, the Enhancing ICANN Accountability Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) has now published a Draft Charter: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49359098/Enhancing%20ICANN… The Draft Charter includes, among other things, a problem statement, goals and objectives, scope, and proposed areas for work. It was developed by a Drafting Team made up of representatives from a range of ICANN Supporting Organizations (‭SO‬) and Advisory Committees (‭AC‬) : https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafting+Team+Membership Under the Draft Charter, the CCWG is expected to organise its activities into two Work Streams: Work Stream 1 is focused on mechanisms enhancing ‭ICANN‬ accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the ‭IANA‬ Stewardship Transition; and Work Stream 2 is focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the ‭IANA‬ Stewardship Transition. Each ‭ICANN‬ Supporting Organization (‭SO‬) and Advisory Committee (‭AC‬) will consider the proposed Draft Charter during their upcoming November meetings. Following the adoption of the charter, the relevant SOs and ACs will identify representatives to serve on the CCWG. In addition, a call for volunteers to join the CCWG will be launched, so that anyone interested in this effort may join and participate. The CCWG is expected to commence its deliberations in late November or early December. For your reference, here is the link to my presentation to the Cooperation Working Group last Thursday, 6 November: https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10069/ Best regards, Athina Fragkouli, RIPE NCC

2 2

ITU Plenipotentiary 2014: RIPE NCC Report
by Chris Buckridge 18 Nov '14

18 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary 2014 took place over three weeks in Busan, South Korea from 20 October to 7 November. The RIPE NCC has published a report on the conference, detailing our engagement at the event, proposals of concern and an analysis of the conference outcomes: https://www.ripe.net/reports/pp-14 Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Change in the ICANN GAC
by Gordon Lennox 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

"In October 2014, the Chair of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Heather Dryden of Canada, stood down after four years at the helm. She and incoming ICANN GAC Chair Thomas Schneider of Switzerland discuss the role, the past and the future, and governments’ role within ICANN." http://www.emilytaylor.eu/icann-gac-exclusive-change-at-top/

1 0

Workshop on evolution of Internet Governanace
by Gordon Lennox 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

Workshop on evolution of Internet Governance and US transition of IANA stewardship, 12 November, Brussels: agenda and audio call-in details You will find below the agenda as well as call-in details that you can share with colleagues and contacts who may be interested but are not able to join us in person. Agenda (timing only indicative) 1000 – Scene-setting 1. Introduction / scene-setter - EC’s Megan Richards and ICANN’s Jean-Jacques Sahel 2. Overview of the Internet Governance ecosystem & ICANN - presentations by: - Frederic Donck, Internet Society (ISOC) - Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN 3. Q&A 1040 - The IANA stewardship transition process 4. Presentation of the stewardship transition process – Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN - Discussants: - Michael Niebel, European Commission and member of the IANA Stewardship transition coordination group ICG) - Konstantinos Komaitis, ISOC 5. Q&A then break 1130 – Enhancing Accountability and Governance 6. Presentation of the accountability and governance review - Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN - Discussants: - Matthew Shears, CDT - Peter van Roste, CENTR 7. Q&A / discussion End 1245 with wrap-up by ICANN and DG CONNECT, then networking lunch. Conference dial-in details: An Adigo line is available for anyone to listen in to the discussion: from Belgium +32 78 480 286, Conference ID: 956544 ; for other countries, please visit:http://adigo.com/icann.

1 0

RIPE Community Selects CRISP Team Members
by Serge Radovcic 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, Following an open call for community volunteers, the RIPE Chair, Hans Peter Holen, has confirmed the appointment of two individuals from the RIPE community to the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship (CRISP) team. Nurani Nimpuno, Head of Outreach & Communications at Netnod, and Andrei Robachevsky, Technology Programme Manager at the Internet Society will join Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC Director of External Relations, as the three CRISP representatives from this service region. The CRISP team will develop a single, consolidated proposal on behalf of the Internet numbering community for the future stewardship of the IANA functions. This work will be based on the output of discussions in the five RIR communities. Each community will select two community members and one RIR staff member by 15 November to participate in the CRISP team. All of the CRISP team’s work will be done transparently, via a public mailing list: ianaxfer(a)nro.net. Subscription options and public archives of this list are available at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer More information on the CRISP team is available at: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team Best regards, Serge Radovcic Chief Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Seeking RIPE Community Volunteers for CRISP Team
by Paul Rendek 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Dear colleagues, We are seeking two qualified individuals to join the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team as voluntary representatives of the RIPE community. This team will be responsible for producing the Number Community proposal on the IANA stewardship transition for submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January 2015. For background and details of the CRISP Team, please see: https://www.nro.net/crisp-team Each RIR region will appoint three members to the CRISP Team: one RIR staff member and two community representatives. Volunteers for the two community representative positions should send their nomination to the Cooperation Working Group mailing list (<cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>) by the close of the first session of the Cooperation Working Group on Thursday, 6 November at 12:30 UTC. Nominations should include your full name, affiliation, and a brief statement of qualifications and interest or a link to your CV or biography. The RIPE Chair, Hans Petter Holen, in consultation with the RIPE NCC Executive Board, will select two representatives, and will bring forward these names to the RIPE 69 Plenary session on Friday, 7 November, for endorsement by the community. The successful candidates will be contacted by email. For background on the IANA stewardship transition process, please see: https://ripe.net/iana-oversight-transition Best regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC

4 3

Digital rights
by Gordon Lennox 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

EDRi is an organisation in Brussels that represents a number of European digital rights organisations. They publish a regular news-letter. It can be worthwhile subscribing if you are interested in what governments are doing in this area. Some of it can be quite surprising! The web-version of the latest edition of their news-letter is here. https://edri.org/edri-gram/12-21/ The contents include: • Hungary's Internet tax postponed but not yet abolished • CJEU: Embedding not a copyright infringement • Poland: New project on public institutions' surveillance practices • Finland: Web service to request verifying of secret registry data • The “Google tax” that is not a Google tax • Samaritans RADAR monitor tweets • FTDI: Is the law criminal? :-) Gordon

1 0

Surveillance
by Gordon Lennox 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

I have been talking to various people about an event last week in Brussels. It was called DemoSec and was the joint final event for three EU-funded projects. Details of the event can be found here: DemoSec: Democracy and Security http://www.jointfinalevent2014.eu Details of each of the three projects can be found here: IRISS: Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies http://irissproject.eu RESPECT: Rules, Expectations & Security through Privacy-Enhanced Convenient Technologies http://respectproject.eu SURVEILLE: Surveillance: Ethical Issues, Legal Limitation, and Efficiency http://www.surveille.eu The information available is very variable between the projects. But RESPECT alone received €3492687 funding. So a significant amount of work. SURVEILLE has though made available a number of reports. Their paper on a "Terrorism Prevention Scenario" and the related paper on NSA may be of particular interest. See: http://www.surveille.eu/index.php/research/publications/ :-) Gordon

1 0

Key Developments From ICANN 51
by Chris Buckridge 30 Oct '14

30 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, The 51st ICANN meeting was held in Los Angeles, USA, from 11-16 October 2014, with questions surrounding the IANA stewardship transition and the accountability of ICANN driving much of the agenda. More information about key developments from the ICANN 51 meeting is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/announcements/icann-51-cont… Regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: arin-announce IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Survey and Mailing List
by Hans Petter Holen 28 Oct '14

28 Oct '14

Hi, This was circulated on the ARIN list earlier this month. It may be of interest to us to know the thoughts of ARIN community members. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [arin-announce] IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Survey and Mailing List Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:38:37 -0400 From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net> To: arin-announce(a)arin.net As a part of the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system, the ARIN community has been called to contribute to the ongoing global multistakeholder discussion on the IANA Stewardship Transition. The feedback from the ARIN community will be part of the contribution provided by the Number Resource Organization (NRO) to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) in response to their recent "Request for Proposals (RFP) for ?IANA? Stewardship Transition Proposal?. ???" https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en We would also like your opinion on number of specific points detailed in a short survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/IANA_stewardship This survey will be open from 13 October to 20 October 2014, and the results will be made available to the community on 24 October 2014. We have also created a public mailing list (iana-transition(a)arin.net) to facilitate open community discussion in the region regarding the IANA Stewardship Transition planning process. We encourage you to subscribe and participate in this dialog by visiting http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/iana-transition To learn more about this and other mailing lists hosted by ARIN, visit the Mailing List page: https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/ Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

2 1

Request for clarification of the process
by Richard Hill 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

I refer to the message at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2014-October/000620. html It says "The RIPE community asks the RIPE NCC to complete the [IANA transition] proposal and to submit it to the ICG before January 15th 2015." Does RIPE NCC refer to the staff of the RIR? That is, is the proposal going to be written by the staff and directly submitted to the ICG? Or is the proposal going to be submitted for discussion to this (or some other) mailing list? Please recall that the IANA transition process is supposed to involve the global multi-stakeholder community, and not just the RIPE community. Best, Richard

4 10

Initial Draft: RIPE Community IANA Stewardship Proposal
by Chris Buckridge 22 Oct '14

22 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC, working closely with the Cooperation Working Group Co-chairs and the RIPE Chair, has produced the following draft RIPE community proposal regarding the IANA stewardship. This text should not be regarded as final - it is intended to act as a basis for discussions in this working group over the coming weeks. There will also be a dedicated session at RIPE 69 in London on Thursday, 6 November, to discuss these issues. Remote participation will be available for those unable to be present. Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC RIPE Community IANA Stewardship Proposal [DRAFT] ———————————————————————— The RIPE community asks the RIPE NCC to work with the other RIRs to produce a common proposal for a legally binding agreement (such as a Service Level Agreement) between ICANN and the RIRs to replace the Internet number-related elements of the ICANN-NTIA agreement. This proposal should meet the requirements of the Request For Proposals (RFP) produced by the IANA Stewardship Transistion Coordination Group (ICG). The proposal should bring the provisions of the agreement related to the services and service levels up-to-date with current requirements where necessary. This work should be coordinated with the other users of the IANA function as much as practical, with the aim of producing a proposed arrangement that is compatible with the proposed arrangements of the other IANA users. The RIPE community asks the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs keep it informed about progress and content of the proposal. The RIPE community asks the RIPE NCC to complete the proposal and to submit it to the ICG before January 15th 2015.

2 2

Test
by Richard Hill 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

I seem not to have received some messages posted to this list, so I'm sending this as a test. Richard

1 0

RIPE NCC and CENTR Hold Joint Meeting With Governments
by Chris Buckridge 03 Oct '14

03 Oct '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC and CENTR, the European country code top-level domain (TLD) organisation, held a meeting on Wednesday, 1 October 2014, in Brussels, Belgium, for governments and regulators to discuss issues of relevance to both the RIPE and CENTR communities. The meeting was part of the CENTR General Assembly and was held adjacent to a meeting of the European Commission High Level Group on Internet Governance, attracting approximately 100 representatives from governments, industry and the Internet technical community. Dominating the agenda was a discussion of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) oversight transition process that is currently ongoing. Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC Director of External Relations, participated in a panel with Nominet’s Martin Boyle and Afnic’s Mathieu Weill, chaired by Peter Vergote, Chairman of the CENTR Board of Directors. This panel addressed the discussion process currently underway in the RIPE and TLD communities regarding both the IANA stewardship and ICANN accountability. The RIPE NCC presentation described the relationship between the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and IANA, the model of regional Internet number policy development, efforts to document the RIRs’ accountability to their stakeholders, the discussion of IANA stewardship in the RIPE community, and some of the key principles that have emerged from that discussion. These principles include a preference for minimal operational change and to build on existing structures and processes to formalise the RIR communities’ role as stewards of global Internet number registration. The panel was followed by vibrant discussion, with many governments and other attendees contributing. Many expressed concern about the timeline leading up to the expiration of the current contract in September 2015, and the challenge of reaching an agreement on a proposal for future IANA oversight upon which all affected communities can agree. RIPE NCC Chief Scientist Daniel Karrenberg was among those who stressed the importance of early and effective communication between all parties to assure the best chance of a widely accepted outcome to the process. Several governments also suggested the possibility of a neutral third-party assuming the oversight role currently held by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Others noted that such an arrangement would be contrary to preferences already expressed in the RIR and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) communities. The meeting also included discussion of upcoming Internet governance events, particularly the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary 2014 (PP14). Chris Buckridge presented on the RIPE NCC's priorities going into this event, and the focus on providing expert technical advice to ITU Member States, particularly when discussions touch on issues such as IP address registration, allocation and policy-making. Presentation slides delivered by the RIPE NCC are available online: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/october-2014/presentations Additional information on the IANA oversight transition is available at: https://www.ripe.net/iana-oversight-transition/ The next RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting for Governments and Regulators will be held in early 2015, with details to be announced closer to the event itself. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Principles for a RIPE Proposal on IANA Oversight
by Chris Buckridge 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is working closely with the Cooperation Working Group Co-chairs and members of the RIPE community to draft a proposal on the future oversight of the IANA functions. To assist in the process, we developed a straightforward set of principles based primarily on the discussions in this working group at RIPE 68 and on the working group’s mailing list. Feedback from the working group on the three areas listed below, on whether to express agreement or otherwise, and on any other related issues or questions is a vital part of this process. We would appreciate this feedback by the end of September. At the beginning of October, we plan to present a rough draft proposal to the working group for further discussion ahead of the RIPE 69 Meeting in London. Further background information, including a detailed overview of the NTIA IANA functions contract and a timeline for the five RIR community discussion processes, was recently published on the NRO website: https://www.nro.net/iana-oversight Best regards, Chris Buckridge RIPE NCC -------------- Background The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) communities have successful, long-established processes for making Internet number resource policy at the global and regional levels. These processes are defined as being open to all interested parties, transparent in their processes and operations, and driven by the community themselves in a “bottom-up” fashion via consensus-based decision-making processes. These processes operate at the regional level to create policies that address regional needs and interests. More rarely, they serve to create global policies regarding the top level of the Internet number registration hierarchy. These global policies are implemented by the IANA operator, a role currently fulfilled by ICANN. RIR policy development processes pre-date ICANN and the current NTIA IANA functions contract. The NTIA plays no explicit role in making or directing policy for the operation of those IANA functions relating to Internet number resources. The current processes and structures have resulted in excellent operation of the IANA functions relating to Internet number administration by ICANN, under policy direction from the RIR communities. 1. The following are priorities for the RIPE community: - There should be minimal operational change. The current processes for IANA operation and related policy-making are effective and allow for the participation of all interested parties. - Any new oversight mechanism should incorporate and build on the existing RIR community policy-making processes. - The RIR communities are ultimately accountable for the management of those IANA functions relating to management of the global Internet number resource pools, and this should be reflected in any new oversight mechanisms defined in a global proposal to NTIA. 2. A model for IANA oversight endorsed by the RIPE community should include the following elements: - ICANN has historically managed operation of the IANA functions well, and should continue to do so at this time. - The IANA functions operator must be answerable and accountable to the communities that it serves. The number resource community is represented in such accountability processes by the membership-based RIR organisations. - Funding arrangements to cover the staff, equipment and other operational costs associated with operation of the IANA functions should be transparent and stable. - Efforts should be made to maintain the IANA functions as a “bundle”, managed by a single operator. - This does not necessarily imply a single, central point of oversight authority. Any proposed oversight mechanism should reflect the legitimate authority of different communities for specific functions as they relate to number resources, domain names and protocol parameters. 3. RIPE community input to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), which is responsible for developing a global proposal to NTIA, will be developed according to the following process: - Discussion in the RIPE community is centralised in the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. - The RIPE community discussion will aim to produce an output document by 1 December 2014. - The RIPE Cooperation Working Group Chairs will be responsible for assessing community consensus on this output document. - This RIPE output document will be sent to the Number Resource Organization Executive Council (made up of the five RIR CEOs), who will compile a single NRO input to the ICG. - A representative of the NRO Number Council will confirm that text compiled by the NRO EC accurately reflects the output of the five RIR community discussions. - The NRO proposal will be shared with the five RIR communities ahead of submission to the ICG. - Any global proposal produced by the ICG will be conveyed back to the RIPE community via the RIPE Cooperation Working Group to allow for discussion of any objections or concerns.

9 40

IGF community impressions of the IGF
by Chris Buckridge 24 Sep '14

24 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC funded the participation of several RIPE community members at the recent Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul. We have now published an article on RIPE Labs, compiling brief interviews with three of those RIPE community participants on their experiences and thoughts on the event: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/ripe-community-impressions-of-igf-2014 Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

Call for nominations: IGF MAG
by Chris Buckridge 17 Sep '14

17 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, Please note the email forwarded below - volunteers from the technical community are being sought to participate in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The MAG develops the programme and schedule of the IGF, and includes 55 members from governments, the private sector, civil society, and the academic and technical communities. More information about the MAG is available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC > From: Elizabeth Oluoch <oluoch(a)isoc.org> > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 5:58 AM > > > Dear All, > > Under-Secretary-General of UNDESA, Mr. Wu Hongbo, has issued a public request for nominations for the 2015 Multistakeholder Advisory Group, which will advise the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the programme and schedule of the IGF 2015 meeting. The aim is to rotate one third of MAG members. > > The Internet Society (ISOC) is coordinating a process leading to recommendations of representatives of the Internet technical community for the renewal of the MAG. > > Individuals interested in being suggested by the NomCom set up for this purpose are invited to read more about the process and to fill in a submission template by 1 October: http://www.internetcollaboration.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/09/20… > > Any questions or requests for additional information can be sent to: information.itcg(a)gmail.com. > > Useful links: > IGF website: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > About the MAG:: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout > > Thank you and best regards, > > Elizabeth Oluoch > Public Policy Coordinator > Internet Society

1 0

Key elements of the transition of IANA stewardship
by Richard Hill 10 Sep '14

10 Sep '14

NOTE: this message has been cross-posted individually to the RIR mailing lists dealing with this issue. Here are some things that appear to me to be key elements for the transition of the IANA stewardship. At present, the "RIRs are an interested and affected party of the IANA contract because IANA holds ultimate responsibility for allocated and unallocated IPv4, IPv6 and Autonomous System Number address spaces. IANA delegates IP and ASN address blocks to the RIRs on a needs-based approach according to global policies agreed by all the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The global policy development process is described in the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) memorandum of understanding. ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) signed this MoU in 2004. The NRO is an unincorporated organization created in 2003 as a coordination mechanism for the RIRs. The NRO fulfills the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO as defined within the ICANN Bylaws." (This is a citation from the document at: https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NRO-RELATIONSHIP-IANA.pdf ) The Mou between ICANN and the NRO is at: https://aso.icann.org/about-the-aso/aso-memorandum-of-understanding/ That MoU specifies how ICANN's ASO is constituted and provides that "Under this agreement the ICANN Board will ratify proposed global policies in accordance with the Global Policy Development Process, using review procedures as determined by ICANN." Thus, the ICANN Board has ultimate responsibility for IP address policies. This is consistent with the ICANN Bylaws. Up to now, under the IANA functions contract with the NTIA, ICANN was clearly bound to defer to the RIRs for what concerns IP address policies. If there is no contract between ICANN and some external entity, then ICANN would have unrestricted ultimate authority over IP addresses. That is, the ICANN Board could, if it considered it appropriate, override RIR policies. This puts too much power in the ICANN Board which, under ICANN's current structure, is not accountable to any external entity. It would appear desirable that the IANA functions should be contracted for by the served communities, that is, by the NRO/RIRs for what concerns IP addresses. And indeed the draft proposal presented by APNIC on 8 September 2014 envisages a Service Level Agreement between ICANN and NRO and also a non-binding Affirmation of Committments between ICANN and NRO. These proposals are found in the slide show contained in the web page at: http://blog.apnic.net/2014/09/08/iana-session-apnic-38-a-discussion-propos al/ But a non-binding Affirmation of Committments, coupled with a Service Level Agreement, are not the equivalent of a contract for the IANA functions. Thus, it would appear more appropriate to adopt the same approach that has been adopted by the IETF regarding protocol parameters, namely a Memorandum of Understanding (which appears to be a contract) between the NRO and ICANN for the IP addresses. The Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the IETF is at: https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-e n and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860 That text could easily be modified to refer to NRO and IP addresses instead of IETF and protocol parameters. However, item 4 of the text should be modified so that it reads as follows: "4. Agreed technical work items. ICANN agrees, notwithstanding any provisions in its Bylaws or other corporate documents that might be construed differently, that during the term of this MOU it shall cause IANA to comply ..." In addition, consideration should be given to adding a choice of law clause and a dispute resolution clause, presumably referring to arbitration rather than to national courts. There was extensive discussion (but no agreement) on the IANA Transition mailing list regarding whether or not the fact that a US court could, in theory, order ICANN/IANA to do something contrary to agreed community policies is an issue and, if so, whether anything should be proposed to deal with that issue, such as proposing that the entity that performs the IANA function should have immunity of jurisdiction, or that the entity should have redundant sites in more than one jurisdiction. If there is support for dealing with that issue, then some text could be added. Finally, and in addition to the above, article I.1 of the ICANN Bylaws should be modified to make it clear that it is the NRO that has the overall responsibility for the coordination and allocation and assignment of IP addresses. That change is needed because, at present, article I.1 of the ICANN Bylaws implies that ICANN has the overall responsibility for the coordination and allocation and assignment of IP addresses. Best, Richard

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on IGF 2014
by Chris Buckridge 05 Sep '14

05 Sep '14

Dear colleagues, The ninth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) concluded on Friday, 5 September, in Istanbul, Turkey. Over the course of the week, RIPE NCC staff and RIPE community members contributed to many of the workshops and main sessions. These sessions looked at topics like the impact of carrier-grade NAT technology on users and policymakers, the IANA oversight transition process, cybersecurity and capacity building. You can find more information about the week’s discussions, and the RIPE NCC’s involvement, on the RIPE NCC website: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-report-on-igf-2014 Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Update on IANA Oversight Discussions: ICG Meeting and IETF 90
by Chris Buckridge 30 Jul '14

30 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, In recent weeks, two significant community discussions regarding the transition of oversight of the IANA functions have taken place. The following summaries are provided as feedback to the RIPE community - an online version of these summaries, containing links to more detailed reports and information, is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/updat… Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC ——— First Meeting of the ICG The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) held its first meeting in London on 17-18 July 2014. This group has been established to coordinate input from the various relevant communities and IANA stakeholders, moving towards development of a global transition plan. Discussions and outcomes of the meeting are documented on the ICANN website. Adiel Akplogan and Paul Wilson, the CEOs of AFRINIC and APNIC respectively, took part in the meeting as representatives of the Number Resource Organization (NRO), and Hartmut Glaser, NRO Number Council member from the LACNIC region, represented the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). In addition, Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC Chief Scientist, participated as one of two representatives of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC). Key points from this meeting: • ICG members strongly asserted the group’s independence from ICANN. • The constructive atmosphere in the meeting resulted in the successful definition of a draft charter [PDF] and organisational principles for ICG. • The draft charter acknowledges that parts of the proposal will be developed in parallel across three main pillars (names, numbers and protocol parameters), coordinated by the respective operational communities. • The draft charter also makes it clear that the ICG does not expect to create substantive content in the proposals itself. Should serious further work be needed on the proposals, the ICG expects to send them back to the respective communities to do that work. • The group agreed to the request from the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) for five seats (rather than the proposed two). • The ICG recognised that there is a very tight schedule for developing a global proposal to the NTIA for transition of IANA oversight, and called on the various communities to produce input to a global proposal by the end of 2014. • There were around 100 remote observers for both days of the meeting. • The next meeting of the ICG is being planned for 6 September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. IETF 90 IANAPLAN BoF Session On 24 July 2014, during the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) meeting in Toronto, a dedicated Birds-of-a-Feather (BoF) session was held to discuss the IANA oversight transition. Approximately 150 people participated on-site, with more participating remotely. The session was chaired by Andrew Sullivan and Marc Blanchet. Session materials, including minutes and presentations, are available from the IETF website. Key points from this session: • Alissa Cooper reported on the first meeting of the ICG, and noted that the IETF community will take the lead in drafting a proposal regarding the protocol parameters. • Participants strongly supported the notion that the current arrangements (both contractual and operational) should not change significantly as a result of the transition process. • It was agreed that there should be reviews to ensure that: • Current procedures and relationships are sufficiently documented • The transition of oversight will not require significant changes of the current arrangements • In terms of IETF process, there was agreement that, while the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) should take a leading role, there should be a dedicated Working Group formed to act as sounding board and confirm rough consensus on the proposed transitioning plans. This working group could act as a focal point for other stakeholders to relay input back to the IETF.

2 1

IANA Stewardship Coordination Group Meeting
by Chris Buckridge 17 Jul '14

17 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, As noted previously, a Coordination Group has been formed to facilitate development of a global proposal to the NTIA for its transition out of the IANA oversight role. This Coordination Group meets for the first time today and tomorrow (17-18 July) in London: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-16-en Please note that a Virtual Meeting Room has been set up to allow the community to follow the meeting remotely: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/coordinationgroup/ An agenda for the meeting is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/agenda-stewardship-coordination… Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

ICANN 50: Talking IANA and Accountability
by Chris Buckridge 01 Jul '14

01 Jul '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a brief summary of discussions at last week’s ICANN 50 meeting on issues including the IANA oversight transition and ICANN accountability. The news item also includes links to the transcripts and audio archives of these sessions: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/icann… Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

2 1

Updated IANA Oversight Transition Process
by Chris Buckridge 16 Jun '14

16 Jun '14

Dear colleagues, Following a public comment period during which more than 50 submissions were received, ICANN has posted an updated description of the “Process to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps” in relation to the transition of the NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-06-06-en The page details all of the changes made to the initial draft, which was published in April. A couple of key points: - The title "Coordination Group” has replaced the original "Steering Group" - The number of participants has increased from 22 participants to 25, including the addition of numerous stakeholder groups and an IANA expert liaison - The number of representatives from the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) has decreased from two to one - Representatives are to be selected by their communities, not by the ICANN Board and Government Advisory Committee (GAC) - Coordination Group members are to be announced by 2 July (but preferably before or during the ICANN 50 meeting, which runs from 22-26 June), with an expected first public meeting to be held in mid-July The number of Internet number resource community representatives on the Coordination Group totals three - two from the Number Resource Organization (NRO), and one from the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). More information on the RIPE community contribution to the development of a proposal regarding transition of the NTIA’s oversight of IANA, including summaries of discussions at recent RIPE community events, is available at: https://ripe.net/iana-oversight-transition Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Open Call to join IGF Best Practices Forums Preparatory Process
by Filiz Yilmaz 12 Jun '14

12 Jun '14

Dear all, Please note this call: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/open-call-to-join-igf-best-practices-forums-… Kind regards Filiz

1 0

Minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw - Updated
by Alain Van Gaever 11 Jun '14

11 Jun '14

Dear All, Following modifications proposed by Jim and Daniel, please find below the updated minutes of the Coop-WG meeting in Warsaw In case you have any further comments/updates please let us know Alain ------- Beginning of Minutes ------- Cooperation Working Group Draft Agenda Thursday, 15 May, 11:00 – 12:30 A. Administrative Matters The co-chairs opened the meeting. New co-chairs Meredith Whittaker and Alain Van Gaever introduced themselves and briefly outlined their hopes for the working group, specifically ensuring that the content is relevant and of practical use to the RIPE community. The minutes from RIPE 67 were approved, as was the agenda for RIPE 68. B. Content Blocking • B1. A Technical Overview of Content Blocking Methods – Pier Carlo Chiodi, Olaf Kolkman Olaf Kolkman gave an overview of the work done by Pier Carlo Chiodi on content blocking on the Internet and other work in the same area. Outlining a number of strategies employed by those wishing to block content, he noted that blocking is done most effectively at the end-point (or origin of the content), and that blocking in the network involves a variety of trade-offs. Lars-Johan Liman noted that even “legitimate” blocking has collateral damage, and pointed to the example of the hotel network, where the interception of traffic prevents the use of DNSSEC. He suggested that in such situations it is best if the effects of the blocking are stated upfront for users. Andrei Robachevsky recalled a paper produced by ISOC (prepared around the time of the SOCA/PIPA/ACTA legislative proposals), and noted that security and hidden costs are all important, and public policy makers need to be made aware of these negative impacts. Olaf pointed out that users will do whatever they can to get to blocked content, and that this can also have potential negative effects (including a greater viral footprint or exposing backdoors to computer systems). Alexander Isavnin asked participants in the room who thought their countries were doing blocking, and whether they thought it was being abused. Richard Barnes noted that these issues reinforce the importance of an end-to-end strategy, and agreed that the hotel network is a good example of how blocking can break important security elements like DNSSEC. Jim Reid noted that blocking access to specific content can mean that broader services are blocked. He had advised on a case where one of the questions asked was "what else would be affected if we prevented port 80 access for this particular domain?”. The only person who could provide a definitive answer would be the administrator of the web server at that IP address and they would be unlikely to cooperate with anyone intending to blocking traffic for that address. • B2. Telex: A Proposal For Circumventing Censorship in the Network – Eric Wustrow Eric Wustrow outlined the Telex project, which has been developed to circumvent content blocking measures. The system provides a means of connecting users to blocked content via a mechanism that is invisible to the censoring technology. He encouraged ISPs to contribute to the work with advice and prototype deployment assistance. Robert Kisteleki noted that PGP key distribution may be a bottleneck in the Telex system. Eric noted that the paper discusses some of these issues, including preventing censors from distributing “bad” public keys. He suggested that having a central Telex entity that is known and trusted will be important to mitigate these risks. He also noted that getting information into areas subjected to censorship is often less difficult than might be supposed. • B3. Web Censorship Circumvention: Challenges and Opportunities – Walid Al-Saqaf Walid Al-Saqaf outlined his project to map URL filtering via crowdsourcing, which is developing longitudinal data, while allowing contributing users to access blocked websites via his own servers. He presented a range of data and analysis obtained from this work, including content blocking methods and strategies. He noted the need to make people more aware of the range of circumvention tools and solutions available, and that speed, security and anonymity are all important to users. He also described his plans for the future, including open-sourcing his own project and cooperating with similar projects. Andrei Robachevsky asked whether the project looked at which means of blocking were most common. Walid stated that he has done some analysis of this, using the packet headers - the more data he can get, the better this analysis will be. Meredith Whittaker noted that the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) project, coordinated by the Tor team, is also doing work in this area and is generating public data. Alexander Isavnin suggested that a RIPE task force might be a useful vehicle for RIPE community members interested in this issue. Walid agreed that the technical community, and particularly its relationship to civil society actors in this space, needs to be further explored and understood. C. IANA Transition Chris Buckridge and Paul Rendek of the RIPE NCC presented background information on the U.S. Government’s announcement of its intention to transition out of its IANA functions oversight role. They noted that any proposal for a future model of IANA administration needs to come from a global, multi-stakeholder development process, and that RIPE and the RIPE NCC are key IANA stakeholders. They suggested that the RIPE community’s discussion of these issues should be centred around the Cooperation Working Group, with the RIPE NCC assisting in facilitating input to that process from regional events and voices. Rob Blokzijl warned that any process involving ICANN will necessarily be complicated and political. On a technical point, he noted that future RIPE NCC presentations on this subject should include the RIPE NCC’s reverse DNS interactions with IANA, which may be more regular than the number resource requests already noted. He further noted that the RIPE NCC’s direct interactions with the NTIA itself were non-existent, and stressed that the processes developed by RIPE and the other RIR communities already met the requirements laid out by the NTIA as necessary for oversight of the IANA functions. Danniel Karrenberg recalled that this is not the first time this discussion has taken place, and that the RIPE community has historically taken an active part in the discussion around the formation of ICANN and the organisation and delivery of IANA services. He stressed the legitimacy and credibility of the RIR community processes in policy-making and argued against over-complicating the situation. He also noted that the IANA is three distinct groups of functions (number resources, the DNS root zone and protocol parameters), and the RIPE community discussions should focus primarily on the number resource functions; if difficulties in defining governance processes for the DNS root zone threaten to derail the oversight transition process, the community should be explicitly prepared to propose unbundling those functions and taking oversight of the numbering functions. Malcolm Hutty disagreed with the perception that NTIA oversight was not important, and stressed that this oversight has protected the policy-making relationship with ICANN itself. He noted that policy regarding the DNS is determined by the ICANN community and imposed on registrars, meaning that users essentially have to submit to ICANN policies. RIPE and the RIR communities determine their own policies with regard to Internet number management, but it may be conceivable that ICANN would decide it wants to set these policies in future and impose them on the RIPE community. He argued that a credible external oversight function must be retained to prevent this. Nurani Nimpuno argued that the RIR communities should take ownership of this issue, as custodians of the Internet number resources, and that the community members should be contributing to the broader discussion, while maintaining a focus on the numbering functions. She also stressed that the communities should be pro-active in defining terms like “multi-stakeholder” and “openness” which appear in the NTIA requirements. Jim Reid agreed with Malcolm Hutty on the importance of preventing ICANN mission-creep, and on the need to tightly define the relationship between the IANA operator and the RIR communities. He also warned that achieving consensus on a community proposal may be difficult, and suggested that there should be a fallback position to allow for RIPE and the RIPE NCC to make a meaningful contribution to the global discussion. Jari Arkko noted the evolution that has occurred in how the IETF and IAB manage oversight of the protocol parameters and their relationship to IANA. He agreed that the RIPE community needs to take ownership of this and take charge of what needs to change or not change. Olaf Kolkman, also an active participant in the IETF, noted the efforts in the IETF to align on a principle-based approach, with the most important principle being that the IETF controls its own destiny. Ensuring that people are empowered to participate in these discussions will help the debate going forward, and the community needs to provide guidance - developing a set of principles may be a good first step. Olaf suggested RFC 6220 as a good starting point. Salam Yamout provided some perspective from the government side, particularly in the Arab world - notably the perception that the United States has control of the Internet, and governments’ strong focus on DNS-related issues. She noted that governments concerns centre primarily around ICANN. Phil Rushton urged the community to be aware of events in other forums, including the UN, WSIS and the ITU - while there is not the need for everyone to be directly involved, we need to be aware of what governments are thinking and the where they still need to be convinced by the RIR communities. Daniel Karrenberg argued that the community does not need another level of oversight for protection, and noted that the RIR communities already have solid agreements in place with ICANN, which ICANN cannot unilaterally change. He stressed the importance (and his optimism) of achieving community consensus on a proposal. He suggested that the RIPE community should avoid being drawn into the discussions about governance and oversight of DNS root zone management and stick to its purview of Internet number resources. Paul Wilson noted that the IANA functions comprise three quite different areas (numbers, protocol parameters and DNS), and that only one of these (the DNS) is controversial - the IAB has stated its readiness to take responsibility for the protocol parameters, and the RIR communities should also, in the very near future, be ready to make such a statement regarding the number functions. He and Adiel Akplogan agreed that strengthening the RIR processes, ensuring that they are consistent, clear, accessible and well documented, is vital. Sandy Murphy warned that the outcome of this process may impact our current model of Internet governance, and stressed the need for the RIR communities to have their voice heard. She also asked about the ICANN consultation timeline, specifically the call for comments on its proposed process, and whether this process is now set. Paul Rendek noted that there is expected to be more information on ICANN’s planning in time of the ICANN 50 Meeting, which takes place in London in June. Chris Buckridge also noted that all relevant information, including links to the relevant ICANN web, is posted on the ripe.net website. D. Interconnection • D1. The Internet, the Internets, and Splinternets – Peter Koch Peter Koch discussed the proposals coming from Germany for establishing a separate “German” Internet. Randy Bush noted the experience of the Saudi industry, after the regulator decided that no traffic between two Saudi users should leave the country, and pointed out that IXPs are a key element facilitating this. There was a question as to whether the German-only email system used the DNS (which would generate its own cross-border traffic). Peter noted that the one he mentioned uses special domains, but DNS leakage was of less concern than the actual content of the messages. Alain Van Gaever asked about the rate of take-up. Peter didn’t have figures to hand, but noted that there are incentives, it is early in the deployment, and the operators are targeting users of existing email services. Brian Nisbet said that while he can see what’s being attempted, it never succeeds and generally breaks things that the users want to do. Peter stressed that walking away from the discussion probably isn’t the right strategy, and that users often learn what they want from marketing campaigns. Expanding on the question of what users want, Meredith Whittaker noted that users want security, and the technical community needs to be a public voice stating that this is not the way to achieve that. Marco Davids noted an initative in the Netherlands using a closed user group in BGP - this doesn't combat traffic monitoring, but rather helps mitigate DDOS attacks, and if users (such as banks) are under attack the group can be closed to users outside the Netherlands. Olaf Kolkman asked whether any EU research funding had been channeled to this, and whether the project could lead to some sort of European standardisation. Peter noted that the work is based on IETF standards. Jean Jacque Sahel noted that the European Commission has publicly said that this is all a very bad idea. Jaap Akkerhuis recalled a proposal from Italy to establish a trusted network for digital mail. Olaf Kolkman and Peter Koch, summarising some of the discussion’s key points, suggested that we are moving intelligence to the core of the network, and the core is represented by big players. The technical community cannot just dismiss these initiatives - there are some laudable goals behind them, and we need to engage in the discussion. • D2. Interconnection: Russia, the EU, and Internet Cooperation and Governance – Igor Milashevskiy Igor Milashevskiy, representing the Russian government in its first RIPE Meeting, shared some perspectives on that government’s view of the Internet and related public policy. The Russian government sees the Internet as a driver of development, with the Russian Internet market the biggest in Europe - 68 million users, more than 56 million people use Internet every day, including a significant percentage outside big cities. The Russian language is also the second largest in Internet, there are slightly fewer than five million .ru domains and more than 800,000 .рф domains. Speaking from personal perspective, he noted that the RIPE NCC is a reference organisation in the Internet space, and the target is to restore trust and confidence to the Internet environment, and develop international tools for preventing improper use of the Internet. Ho noted that the main actor in the Intenet is the user, and if those users have certain rights in the offline world - access to information, privacy, secrecy of communication and freedom of opinion - we have to protect those rights online. The process to do this has just begun, and the Russian government believes there are no rights without duties, no freedom without responsibility. He also suggested that the role of governments in Internet governance needs to be recognised. NETmundial was a good and innovative attempt to include all stakeholders, but the outcome document doesn’t reflect all the contributions. Ciprian Nica, participating remotely, asked how and who should define the proper purposes of using the Internet. Igor explained that the Internet is a universal tool, and can be used for a wide range of purposes, but that its primary purpose should be to make users’ lives richer. Desiree Milosevich asked if there could be some elaboration on the Russian government’s issues with the NETmundial statement. Igor noted that this is in the public record of the Russian statements. Paul Rendek extended his thanks to Igor and the Russian government for their increased willingness to engage with the RIPE community and RIPE NCC, and welcomed Igor's attendance at the RIPE Meeting. E. Making the Internet a Little Bit Safer Cryptographically - Randy Bush Randy Bush discussed the development of an open public architecture for hardware security modules. The goal is a design (not a product) that is scalable, composable and assured. He stressed that the project needs people to audit the code. Aaron Kaplan asked where to get a development board. Randy noted that the boards are available for 170 USD. Aaron also noted that it would be a good idea to have the testing procedure online and publicly available. Eric Wuster agreed that this is good work and asked why go the FPGA route rather than using a small embedded chip. Randy noted that some of the applications need speed, particularly some of the encryption stuff. Regarding chips though, Randy noted that the FPGA Verilog was first done in Python, meaning there is a Python version and a Verilog version. Eric also asked about how the project is sourcing hardware random number generators. Randy replied that they are currently investigating this issue. F. Policy Radar • F1. RIPE NCC Updates, including NETmundial and IGF Developments – Chris Buckridge Chris Buckridge gave an update on the wide range of Internet governance events taking place in the coming months, including the ITU Plenipotentiary 2014 that is scheduled to take place in October. He highlighted the links between many of these events, particularly in terms of broader strategies. He noted suggestions from earlier sessions that the RIPE NCC provide more targeted information for the community, and reported that the RIPE NCC is investigating the best method for doing this. Phil Rushton noted that the technical community can have significant impact on events at the Plenipotentiary via their input to Member State delegations. He also noted that while NETmundial produced a good outcome for the multi-stakeholder model, other forums, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, saw much less support for multi-stakeholder processes and governance. • F2. Co-chair Updates and Working Group Initiatives Meredith Whittaker closed the session by reiterating the goals of co-chairs, particularly the need to engage people who are affected by Internet governance and public policy issues, but don't currently take an active interest. She noted options such as producing white papers, using RIPE Meeting time for more workshop-style events, and other ideas for the working group to serve as a RIPE community “brains trust” for those involved in public policy discussions. Nurani Nimpuno noted her support for the co-chairs’ approach and stressed the need to bring discussions back to specific issues and make the topics practical for RIPE community participants. The co-chairs closed the meeting. --------------------- End of Minutes ---------------------------------

1 0

Minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw - Part 2
by Alain Van Gaever 10 Jun '14

10 Jun '14

Dear all, The text in my mail yesterday was the summary of the IANA discussion - the full minutes of the working groups session are now below. My apologies for the confusion! Alain > > ------- Beginning of Minutes ------- > > Cooperation Working Group Draft Agenda > > Thursday, 15 May, 11:00 – 12:30 > > A. Administrative Matters > > The co-chairs opened the meeting. New co-chairs Meredith Whittaker and > Alain Van Gaever introduced themselves and briefly outlined their hopes for > the working group, specifically ensuring that the content is relevant and > of practical use to the RIPE community. > > The minutes from RIPE 67 were approved, as was the agenda for RIPE 68. > > > B. Content Blocking > > • B1. A Technical Overview of Content Blocking Methods – Pier Carlo > Chiodi, Olaf Kolkman > > Olaf Kolkman gave an overview of the work done by Pier Carlo Chiodi on > content blocking on the Internet and other work in the same area. Outlining > a number of strategies employed by those wishing to block content, he noted > that blocking is done most effectively at the end-point (or origin of the > content), and that blocking in the network involves a variety of trade-offs. > > Lars-Johan Liman noted that even “legitimate” blocking has collateral > damage, and pointed to the example of the hotel network, where the > interception of traffic prevents the use of DNSSEC. He suggested that in > such situations it is best if the effects of the blocking are stated > upfront for users. > > Andrei Robachevsky recalled a paper produced by ISOC (prepared around the > time of the SOCA/PIPA/ACTA legislative proposals), and noted that security > and hidden costs are all important, and public policy makers need to be > made aware of these negative impacts. Olaf pointed out that users will do > whatever they can to get to blocked content, and that this can also have > potential negative effects (including a greater viral footprint or exposing > backdoors to computer systems). > > Alexander Isavnin asked participants in the room who thought their > countries were doing blocking, and whether they thought it was being abused. > > Richard Barnes noted that these issues reinforce the importance of an > end-to-end strategy, and agreed that the hotel network is a good example of > how blocking can break important security elements like DNSSEC. > > Jim Reid noted that blocking access to specific content can mean that > broader services are blocked. He noted a case that he had provided advice > on, where one of the questions asked was "what would happen if we switched > off port 80 access on this particular domain?” - the only person who knows > is the webmaster of the domain, but that person is unlikely to happily > cooperate in the blocking of their domain. > > • B2. Telex: A Proposal For Circumventing Censorship in the Network – Eric > Wustrow > > Eric Wustrow outlined the Telex project, which has been developed to > circumvent content blocking measures. The system provides a means of > connecting users to blocked content via a mechanism that is invisible to > the censoring technology. He encouraged ISPs to contribute to the work with > advice and prototype deployment assistance. > > Robert Kisteleki noted that PGP key distribution may be a bottleneck in > the Telex system. Eric noted that the paper discusses some of these issues, > including preventing censors from distributing “bad” public keys. He > suggested that having a central Telex entity that is known and trusted will > be important to mitigate these risks. He also noted that getting > information into areas subjected to censorship is often less difficult than > might be supposed. > > • B3. Web Censorship Circumvention: Challenges and Opportunities – Walid > Al-Saqaf > > Walid Al-Saqaf outlined his project to map URL filtering via > crowdsourcing, which is developing longitudinal data, while allowing > contributing users to access blocked websites via his own servers. He > presented a range of data and analysis obtained from this work, including > content blocking methods and strategies. He noted the need to make people > more aware of the range of circumvention tools and solutions available, and > that speed, security and anonymity are all important to users. He also > described his plans for the future, including open-sourcing his own project > and cooperating with similar projects. > > Andrei Robachevsky asked whether the project looked at which means of > blocking were most common. Walid stated that he has done some analysis of > this, using the packet headers - the more data he can get, the better this > analysis will be. > > Meredith Whittaker noted that the Open Observatory of Network Interference > (OONI) project, coordinated by the Tor team, is also doing work in this > area and is generating public data. > > Alexander Isavnin suggested that a RIPE task force might be a useful > vehicle for RIPE community members interested in this issue. Walid agreed > that the technical community, and particularly its relationship to civil > society actors in this space, needs to be further explored and understood. > > C. IANA Transition > > Chris Buckridge and Paul Rendek of the RIPE NCC presented background > information on the U.S. Government’s announcement of its intention to > transition out of its IANA functions oversight role. They noted that any > proposal for a future model of IANA administration needs to come from a > global, multi-stakeholder development process, and that RIPE and the RIPE > NCC are key IANA stakeholders. They suggested that the RIPE community’s > discussion of these issues should be centred around the Cooperation Working > Group, with the RIPE NCC assisting in facilitating input to that process > from regional events and voices. > > Rob Blokzijl warned that any process involving ICANN will necessarily be > complicated and political. On a technical point, he noted that future RIPE > NCC presentations on this subject should include the RIPE NCC’s reverse DNS > interactions with IANA, which may be more regular than the number resource > requests already noted. He further noted that the RIPE NCC’s direct > interactions with the NTIA itself were non-existent, and stressed that the > processes developed by RIPE and the other RIR communities already met the > requirements laid out by the NTIA as necessary for oversight of the IANA > functions. > > Danniel Karrenberg recalled that this is not the first time this > discussion has taken place, and that the RIPE community has been vocal in > its preference for the US government stepping away from this oversight role > since the late 1990s. He stressed the success of the RIR community > processes in policy-making and argued against over-complicating the > situation. He also noted that the IANA is three distinct groups of > functions (number resources, the DNS root zone and protocol parameters), > and the RIPE community discussions should focus primarily on the number > resource functions; if difficulties in defining governance processes for > the DNS root zone threaten to derail the oversight transition process, the > community should be explicitly prepared to propose unbundling those > functions and taking oversight of the numbering functions. > > Malcolm Hutty disagreed with the perception that NTIA oversight was not > important, and stressed that this oversight has protected the policy-making > relationship with ICANN itself. He noted that policy regarding the DNS is > determined by the ICANN community and imposed on registrars, meaning that > users essentially have to submit to ICANN policies. RIPE and the RIR > communities determine their own policies with regard to Internet number > management, but it may be conceivable that ICANN would decide it wants to > set these policies in future and impose them on the RIPE community. He > argued that a credible external oversight function must be retained to > prevent this. > > Nurani Nimpuno argued that the RIR communities should take ownership of > this issue, as custodians of the Internet number resources, and that the > community members should be contributing to the broader discussion, while > maintaining a focus on the numbering functions. She also stressed that the > communities should be pro-active in defining terms like “multi-stakeholder” > and “openness” which appear in the NTIA requirements. > > Jim Reid agreed with Malcolm Hutty on the importance of preventing ICANN > mission-creep, and on the need to tightly define the relationship between > the IANA operator and the RIR communities. He also warned that achieving > consensus on a community proposal may be difficult, and suggested that > there should be a fallback position to allow for RIPE and the RIPE NCC to > make a meaningful contribution to the global discussion. > > Jari Arkko noted the evolution that has occurred in how the IETF and IAB > manage oversight of the protocol parameters and their relationship to IANA. > He agreed that the RIPE community needs to take ownership of this and take > charge of what needs to change or not change. > > Olaf Kolkman, also an active participant in the IETF, noted the efforts in > the IETF to align on a principle-based approach, with the most important > principle being that the IETF controls its own destiny. Ensuring that > people are empowered to participate in these discussions will help the > debate going forward, and the community needs to provide guidance - > developing a set of principles may be a good first step. Olaf suggested RFC > 6220 as a good starting point. > > Salam Yamout provided some perspective from the government side, > particularly in the Arab world - notably the perception that the United > States has control of the Internet, and governments’ strong focus on > DNS-related issues. She noted that governments concerns centre primarily > around ICANN. > > Phil Rushton urged the community to be aware of events in other forums, > including the UN, WSIS and the ITU - while there is not the need for > everyone to be directly involved, we need to be aware of what governments > are thinking and the where they still need to be convinced by the RIR > communities. > > Daniel Karrenberg argued that the community does not need another level of > oversight for protection, and noted that the RIR communities already have > solid agreements in place with ICANN, which ICANN cannot unilaterally > change. He stressed the importance (and his optimism) of achieving > community consensus on a proposal. He again suggested that the RIR > communities should make every effort to unlink the number-related IANA > functions from the DNS. > > Paul Wilson noted that the IANA functions comprise three quite different > areas (numbers, protocol parameters and DNS), and that only one of these > (the DNS) is controversial - the IAB has stated its readiness to take > responsibility for the protocol parameters, and the RIR communities should > also, in the very near future, be ready to make such a statement regarding > the number functions. He and Adiel Akplogan agreed that strengthening the > RIR processes, ensuring that they are consistent, clear, accessible and > well documented, is vital. > > Sandy Murphy warned that the outcome of this process may impact our > current model of Internet governance, and stressed the need for the RIR > communities to have their voice heard. She also asked about the ICANN > consultation timeline, specifically the call for comments on its proposed > process, and whether this process is now set. Paul Rendek noted that there > is expected to be more information on ICANN’s planning in time of the ICANN > 50 Meeting, which takes place in London in June. > > Chris Buckridge also noted that all relevant information, including links > to the relevant ICANN web, is posted on the ripe.net website. > > D. Interconnection > > • D1. The Internet, the Internets, and Splinternets – Peter Koch > > Peter Koch discussed the proposals coming from Germany for establishing a > separate “German” Internet. > > Randy Bush noted the experience of the Saudi industry, after the regulator > decided that no traffic between two Saudi users should leave the country, > and pointed out that IXPs are a key element facilitating this. > > There was a question as to whether the German-only email system used the > DNS (which would generate its own cross-border traffic). Peter noted that > the one he mentioned uses special domains, but DNS leakage was of less > concern than the actual content of the messages. > > Alain Van Gaever asked about the rate of take-up. Peter didn’t have > figures to hand, but noted that there are incentives, it is early in the > deployment, and the operators are targeting users of existing email > services. > > Brian Nisbet said that while he can see what’s being attempted, it never > succeeds and generally breaks things that the users want to do. Peter > stressed that walking away from the discussion probably isn’t the right > strategy, and that users often learn what they want from marketing > campaigns. Expanding on the question of what users want, Meredith Whittaker > noted that users want security, and the technical community needs to be a > public voice stating that this is not the way to achieve that. > > Marco Davids noted an initative in the Netherlands using a closed user > group in BGP - this doesn't combat traffic monitoring, but rather helps > mitigate DDOS attacks, and if users (such as banks) are under attack the > group can be closed to users outside the Netherlands. > > Olaf Kolkman asked whether any EU research funding had been channeled to > this, and whether the project could lead to some sort of European > standardisation. Peter noted that the work is based on IETF standards. Jean > Jacque Sahel noted that the European Commission has publicly said that this > is all a very bad idea. > > Jaap Akkerhuis recalled a proposal from Italy to establish a trusted > network for digital mail. > > Olaf Kolkman and Peter Koch, summarising some of the discussion’s key > points, suggested that we are moving intelligence to the core of the > network, and the core is represented by big players. The technical > community cannot just dismiss these initiatives - there are some laudable > goals behind them, and we need to engage in the discussion. > > > • D2. Interconnection: Russia, the EU, and Internet Cooperation and > Governance – Igor Milashevskiy > > Igor Milashevskiy, representing the Russian government in its first RIPE > Meeting, shared some perspectives on that government’s view of the Internet > and related public policy. The Russian government sees the Internet as a > driver of development, with the Russian Internet market the biggest in > Europe - 68 million users, more than 56 million people use Internet every > day, including a significant percentage outside big cities. The Russian > language is also the second largest in Internet, there are slightly fewer > than five million .ru domains and more than 800,000 .рф domains. > > Speaking from personal perspective, he noted that the RIPE NCC is a > reference organisation in the Internet space, and the target is to restore > trust and confidence to the Internet environment, and develop international > tools for preventing improper use of the Internet. > > Ho noted that the main actor in the Intenet is the user, and if those > users have certain rights in the offline world - access to information, > privacy, secrecy of communication and freedom of opinion - we have to > protect those rights online. The process to do this has just begun, and the > Russian government believes there are no rights without duties, no freedom > without responsibility. > > He also suggested that the role of governments in Internet governance > needs to be recognised. NETmundial was a good and innovative attempt to > include all stakeholders, but the outcome document doesn’t reflect all the > contributions. > > Ciprian Nica, participating remotely, asked how and who should define the > proper purposes of using the Internet. Igor explained that the Internet is > a universal tool, and can be used for a wide range of purposes, but that > its primary purpose should be to make users’ lives richer. > > Desiree Milosevich asked if there could be some elaboration on the Russian > government’s issues with the NETmundial statement. Igor noted that this is > in the public record of the Russian statements. > > Paul Rendek extended his thanks to Igor and the Russian government for > their increased willingness to engage with the RIPE community and RIPE NCC, > and welcomed Igor's attendance at the RIPE Meeting. > > > E. Making the Internet a Little Bit Safer Cryptographically - Randy Bush > > Randy Bush discussed the development of an open public architecture for > hardware security modules. The goal is a design (not a product) that is > scalable, composable and assured. He stressed that the project needs people > to audit the code. > > Aaron Kaplan asked where to get a development board. Randy noted that the > boards are available for 170 USD. Aaron also noted that it would be a good > idea to have the testing procedure online and publicly available. > > Eric Wuster agreed that this is good work and asked why go the FPGA route > rather than using a small embedded chip. Randy noted that some of the > applications need speed, particularly some of the encryption stuff. > Regarding chips though, Randy noted that the FPGA Verilog was first done in > Python, meaning there is a Python version and a Verilog version. > > Eric also asked about how the project is sourcing hardware random number > generators. Randy replied that they are currently investigating this issue. > > F. Policy Radar > > • F1. RIPE NCC Updates, including NETmundial and IGF Developments – Chris > Buckridge > > Chris Buckridge gave an update on the wide range of Internet governance > events taking place in the coming months, including the ITU Plenipotentiary > 2014 that is scheduled to take place in October. He highlighted the links > between many of these events, particularly in terms of broader strategies. > He noted suggestions from earlier sessions that the RIPE NCC provide more > targeted information for the community, and reported that the RIPE NCC is > investigating the best method for doing this. > > Phil Rushton noted that the technical community can have significant > impact on events at the Plenipotentiary via their input to Member State > delegations. He also noted that while NETmundial produced a good outcome > for the multi-stakeholder model, other forums, such as the CSTD Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation, saw much less support for multi-stakeholder > processes and governance. > > • F2. Co-chair Updates and Working Group Initiatives > > Meredith Whittaker closed the session by reiterating the goals of > co-chairs, particularly the need to engage people who are affected by > Internet governance and public policy issues, but don't currently take an > active interest. She noted options such as producing white papers, using > RIPE Meeting time for more workshop-style events, and other ideas for the > working group to serve as a RIPE community “brains trust” for those > involved in public policy discussions. > > Nurani Nimpuno noted her support for the co-chairs’ approach and stressed > the need to bring discussions back to specific issues and make the topics > practical for RIPE community participants. > > The co-chairs closed the meeting. --------------------- End of Minutes --------------------------------- On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Alain Van Gaever <avangaev(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find below the minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in > Warsaw. > WG members are welcome to suggest further edits or changes. > > Hope to see you all in London for RIPE-69 ! > > Meredith, Maria & Alain > Co-Chairs of the Coop-WG > > > PS Thanks for Chris for producing the notes! > > ---- beginning of minutes ---- > > Location: Warsaw, Poland > > Attendance: Approximately 150 > > - Minutes of the session > - Full transcript of the session > <https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/steno/39/> > - Video of the session and information slide-pack > <https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/216/> > > Major points coming out of the discussion: > > 1. The RIR communities need to assert their ownership of issues > regarding the distribution and registration of Internet number resources. > This transition is an opportunity to more solidly formalise that ownership, > with minimal change to the existing policy-making and operational processes. > 2. While the IANA functions (as a bundle) present a number of complex > issues, identifying a future model for the IANA Internet number registry > functions should be straightforward. The policy-making and operational > processes relating to the IANA Internet number registry functions are solid > and have been in place for many years, and they have never included an > explicit oversight role for the NTIA. > 3. The Regional Internet Registries must ensure that their processes > and policies are clearly defined, well documented, transparent and > accessible. > 4. While the RIPE NCC will facilitate discussion of these issues > throughout the service region (including at community regional events), the > RIPE Cooperation Working Group will serve as the central venue for RIPE > community discussion and development of any proposal relating to the future > of the IANA functions. > > > > Some additional points made during the discussion: > > - Speakers reported on the progress of the Internet Architecture Board > (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in establishing their > ownership and authority over protocol parameter registries maintained by > IANA. > - Several speakers noted the dangers arising from this process, > particularly the potential for an outcome that does not solidly define and > protect the community-driven, bottom-up control and development of IANA > policy. > - Several speakers noted the interest that governments throughout the > world are taking in this process and that government voices will be a > factor in the final outcome. > - Several speakers stressed the importance of reaching RIPE community > consensus on a proposal or position, with this process potentially seen as > a test-case for bottom-up policy making. > - Several speakers argued strongly that any RIR proposal should aim to > separate the IANA number management functions from oversight of the other > IANA functions. > > > > --------- End of minutes ------ >

3 2

IANA discussions: ENOG 7
by Chris Buckridge 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

Dear colleagues, Following on from Alain’s email, I would like to note a couple of items relating to discussions of the IANA oversight transition in the RIPE community. The Eurasian Network Operators' Group (ENOG) held its seventh meeting in Moscow on 26-27 May, the week after RIPE 68. There was a discussion of the IANA oversight transition at that meeting, and a brief summary of that discussion is provided below: > ENOG 7, 27 May 2014 > Attendance: Approximately 150 > > Major points coming out of the discussion: > - Additional ways in which the RIPE NCC interacts with the IANA include reverse DNS and running the K-root name server. > - It is important to note that the oversight function will not transition to a government-based body. > - The technical community has not had any issues with the U.S. government's conduct of its oversight of these functions for the past 20+ years - any new model should not complicate the current system and processes. > - The RIPE NCC is not interested in DNS operations and should not be put under that umbrella. > - The community should ensure that operators are protected from possible commercial interests, given that some of ICANN’s activities, such as the registration of domain names, are profit-making. As noted in the RIPE 68 session, the RIPE Cooperation Working Group is the official venue for community discussion of this issue. For this reason, the RIPE NCC will ensure that any discussion in other RIPE community forums is fed back to this list. Summaries of these discussions will also be posted on the RIPE website: http://ripe.net/iana-discussions Any comments or responses to this process or on the substance of the summaries should be posted to this mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

4 5

Minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw
by Alain Van Gaever 04 Jun '14

04 Jun '14

Dear all, Please find below the minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw. WG members are welcome to suggest further edits or changes. Hope to see you all in London for RIPE-69 ! Meredith, Maria & Alain Co-Chairs of the Coop-WG PS Thanks for Chris for producing the notes! ---- beginning of minutes ---- Location: Warsaw, Poland Attendance: Approximately 150 - Minutes of the session - Full transcript of the session <https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/steno/39/> - Video of the session and information slide-pack <https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/216/> Major points coming out of the discussion: 1. The RIR communities need to assert their ownership of issues regarding the distribution and registration of Internet number resources. This transition is an opportunity to more solidly formalise that ownership, with minimal change to the existing policy-making and operational processes. 2. While the IANA functions (as a bundle) present a number of complex issues, identifying a future model for the IANA Internet number registry functions should be straightforward. The policy-making and operational processes relating to the IANA Internet number registry functions are solid and have been in place for many years, and they have never included an explicit oversight role for the NTIA. 3. The Regional Internet Registries must ensure that their processes and policies are clearly defined, well documented, transparent and accessible. 4. While the RIPE NCC will facilitate discussion of these issues throughout the service region (including at community regional events), the RIPE Cooperation Working Group will serve as the central venue for RIPE community discussion and development of any proposal relating to the future of the IANA functions. Some additional points made during the discussion: - Speakers reported on the progress of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in establishing their ownership and authority over protocol parameter registries maintained by IANA. - Several speakers noted the dangers arising from this process, particularly the potential for an outcome that does not solidly define and protect the community-driven, bottom-up control and development of IANA policy. - Several speakers noted the interest that governments throughout the world are taking in this process and that government voices will be a factor in the final outcome. - Several speakers stressed the importance of reaching RIPE community consensus on a proposal or position, with this process potentially seen as a test-case for bottom-up policy making. - Several speakers argued strongly that any RIR proposal should aim to separate the IANA number management functions from oversight of the other IANA functions. --------- End of minutes ------

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6
by Wout de Natris 20 May '14

20 May '14

Gordon, Weren't regulators in telecoms in the late 90s meant to go in straight through the front door and break open the market? (Where necessary.) Make interconnection and special access possible by forcing access and setting prices, etc.? In those days I was not under the impression to be working on "the edges". What I get from your analyses, the main point BEREC's stating, is not so far beside what happened in the late 90s, at least in NL. New developments should be supported, but not through harming other/traditional services. And isn't that what the concern is about? Wout > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:00:05 +0200 > > 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. BEREC - Network Neutrality (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:32:45 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <1895B0B2-692B-49D0-A29C-FAC5A053528D(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > BEREC have just issued a press release commenting on the Parliament's modified proposal and recalling some of their concerns with the Commission's initial proposal. About network neutrality they write: > > <<BEREC supports the promotion of and the clear commitment of the European Parliament to the principle of net neutrality. This is in line with BEREC?s public position, and indeed BEREC has been deeply involved with the subject since 2010, since when it has developed a set of principles and guidelines that can be implemented and adapted by national regulatory authorities, under the existing framework. The internet has proven to be highly innovative, thanks to certain fundamental principles such as the separation of network and application layer, the best effort principle and universal connectivity. This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network. > > BEREC recognizes that guaranteeing an open internet is a challenging objective, not least given its complex and dynamic ecosystem. Yet, the Commission?s original proposal would turn a flexible and progressive regulatory regime (under the 2009 Framework) into a rigid regulatory system and the European Parliament has generally retained this approach. > > BEREC would instead prefer an approach based on principles rather than detailed rules and which provides NRAs with the necessary powers to ensure that those principles (such as the ones developed by BEREC on what constitutes reasonable traffic management and on the relationship between specialized services and internet access services) are respected. Under such an approach, national regulators would be pursuing the same objective and enforcing the same principles, but the specific triggers and thresholds for regulatory intervention in a given market could be adapted to address national circumstances. > > If a rules-based approach is nonetheless to be pursued, then further work would be required to ensure that the definitions and rules were legally precise, future-proof and enforceable in practice. While some of the language in the text adopted by European Parliament draws upon BEREC previous publications on the subject, improving the original Commission?s proposals, it does not yet meet these standards. A balanced approach to promoting net neutrality on the Internet in parallel to the provision of specialised services is a difficult challenge. BEREC considers that specialised services should be clearly separated (physically or virtually) from internet access services at the network layer, to ensure that sufficient safeguards prevent degradation of the internet access services. Therefore BEREC welcomes the European Parliament?s acknowledgement of this principle. However, some inconsistencies in the proposed rules and definitions still raise legal and policy concerns.>> > > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/whats_new/2203-berec-publishe… > > So if you want network neutrality then you need regulation? The only question left is what kind. One indication of where they see the limits can perhaps be found in the sentence "This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network." > > I feel this is a significant shift. I cannot remember regulators looking in detail at what happens within traditional networks. They limited themselves to the "edges". > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 > *********************************************

3 3

BEREC - Network Neutrality
by Gordon Lennox 20 May '14

20 May '14

BEREC have just issued a press release commenting on the Parliament's modified proposal and recalling some of their concerns with the Commission's initial proposal. About network neutrality they write: <<BEREC supports the promotion of and the clear commitment of the European Parliament to the principle of net neutrality. This is in line with BEREC’s public position, and indeed BEREC has been deeply involved with the subject since 2010, since when it has developed a set of principles and guidelines that can be implemented and adapted by national regulatory authorities, under the existing framework. The internet has proven to be highly innovative, thanks to certain fundamental principles such as the separation of network and application layer, the best effort principle and universal connectivity. This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network. BEREC recognizes that guaranteeing an open internet is a challenging objective, not least given its complex and dynamic ecosystem. Yet, the Commission’s original proposal would turn a flexible and progressive regulatory regime (under the 2009 Framework) into a rigid regulatory system and the European Parliament has generally retained this approach. BEREC would instead prefer an approach based on principles rather than detailed rules and which provides NRAs with the necessary powers to ensure that those principles (such as the ones developed by BEREC on what constitutes reasonable traffic management and on the relationship between specialized services and internet access services) are respected. Under such an approach, national regulators would be pursuing the same objective and enforcing the same principles, but the specific triggers and thresholds for regulatory intervention in a given market could be adapted to address national circumstances. If a rules-based approach is nonetheless to be pursued, then further work would be required to ensure that the definitions and rules were legally precise, future-proof and enforceable in practice. While some of the language in the text adopted by European Parliament draws upon BEREC previous publications on the subject, improving the original Commission’s proposals, it does not yet meet these standards. A balanced approach to promoting net neutrality on the Internet in parallel to the provision of specialised services is a difficult challenge. BEREC considers that specialised services should be clearly separated (physically or virtually) from internet access services at the network layer, to ensure that sufficient safeguards prevent degradation of the internet access services. Therefore BEREC welcomes the European Parliament’s acknowledgement of this principle. However, some inconsistencies in the proposed rules and definitions still raise legal and policy concerns.>> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/whats_new/2203-berec-publishe… So if you want network neutrality then you need regulation? The only question left is what kind. One indication of where they see the limits can perhaps be found in the sentence "This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network." I feel this is a significant shift. I cannot remember regulators looking in detail at what happens within traditional networks. They limited themselves to the "edges". Gordon

1 0

Panel on Internet Governance - watch now!
by Chris Buckridge 13 May '14

13 May '14

Dear colleagues, This is a quick note that the RIPE 68 Meeting is currently underway, and you can now tune in to watch a panel session on Internet governance: https://ripe68.ripe.net/live/main/ More details on the panel here: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/#tue3 Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 68 Co-op WG now published
by Meredith Whittaker 07 May '14

07 May '14

Hi all, In our role as co-chairs, Alain, Maria, and I have worked with Chris and others to put together an agenda for next week that's now live and published. https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ We're looking forward to it, and to your comments, of course. Cheers! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

1 0

BEREC - Network Neutrality and Quality Monitoring
by Gordon Lennox 03 May '14

03 May '14

I know it is late but BEREC has just had a public consultation on: "Monitoring quality of services in the context of network neutrality" based on a draft report, a draft which I think is still worth reading. See: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/… Regards, Gordon

3 3

REMINDER: One Week to Comment on IANA Transition Process Proposal
by Chris Buckridge 01 May '14

01 May '14

Dear colleagues, This is a brief reminder that a deadline of Thursday, 8 May has been set for public comment on the "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions": <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a…> This document is a preliminary step in the multi-stakeholder process to develop a future model of IANA administration and outlines the process by which that development will take place. It’s most significant concrete proposal is the creation of a "steering group" made up of various IANA stakeholder representatives (including the Address Supporting Organization and the Number Resource Organization) to steward the global discussion and development process. A public comment on the proposal was posted earlier this week by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB): <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2014/04/iab-response-to-20140408-…> Anyone with an interest is encouraged to send their comments on the draft proposal to <ianatransition(a)icann.org>. Further background on the IANA functions and the significance of this transition process for the RIPE community is available at: <http://ripe.net/iana-transition> There will also be an opportunity for further RIPE community discussion of the IANA transition in next month's Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 68: <https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/> Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

NETmundial Concludes With Multistakeholder Statement
by Chris Buckridge 25 Apr '14

25 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has posted a brief report on the conclusion of NETmundial in São Paulo, Brazil: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/netmu… There will be further reporting on NETmundial on the agenda of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 68 next month. Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

Update on the IANA Transition Process
by Paul Rendek 23 Apr '14

23 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, As noted in earlier discussions, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has announced that it intends to transfer key Internet domain functions (the IANA functions) to the global multi-stakeholder community. An open process to develop a model for future IANA administration is now underway. The RIPE NCC has published a section on its website that provides background information on the IANA functions, the role of oversight of IANA and the RIPE NCC’s relationship to IANA. The pages also detail the process for development of the future IANA model, and the opportunities for the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership to contribute: http://ripe.net/iana-transition The RIPE NCC would like to highlight several key points to help stimulate community discussion in this area: - The IANA function covers three separate areas: Internet resources, domain names and protocol assignments on behalf of the IETF. The primary concern for the RIPE NCC is ensuring the continued fair, efficient and stable management of Internet number resources in any future model or arrangement. - The RIPE NCC and the other RIRs actually have relatively few interactions with IANA. We receive allocations of Internet number resources according to global policies developed using the same bottom-up processes as in our regional communities. To date, the U.S. Government’s oversight of IANA has never been exercised to affect IANA operations or policy development relating to Internet number resources. - The RIPE community and the RIPE NCC work together using a well-established model of bottom-up, open and inclusive processes. These attributes, which underpin all RIPE NCC and RIPE community activities, are essential elements of a "multi-stakeholder" model, specified by the NTIA as a requirement for any proposal to move forward. - The RIRs have developed their own robust structures to allow for cooperation and coordination on a global level, most notably through the Number Resource Organization (NRO), which represents all five RIRs working cooperatively. The NRO Number Council, which is comprised of members from the five RIR communities (and which also plays the role of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council), currently provides oversight of the global policy development process as it pertains to Internet number resources. It is important that the RIPE NCC membership and the RIPE community's voices are heard in these discussions, as key stakeholders in how the global pool of Internet number resources is managed. Following discussion with the co-chairs of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, we suggest that RIPE community discussion be focused in this working group, both on the mailing list and in RIPE Meeting sessions. This arrangement will allow anyone with an interest to participate or follow discussions, without the need to attend events in person. You can subscribe to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation At RIPE 68 in Warsaw, there will be a discussion on the future of the IANA functions in the Cooperation Working Group session on 15 May (remote participation will be available): https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ There will be opportunities to consider these issues in all RIPE-related venues, including ENOG, MENOG and other regional meetings. The RIPE NCC will also use its Roundtable Meetings to engage with governments and regulators on this topic. Finally, there are channels for global discussion, including the ICANN-hosted mailing list <ianatransition(a)icann.org>: https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition The RIPE NCC will actively participate in the global development process that is being convened by ICANN. The RIPE NCC will be informed and directed by our community and membership on the best way forward with this transition. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC

2 3

NETmundial HUB - CENTR Background paper
by Wim Degezelle 16 Apr '14

16 Apr '14

Hi All, CENTR will organise the Brussels Hub for next weeks NETmundial meeting in São Paulo. This means that during the meeting all who are interested are welcome to join us in the CENTR office to follow the sessions, discuss and give life input to the meeting in Brazil. If you want to join please RSVP before April 22, noon CET at secretariat(a)centr.org . (first come first served) Details at https://centr.org/CENTRpaper_NETmundial-April2014 . CENTR has published a background paper (including a tentative agenda for NETmundial). You can download it at https://centr.org/CENTRpaper_NETmundial-April2014 . CENTR will be represented at NETmundial by Peter Van Roste (General Manager), Lise Fuhr (.dk / CENTR Board), Richard Weil (.at/ CENTR Board) and many other members. Kind Regards Wim signature2

1 0

NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: let's get to work
by Andrea Glorioso 16 Apr '14

16 Apr '14

[ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times ] Dear all, Concerning the forthcoming Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) which will take place in Sao Paulo (Brazil) on 23-24 April 2014, you might be interested to read the latest blog post of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and member of the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee of NETmundial, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-… reproduced below. +++ NETmundial: let's get to work Published by Neelie KROES<https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/users/neelie-kroes>on Wednesday, 16/04/2014 I will soon be travelling to Sao Paulo to attend NETmundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance<http://netmundial.br/>. The purpose of NETmundial is to develop principles of Internet governance and a roadmap for the future development of this ecosystem. I have already shared<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmu…>with all of you my thoughts on the draft "outcome document" that I and other members of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee of NETmundial<http://netmundial.br/hlmc/>received on 3 April 2014. In the meantime, the organisers of the conference have published a new version of the outcome document<http://document.netmundial.br/>and are inviting everyone to send their views and comments <http://document.netmundial.br/> – I warmly invite all of you to do so. I did so, too; I have sent an email to the members<http://netmundial.br/hlmc/>of the High Level Multi-stakeholder Committee, to the Chair of the Meeting <http://netmundial.br/chair-of-the-meeting/> (Prof. Virgilio Almeida) and to the two co-chairs of the Executive Meeting Committee<http://netmundial.br/emc/>, Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko. Again, in a spirit of transparency, I would like to share the contents of this message with the broader Internet community.... so please read my letter below. *From: KROES Neelie (CAB-KROES)* *Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:26 PM* *To: 'hlmc(a)netmundial.br <hlmc(a)netmundial.br>'* *Subject: Proposals for the NETmundial outcome document* Dear colleagues, I am pleased to see that the draft outcome document for NETmundial has been published and that the broader public has now the possibility to intervene in the discussion, before we all meet in Sao Paulo next week. Again, I would like to thank all the members of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, as well as the Chair and the Co-Chairs of the meeting, for their tireless work. As a follow-up to the comments<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmu…>which I have already shared with you, I would like to make some further observations. In the same spirit of transparency as my previous communication, I am also posting a copy of this e-mail on my blog<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/blog> . I continue to strongly believe that the outcomes of NETmundial must be concrete and actionable, with clear milestones and with a realistic but ambitious timeline. Several reactions to my comments show that I am not alone in thinking that concreteness is paramount to the success of this important gathering; and even though positions on substance may well differ, I believe that my assessment on the necessity of a "change of pace" in these discussions is shared by a broad range of stakeholders. Read in this light, it is clear me that more work is needed on the latest draft; especially if we consider that a number of public contributions submitted to NETmundial did include concrete and actionable suggestions. Luckily, several passages of the draft outcome document do lend themselves quite well to being turned into more concrete actions – and we should make full use of this opportunity. I will focus on six specific examples: 1. Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model 2. Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum 3. Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building 4. Globalisation of IANA 5. Globalisation of ICANN 6. Jurisdictional issues on the Internet *(1) Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model* The draft outcome document refers several times to the need to *further improve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model*, to enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, to have clear and transparent processes and procedures (including mechanisms for checks and balances and for review). I completely agree – in fact, I have said so for a long time. The keywords here are inclusiveness and openness, which must both be real and meaningful, not just theoretical. NETmundial should be the moment to properly connect the debates on Internet governance with the discussions and concrete activities on citizens' engagement and participatory democracy. Europe has been quite active in this field, ranging from EU-funded projects in the ICT field, such as DEMO-NET <http://participedia.net/en/organizations/demo-net>, Cross Over<http://crossover-project.eu/>and D-CENT <http://dcentproject.eu/>; to legal innovations such as the European Citizens Initiative; to national initiatives such as the use of Liquid Democracy in the Germany and the People's Assembly Rahvakogu<https://www.rahvakogu.ee/pages/what-is-rahvakogu>in Estonia, to name just a few. Brazil, with the inclusive and participatory conception and discussions on the "Marco Civil", is also an inspiration for all of us. And it is purely for reasons of space that I cannot mention all the efforts by many organisations and individuals across the world. In its Communication on Internet Policy and Governance<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072>of 12 February 2014, the European Commission suggested that the *further development of multistakeholder guidelines and the sharing of best practices* would be a good manner to move forward. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include*: - a clear commitment to the *bottom-up and cooperative* development of a "concept paper" to be discussed at the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - this concept paper should identify initial recommendations on how the above mentioned engagement and participatory tools and initiatives could be used in Internet governance debates; it should also propose an initial outline of principles-based guidelines to safeguard accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and independence for multi-stakeholder processes; - the discussions in Istanbul and all other appropriate fora should lead, by the *beginning of 2015*, to a proposal for two "case studies", to examine how we could turn the high-level principles into concrete, operational practices of existing Internet governance organisations and processes; - further discussions and practical experimentation on these cases studies could then result in a *concrete reference paper* to be presented and discussed at the 10th Internet Governance Forum, towards the *end of 2015* – and of course, to be further refined as need be. *(2) Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum* I referred multiple times to the *Internet Governance Forum* or IGF. The draft outcome document of NETmundial clearly mentions the need for strengthening and improving this most important and unique example of global and multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue. I agree that such improvements should include an extension of the IGF mandate beyond its usual 5-years cycle, without prejudice to any possible adaptation of such mandate as the global community will see fit; I also agree that ensuring stable and predictable funding for the IGF is absolutely essential. I reiterate my invitation for everyone, but especially those organisations which have greatly benefited from the Internet, to become a donor to the IGF – like the EU, some of its Member States and others from the public and private sector. I believe that NETmundial should also make a clear reference, and if possible provide some practical examples, on how innovative forms of crowd-funding could contribute to this joint effort. The other improvements mentioned in the draft outcome document, namely the need to implement creative ways of providing outcomes / recommendations and the analysis of policy options, and to promote inter-sessional dialogues between the yearly gatherings of the IGF, are also essential and, in my view, closely linked to the need to better connect to existing experiences, expertise and practical tools for inclusive engagement, that I highlighted above. On this basis, *I propose that the NETmundial outcome document should ask the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to present to the global community a clear and realistic assessment of how and when, in their view, these recommendations could be concretely implemented*, at the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*. Members of the MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; I am therefore certain that such assessment would be well informed and inclusive of all opinions. But to be even more concrete: let us not forget that, as the draft outcome document mentions, we already have a very clear set of recommendations to refer to, i.e. the *Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum*<http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/504/04/PDF/G1250404.pdf?Open…>(WGIGF) of 2012. Some of these recommendations have been acted upon; some are still lingering; but more in general, I sense that we are missing a sense of the "global picture". Therefore, I would strongly *recommend that one of the concrete outputs of NETmundial should be an assessment – even if an initial one – of where we stand in terms of implementation for each recommendation of the WGIGF*, or at the very least a clear commitment that such assessment will be presented at the latest at 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; and that this "state of play" will be duly updated and be open to public input, possibly using participatory tools as I highlighted above. *(3) Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building* As you can certainly see, I strongly believe in the *use of appropriate ICT tools* for better and more inclusive dialogues. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly mentions the need for communication and coordination within the Internet governance ecosystem, including via tools to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing function. I have already highlighted in my previous comments how the European Commission is investing in the *Global Internet Policy Observatory initiative*<http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-g…>(GIPO) as a way to experiment with the automated collection, analysis, organisation and visualisation of information on Internet governance discussions and decisions. The European Commission is currently finalising a feasibility assessment of the technological and organisational options for the GIPO, and we will share our conclusions by *mid-2014*, with a view to launch the technological development of GIPO by the *end of 2014*. In the meantime many other organisations, public and private, are either already working or are planning to invest in Internet policy observatories and similar initiatives. We should strive to avoid duplication of efforts. Let me be crystal clear: I do not see any need for a winner-takes-all beauty contest between observatories. Quite the contrary. But we should strive to learn from each other's understanding of the problems and proposed solutions. Ideally, we should also move towards a federation of Internet policy observatories. I therefore suggest that the draft outcome document of NETmundial should *include a clear commitment to have a broad, inclusive and operational roundtable among all "observatory initiatives"* during the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; ideally, this roundtable should lead to the development of an initial "*collaboration roadmap*" by *mid-2015* and identify mechanisms, including via existing meetings and dialogues, to foster cooperation and communication among these various initiatives. *(4) Globalisation of IANA* You already know how important I believe it is to keep the momentum towards a real and effective globalisation of core Internet functions and decisions, including IANA. ICANN has recently shared a draft "scoping paper" and a roadmap that will certainly be helpful in the discussions on the globalisation of IANA. *I believe that the NETmundial outcome document should explicitly recognise this draft proposal by ICANN as an important contribution and explicitly call all stakeholders to express their views on it*. *I also believe that in order for this discussion to be truly meaningful, the NETmundial outcome document should clearly flag that*: - the engagement of the broader public should make full use of *all** existing meetings and fora*, including the global Internet Governance Forum and the regional ones, as appropriate; ICANN should also reach out to organisations across the world which are willing and capable to foster dialogue among citizens, besides and beyond those who are able to attend the meetings of ICANN or other Internet technical organisations; - with due consideration to the criteria which the US Government has presented in its announcement of 14 March 2014<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>, *there should be no artificial limitation in the scope of the discussion*. For example, a consideration of *various organisational options*, as well as of the *opportunity* and the *most appropriate ways to separate policy, operational and oversight activities* should not be "off-limits", if we want the debate on the future of IANA to be seen as truly legitimate at the global level. *(5) Globalisation of ICANN* The CEO of ICANN has recently declared<https://blog.icann.org/2014/04/training-wheels-off/>that a public dialogue on how to strengthen ICANN’s accountability will soon be launched. In my view, this dialogue cannot be separated from the broader issue of how to make ICANN a truly global organization serving the public interest, as the draft outcome document mentions. I understand that this dialogue will look at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments, and ICANN’s redress mechanisms, as well as exploring new accountability mechanisms where necessary. I am looking forward to further information and details and I expect that ICANN will also provide a clear timeline on the concrete implementation of its globalisation efforts. Accordingly, I *recommend that the NETmundial outcome document clearly invites ICANN to share its concrete proposals* at the 50th ICANN meeting (London, UK, *22-26 June 2014*). *(6) Jurisdictional issues on the Internet* It is natural, when talking about globalisation, to reflect not only on the amazing opportunities brought about by the Internet, but also on the challenges which this inherently cross-border medium raises with respect to the application of laws. The European Commission committed<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072&f…>to launching an in-depth review of the risks, at international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and to assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary to solve such conflicts. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly identifies jurisdictional issues and how they relate to Internet governance as "material for further discussion". While I understand and agree that a full debate on this broad topic during NETmundial would be neither desirable nor productive, *we should have a stronger commitment to a phase-by-phase examination of this issue*, with a view to produce "good practice" guidelines as appropriate. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include *an invitation to interested parties to: - develop a "scoping paper" by *July 2014*; - facilitate on-line and off-line engagement opportunities, as appropriate, in the run-up to the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - following these discussions, aim to produce a first draft of "problem statements" and possible recommendations by the *first half of 2015*. Dear colleagues, I thank you for your patience in reading my observations and proposals, which I trust will be useful in further refining the outcome document of NETmundial. Kind regards, Neelie Kroes +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 0

NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing
by Andrea Glorioso 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

[ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts.* ] In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders. The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions. Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below: - Date: 8 April 201 - Time: 11:00 - 13:00 (CET) - Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document) - Conference room number: 1327846 - Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please note that you do *NOT* need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference - it's offered as an option) As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/17… http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-e volution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177. Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

Nick Do you have any idea when the case will be back in the High Court? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:10 PM To: Innocenzo Genna Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful On 08/04/2014 12:47, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. > > There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data > retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: Yes, but it creates an immediate long term problem for all of the national legislation and leaves it all open to be contested in the courts. In the case of Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the High Court to dismiss the opinions of the ECJ, particularly as they believed there was sufficient grounds to refer the original Digital Rights Ireland complaint to the ECJ in the first place. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. Nick

2 1

Data Retention Directive considered harmful
by Nick Hilliard 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.… enjoy. Nick

6 10

The new EU telecoms regulation
by Gordon Lennox 12 Apr '14

12 Apr '14

The mood in Brussels today seemed to be that amendments in favour of network neutrality will be adopted. The text as agreed in the ITRE Committee can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2014… On the same page, near the top you will see links to pdf files containing amendments 234-246. Those are the plenary amendments tabled by the political groups. Amendments 234-236 are those tabled by Ms Schaake on behalf of the ALDE Group. So tomorrow, Wednesday, we have the debate and then on Thursday the vote. That though is just the first reading. Then we have to see what the Council delivers. There seems to be less clarity there. Then institutional negotiations and then second reading. Gordon

4 11

eIDAS Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

On Thursday, the EP also apparently voted positively on the eIDAS Regulation. The Commission's proposal for this was presented at the RIPE meeting in Dublin. Following community discussion a letter, detailing concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, was sent to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. Gordon

1 1

RIPE NCC Report on ITU WTDC 2014
by Chris Buckridge 10 Apr '14

10 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has just published a report on the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference 2014, which concluded today in Dubai: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/ipv6-… Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

ICANN proposal released
by Gordon Lennox 09 Apr '14

09 Apr '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jordan Carter" <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: Apr 9, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: [IANAxfer] ICANN proposal released To: "ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org" <ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org>, <isoc-advisory-council(a)elists.isoc.org> Cc: Dear ISOC colleagues, ICANN has released its proposal for the transition dialogue re NTIA DNS functions. The page and material is at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a…. This page includes the principles and mechanisms and seeks comment on these, as well as a process that involves an ICANN community steering group with an ICANN secretariat to help the discussion along. Scope is set out in a paper linked from this page at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr… On a very cursory and initial read, the scope appears to not account properly for the broad oversight or stewardship functions of the NTIA in respect of the DNS, and rules out discussion of IANA being operated by ICANN as part of the conversation. best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer(a)elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

IANA Globalization Progress
by Alain Van Gaever 08 Apr '14

08 Apr '14

For those of you who want some more analysis regarding the change in oversight arrangements for the IANA functions, I found the following article a very interesting read: http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37494/ICANN-policy-final.p… a short summary on: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37494/en/icann-reform:-reco… Alain Van Gaever Co-chair RIPE Coop WG On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Chris Buckridge <chrisb(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were > made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet > technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight > arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. > > I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments > will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: nick <nick(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA > Globalization Progress > > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > > To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net, ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for > coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, > ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the > suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > > > Their complete statement can be found here: > > > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizati… > > > > > > Regards, > > Nick Hyrka > > Communications Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

DNS-based filtering
by Niall O'Reilly 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Hello. Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the wider French Internet community. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Begin forwarded message: > From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie> > Date: 30 October 2013 10:16:26 GMT > To: bind-check(a)telenet.be > Cc: bind-users(a)lists.isc.org > Subject: Re: use bind 9.8 as caching server and authoritative nameserver > message-id: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9(a)ucd.ie> > > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 13:10, bind-check(a)telenet.be wrote: > >> Recently our government obligated all ISP's to block access to child-porn, illegal betting sites, illegal file share sites etc... >> I have been asked now to implement this on our caching DNS servers (serve a custom zone to all of our customers that points to an IP from the government that hosts a block-page) > > You probably understand that this approach is of limited effectiveness, > and has arguably significant disadvantages. > > It may be of interest for you to read the report mentioned at either of > the following URIs (in French, English respectively). > > http://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/6573… > http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/6584/show/the-afnic-sc… > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > Member of AFNIC's Conseil Scientifique > > PS. I wan't a significant contributor to this report. > Credit for that belongs to the colleagues who did the work. /Niall >

13 24

The new EU telecoms regulation - some comments
by Gordon Lennox 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

"After she won the vote in ITRE yesterday Pilar del Castillo published this FAQ on the controversial Open Internet provisions of the Telecom Single Market Regulation. We (EDRI) took the liberty of commenting on her answers." http://edri.org/faq-open-internet-provisions-telecoms-single-market-regulat…

1 0

"How the Internet works and ..."
by Gordon Lennox 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

An NN primer? "For most of us, the internet is what you’re looking at right now—what you see on your web browser. But the internet itself is comprised of the fiber optic cables, the servers, the proverbial series of tubes, all owned by the companies that built it. The content we access online is stored on servers and transmitted through networks owned by lots of different groups, but the magic of the internet protocol lets it all function as the integrated experience we know and, from time to time, love." http://qz.com/187034/how-the-internet-works-and-why-its-impossible-to-know-… Well maybe sort of... Gordon

2 1

cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?)
by Innocenzo Genna 22 Mar '14

22 Mar '14

Hello everybody, regarding the "fast lane provision” and the ITRE voting of yesterday (18 March). The real problem is not really with the “specialized service” provision, because the current definition: 15) “specialized service” means an electronic communications service optimized for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control from end to end. It is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and applications available over the public internet access service;] If this is the text approved by ITRE, it is is sufficiently precise, although it would have been better if the Trautman amendment (the one in brackets) had been approved too (but it was not). The real problem for me derives from the ability of ISPs to discriminate online service by charging different kind of connectivity prices. This could create a 2-tier Internet scenario. I mentioned this risk in my blog: http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/lights-and-darkness-of… Marjete Schaake is right in being worried, because this reform (if approved in this form) would make the Dutch NN legislation to be contrast with EU law. In fact, the Dutch rules prohibit price connectivity differentiation when aimed at discriminating online services. Kind regards, Innocenzo (Board member Euroispa) ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno(a)innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 19/mar/2014, alle ore 17:51, cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net ha scritto: > 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. EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? > (Meredith Whittaker) > 2. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Meredith Whittaker) > 3. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Gordon Lennox) > 4. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:23:40 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast > Lane provisions? > To: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAHx-7OwcCEc_JMJobjC37v_hMrWHt2_CJgE0kynSSn+AJtQVHQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected > Continent legislation. > > The press release<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140318IPR39210/ht…>states > that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of > higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical > data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere > with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how > it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC >

6 13

Re: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?
by Wouter van Hulten 21 Mar '14

21 Mar '14

Hi Meredith, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-inter… http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-a… If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--100… and http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-do…. regards, Wouter Colocation Research www.coloresearch.com<http://www.coloresearch.com> ________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel(a)google.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? Hi all, Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. The press release<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140318IPR39210/ht…> states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. Thoughts? Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

6 7

European Commission: EP committee vote...
by Gordon Lennox 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ep-committee-vote-takes-us-one-s…

1 0

Commission: Towards further Globalisation of the Internet
by Gordon Lennox 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.htm?locale=en

1 0

European Commission: Tomorrow's Internet starts now: get ready!
by Gordon Lennox 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-197_en.htm

1 0

EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?
by Meredith Whittaker 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

Hi all, Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. The press release<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140318IPR39210/ht…>states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. Thoughts? Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

4 4

FW: [rtldo] the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper
by Wim Degezelle 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

Hi All, We've just published a background paper on IANA - IG debate. Best Wim From: Wim Degezelle [mailto:wim@centr.org] Sent: woensdag 19 maart 2014 10:41 To: ga(a)centr.org Cc: rtldo(a)aptld.org; igf(a)centr.org Subject: [rtldo] the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper Hi All The announcement of the United States Government of its intent to transition key Internet domain function has created a lot of commotion in the Internet Governance ecosystem. It is probably one of the most important events that will determine the current and future Internet Governance debates. CENTR has put together a concise background paper to help all interested to take a step back and get some background and basic insight to better understand the ongoing discussion and why it is relevant for ccTLD registries. You can download the paper on the CENTR website: the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper https://centr.org/Future_of_IANA-CENTR_background_paper-March-2014 Kind regards Wim signature2 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtldo+unsubscribe(a)aptld.org.

1 0

IANA Globalization Progress
by Alain Van Gaever 18 Mar '14

18 Mar '14

Thanks Chris for keeping us in the loop! While I will not put forward an opinion of my own on these announcements (I am not sufficiently informed to do so). I did find two articles that ask some relevant questions regarding these developments . http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140316_if_the_stakeholders_already_control_… http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140317_is_ntias_transition_decision_right_d… Alain Van Gaever Co-chair Coop WG On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Chris Buckridge <chrisb(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were > made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet > technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight > arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. > > I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments > will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: nick <nick(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA > Globalization Progress > > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > > To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net, ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for > coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, > ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the > suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > > > Their complete statement can be found here: > > > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizati… > > > > > > Regards, > > Nick Hyrka > > Communications Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

The NTIA - ICANN thing
by Gordon Lennox 15 Mar '14

15 Mar '14

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition… http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/intern… Just in case somebody had not heard or anybody here wants to share a comment... Gordon

2 1

Fwd: Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress
by Chris Buckridge 15 Mar '14

15 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > From: nick <nick(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net, ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > Their complete statement can be found here: > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizati… > > > Regards, > Nick Hyrka > Communications Manager > RIPE NCC > > > >

1 0

NRO Contribution to the NETmundial
by Chris Buckridge 11 Mar '14

11 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, The Number Resource Organization (NRO), on behalf of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC, has submitted a contribution to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, also known as NETmundial. This contribution addresses each of the two NETmundial submission topics: “Internet Governance Principles” and “Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem”. You can read the full submission here: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NetMundial-NRO.pdf In total, 189 contributions to NETmundial were received by the 8 March deadline. These contributions can be read at: http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Formation of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group of the Persian Internet Governance Forum (PersianIGF)
by IGF Secretariat 11 Mar '14

11 Mar '14

Greetings from Persian IGF Secretariat, We are delighted to announce that the call for applications for membership of the new Persian Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (Persian MAG) for the year 2014-2015 has been issued, with application window open until 21 March 2014. Applicants from Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan and other Persian speaking individuals and entities are welcome to submit their application. Kindly find attached the Full announcement and application form, or follow the link: http://goo.gl/6tjanR با سلام و درود ضمن تبریک پیشاپیش برای فرا رسیدن نوروز، بدین وسیله از شما دعوت میگردد در فراخوان عضویت در شورای مشاوران انجمن راهبری اینترنت پارسی زبانان برای سال ۱۳۹۳ شرکت نمایید. تمامی فارسی زبانان از سراسر جهان میتوانند در این فراخوان شرکت نمایند. اطلاعات کامل این فراخوان از طریق آدرس زیر قابل دسترسی است http://goo.gl/yjzcpy لطفا توجه فرمایید که حداکثر مهلت ارسال فرم درخواست اول فروردین ماه ۱۳۹۳ می باشد. Best Regards, Persian IGF Secretariat | PersianIGF | secretariat(a)persianigf.org <mailto:secretariat@persianigf.org> | www.PersianIGF.org <http://www.persianigf.org/>

1 0

Contributions of the European Commission to the NETmundial meeting
by Andrea Glorioso 10 Mar '14

10 Mar '14

Dear all, of possible interest to the members of this list, the European Commission has submitted two contributions to the NETmundial meeting, which will take place on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. They are available at: · Principles: http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176 · Roadmap: http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution… Best regards, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

1 0

Invitation of speakers to the Warsaw meeting
by Alain Van Gaever 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

Hi Chris, We just finished our bi-weekly conf call with the co-chairs. We were wondering on how to invite speakers to the Warsaw meeting. As a practical example we would need to send an invite out for Anna Buchta from the European Data Protection Supervisor. I am willing to write the e-mail, but I assume that for practical reasons the official request should come from RIPE NCC? Thanks Alain ________________________________ ****************************************************************************************************************** For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use of the addressee only. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message and delete it from your system. This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any attachments at your own risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless expressly stated otherwise. ******************************************************************************************************************

1 0

NETmundial Expressions of Interest
by Chris Buckridge 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

Dear colleagues, Today is the final day to register your interest in attending NETmundial, a one-off global Internet governance event to be held in São Paulo, Brazil, on 23 & 24 April 2014. As the number of on-site participants will be limited, and demand is expected to exceed supply, the organisers are asking that anyone with an interest in attending complete the following web form: http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression Acceptance of registrations will be made public by March 15. It is also expected that organisers will offer some form of remote participation for those unable to attend the event in person. There is a further deadline on Monday, 8 March, to submit contributions relating to the meeting’s two planned outcomes, a set of Internet governance principles and a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. Contributions may be submitted via a web form at: http://content.netmundial.br/ The RIPE NCC plans to participate in the NETmundial meeting, and will report back to the RIPE community on any relevant issues or developments during the Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 68. In the meantime, more discussion regarding the NETmundial event is taking place on the 1Net mailing list and discussion forum: http://1net.org/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

On the Communication from the European Commission - eager to hear your views
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

[ I sent an almost identical message to the IAB InternetGovTech mailing list, so apologies for duplications ] Dear all, a few words to introduce myself: I'm Andrea Glorioso (Mr - I'm Italian). I work at the European Commission, in the Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology (sorry for the mouthful - we call it DG CONNECT). I have been one of the persons working on the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance which our former colleague, Gordon Lennox, has kindly shared on this and other lists (they were on my list but Gordon spared me some typing :). I just wanted to say that I'm delighted - honestly - that the Communication seems to have already sparked some discussions on this and other lists. We are very much in listening mode and to the extent possible I'll be glad to react to your points, questions, comments and criticisms. There might be cases in which I will want to double check the position of the European Commission on any particular matter, and this might produce some delay in the exchanges; but I'll do my best to be as quick, open and transparent as possible. Thanks, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

4 7

Slides of RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting
by Alain Van Gaever 20 Feb '14

20 Feb '14

For your information Chris has just made the slides of yesterday's Brussels Roundtable meeting available on the RIPE website: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 *Alain Van Gaever* *RIPE Cooperation Working Group Co-Chair* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: roundtable(a)ripe.net <roundtable(a)ripe.net> Date: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM Subject: RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting: Thanks and Feedback To: "avangaev(a)gmail.com" <avangaev(a)gmail.com> Dear colleagues, Thank you for your participation in the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting yesterday in Brussels. As noted during the meeting, this was one of the largest Roundtable Meetings that the RIPE NCC has hosted, and I hope that you found the presentations and discussions useful and relevant to your work. Slides from each of the presentations are now available to download at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 We welcome any feedback that you might have, including suggestions for agenda items at future Roundtable Meetings, questions about any of the subjects discussed during the meeting, or comments regarding the organisation of the meeting. Any feedback can be sent via email to < roundtable(a)ripe.net>. I would also like to reiterate the invitation to participate in RIPE 68, which will take place in Warsaw, Poland, from 12-16 May. More information on that meeting, including details on how to participate remotely, can be found at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

2 1

European Commission - Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

Commission Européenne - IP/14/142 12/02/2014 Commission to pursue role as honest broker in future global negotiations on Internet Governance In the wake of large-scale Internet surveillance and reduced trust in the internet, the European Commission today proposes a key reform to the way the Internet is managed and run. The proposal calls for more transparent, accountable and inclusive governance. Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes said: "The next two years will be critical in redrawing the global map of Internet governance. Europe must contribute to a credible way forward for global internet governance. Europe must play a strong role in defining what the net of the future looks like.” The Commission is committed to an internet that continues to serve fundamental freedoms and human rights, Kroes noted: “Our fundamental freedoms and human rights are not negotiable. They must be protected online.” .... http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm

1 0

New "Internet Governance" list
by Gordon Lennox 07 Feb '14

07 Feb '14

The new Internetgovtech mailing list may be of interest to people here. https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech There will also be a bof at the IETF in London. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/agenda/igovupdate/ Regards, Gordon

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

Jim Yes, but from what I've seen most people who want geographically diverse DNS these days use a service which offers it eg. Dyn or one of the other big DNS providers. I know you're doing it for your personal domain, but that's hardly surprising :) Registry operators - particularly ccTLDs - do this all the time, but I don't see many registrants of domains doing it anymore. And I thought this paper was about domains more than domain registries? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:42 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering On 25 Jan 2014, at 02:10, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Can you please provide examples of domains where the situation you described could exist? > > Eg: > "target domain name. In fact, for the sake of redundancy, a domain > name may have many authoritative servers, spread around the world and also operated by different companies." > > I can't see how that could work technically, but maybe I'm missing > something - an example would be helpful Ever heard of zone transfer Michele? :-) Many organisations spread DNS service for their domains across multiple providers: avoiding single points of failure and all that. For instance many TLDs rely on a mixture of name servers they operate themselves, some provided by other TLD registries -- I'll slave your zone if you slave mine -- and others from commercial anycast providers. It might be true that the majority of registrants just stick with whatever DNS is offered by their registrar but not all of them do that. Clueful ones certainly don't.

9 19

Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

Pier Carlo I'm a bit confused by your assertions with respect to authoritative DNS. Can you please provide examples of domains where the situation you described could exist? Eg: "target domain name. In fact, for the sake of redundancy, a domain name may have many authoritative servers, spread around the world and also operated by different companies." I can't see how that could work technically, but maybe I'm missing something - an example would be helpful Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pier Carlo Chiodi Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:23 PM To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering Dear Cooperation working group members, Il 07/11/2013 21:53, Meredith Whittaker ha scritto: > With that, I would be happy to help whoever leads pull together a > draft, but I don't have the expertise to lead drafting. as I have already anticipated in another thread, I finally completed a document about web blocking measures for law enforcement purposes. I tried to put together suggestions and hints taken from this mailing list and from documents herein reported. If you believe it's appropriate, it could be reviewed and maybe used as a starting point to eventually produce a RIPE NCC guide, in order to support legislators and stakeholders decisions; otherwise, it will be just another document about the topic! :) I share the document on Google Drive (replace FILE_ID with 0B2tYFe9mK9YfcGFUWkxEaldMdDg): https://drive.google.com/file/d/FILE_ID/edit?usp=sharing In case, just let me know how we can proceed with revisions. My two cents. Best regards, -- Pier Carlo Chiodi http://pierky.com/aboutme The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of any organization, entity or committee to which I may hold a position.

5 9

'Net neutrality just got a boost in Europe, thanks to a consumer rights committee'
by Bastiaan Goslings 24 Jan '14

24 Jan '14

Hi all, FYI, maybe interesting: the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee of the European Parliament released its amendments to the EC's proposed 'Connected continent' regulation. I have not read them myself yet, but according to http://gigaom.com/2014/01/23/net-neutrality-just-got-a-boost-in-europe-than… , which includes a link to the amendments: 'As the text now stands (...), it looks very much like ISPs and content providers have lost the explicit right — included in the original proposals — to strike deals between one another for “specialized services”. This doesn’t mean they can’t strike deals, but it does mean that ability is not entrenched in Europe-wide law. The amendments also place stricter conditions on the deals that can be struck.' Sounds like good news? Obviously: 'Another parliamentary committee, that for Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), will still need to vote on Kroes’s proposals on 24 February, and its members will no doubt have their own amendments. After that, it’s over to the full Parliament for a plenary vote, probably in April.' -Bastiaan

1 0

RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings - Some Background
by Chris Buckridge 02 Jan '14

02 Jan '14

Dear colleagues, Based on recent discussions, it would perhaps be useful to provide some background information on the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings for Governments and Regulators (to use their full title). The RIPE NCC has been holding these events since 2005, generally on a twice-yearly basis, as an opportunity for representatives of governments and public sector authorities to engage directly with RIPE NCC staff and key members of the RIPE community. Over the years, agenda items have included issues such as IPv6 adoption, Internet governance developments, network security, and Internet measurements and analysis. Presentations are generally delivered by RIPE NCC staff, though there have been occasions when representatives from other organisations have presented on issues relevant to the RIPE NCC or RIPE community (e.g. Olaf Kolkman delivered a presentation at the last Roundtable Meeting on the IETF and its role in Internet security). The Roundtable Meetings are held as invitation-only events. This is to allow government representatives, who are often constrained in what they can say in open forums, to speak and exchange information freely. This is vital to ensuring that all participants get the most out of the meetings. The trade-off is that Roundtable Meetings are purely informational - no formal policy discussion or decision-making occurs. As noted on this list, recent Roundtable Meetings have been held alternately in Amsterdam and Brussels - this has been a conscious move to engage more effectively with European Commission and Parliament staff, as well as EU member state representatives who may otherwise be in Brussels at the time. We have coordinated with contacts in the European Commission to organise our Brussels Roundtable Meetings adjacent to relevant meetings or events held by the Commission. Our plan is to continue this pattern, but we are always open to adjusting our Roundtable Meeting organisation to more effectively reach new participants. The Roundtable Meetings have a great success in helping the RIPE NCC to build relationships with the public sector and inform public sector representatives on issues relating to the RIPE community. While the Roundtable Meetings are invitation-only, the RIPE NCC is very happy to hear input or suggestions from the community (particularly this working group) on issues that might usefully be included on the agenda (we are currently developing the agenda for our next Roundtable Meeting in February, and have noted the discussion that has taken place here regarding IP interconnection). We also strongly you to connect us with public sector representatives from your country who may be interested in attending. I hope this is helpful for discussions going forward, and I am happy to answer questions either on or off the mailing list. Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5
by Wout de Natris 13 Dec '13

13 Dec '13

The discussion seems extremely EU focussed, which is not surprising as the EU Commission is a central force to be reckoned with in Internet Governance and a body that makes regulations that touch upon the internet, regulations that often influence other parts of the world be it directly or indirectly as well. It is an important player for RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to reckon with. However, there are at least three regional meetings within the RIPE region. Is there anything to stop those regions to have its own regional Cooperation Working Groups as well? It probably takes some initiative and topics to identify. If the need is there, it is your choice to start one. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:42:25 +0100 > > > 1. Re: IP Interconnection ? expertise wanted - providing > information to the European Institutions (Dmitry Burkov) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:12:21 +0400 > From: Dmitry Burkov <dburk(a)burkov.aha.ru> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] IP Interconnection ? expertise wanted - > providing information to the European Institutions > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>, Roland Perry > <roland(a)internetpolicyagency.com> > Message-ID: <C6FD09BB-9228-431C-9E2F-CD4455D6BD8D(a)burkov.aha.ru> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Gordon, > > just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all. > > And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. > I think it should be also special point on our agenda. > > An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all. > Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips. > > It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region. > > regards, > Dmitry > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > *********************************************

1 0

IP Interconnection – expertise wanted - providing information to the European Institutions
by Alain Van Gaever 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of “assured service quality” on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. *Background:* The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)). Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND mentions *“Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the entire framework. “ * Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent regulation. Alain

7 23

The proposed EU Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

Following on from Alain's: "Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of “assured service quality” on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing." Here is an interesting take by Monica Horten: http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/923-eu-t… Gordon

1 0

European Commission and Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

This is worth a read and probably some reflection: << EUROPE AT A TIPPING POINT: LEAKED EC DOCUMENT STIRS INTERNET GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY The European Commission is preparing a policy statement on Internet governance that elevates state power and multi-lateralism over the civil society-based open and participatory governance that has characterized the native Internet governance institutions. An early version of the policy document, obtained from sources in a national government, addresses “Internet Governance and Policy: Europe’s role in shaping the future of the Internet.”[1] The document “lays out Europe’s vision for the future global governance framework, based on a small number of key principles.” The draft is believed to have been written by Andrea Glorioso, a Policy Officer and formerly the EC’s representative on the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee, and may have support from Nellie Kroes, the EC Vice President. ... >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/12/06/europe-at-a-tipping-point-leak…

1 0

Proposed Workplan Coop-WG
by Maria Häll 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

Dear Coop-WG colleagues It's great to see the active discussions and debates on mailing list! :-) Facilitating this kind of open and inclusive dialogue between different stakeholders, both on mailing list and at the Coop-WG meetings etc, is one of the key roles of our WG! Without changing this approach for Coop-WG we think it could be fruitful to agree on a work plan and also have have a list of topics we can focus on. See the proposed work plan below. Please get back to us with comments and feedback! Have a nice weekend! Best, Alain, Meredith and Maria co-chairs Coop-WG Proposed Workplan for the Cooperation Working Group (Coop-WG) The description of the Coop-WG can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/coop In line with this description and mission of the Coop-WG we suggest the following process forward. The co-chairs discussed, and agreed that the mission of the Coop-WG could be briefly summarized as follows. We believe that this short-form mission is useful in focusing our work to achieve the greatest impact. Mission: To improve decision-making and mutual understanding by providing technical expertise to policy makers and the non-technical public. To inform the RIPE community on relevant public policy-related developments and governance processes. Topics for engagement, and modes of engagement To make the best use of limited time and resources, we suggest focusing on a select number of technical topics that are currently important within a number of policy debates. Note that this suggestion is not meant as a limitation: the focus topics will shift, and change, and any RIPE community member eager to engage another topic is invited to do so. The Coop-WG mailing list will will, of course, remain open and welcoming of lively debate. As a starting point, we have provided a list of topics that we recognize to be important and within the scope of RIPE community expertise. We would like your feedback. Some of the topics are already discussed in other working groups, but we believe it useful to have these discussions brought to the Coop-WG as well. We ask you to consider the following questions while reviewing the proposed topic list: 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed topics? 2. Where are you seeing these (or other proposed topics) discussed? 3. Per topic, what are your ideas on specific modes of engagement to have maximum impact? Suggested topics: 1. IP Interconnection (soon to have an established RIPE WG) This topic is of increasing political interest and therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with the proposed Interconnection-WG. Defining and explaining its technical functioning and underlying business logic. a. What is sending/calling party pays? What is the difference and how do they relate to current standards and practices? b. What are IXPs and why are they important for the functioning of the Internet? c. What is an ideal peering ecosystem, and why? What are the ways this can go wrong? 2. Security and Privacy of Networks (is this discussed in some other WG?) This topic is of an increasing political interest therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with other relevant WG:s. a. How and why does infrastructure and network policy impact security and privacy? b. What would a secure network look like? What are the gaps between a secure network and what we have now? c. How can security and privacy be enhanced in the short-term (practical steps)? What are the long term efforts underway to enhance security and privacy? 3. Characteristics of the global Internet a. How does routing, addressing, etc. work? b. What are the dangers of attempting to create bounded (in many cases national) “Internets”? 4. Interrelationships of physical infrastructure a. What are the different physical-layer technologies that make up “the Internet” as we know it? For example, what is the difference between fiber, coax, et al.? What is the impact of e.g. deploying fiber if last mile networks still have only copper, or cable (etc.)? 5. IPv6 (already discussed in the IPv6 WG) a. Why does it really matter that it gets deployed? What are the technical issues related to IPv6? What impact does it make on e-government and e-society development? b. What is the risk of deploying CGNs 6. Roles and responsibilities for intermediaries Proposed guidelines for engagement to best fulfil this mission: Concrete steps the Coop-WG can engage in to move forward: ● Assemble technical experts on a variety of important topics, upon request. These would be volunteers from the community, and they would be asked to engage with governments, regulatory bodies, policy-making bodies, international organisations, NGOs and others that request or could benefit from a better understanding of the technical details of a given topic. The Coop-WG would provide a bridge between these experts and those who can benefit from their counsel. Coop-WG should also offer expertise in the policy-making field to other WGs in RIPE as well as the RIPE NCC. ● Explain technology, but avoid taking positions on specific policies/regulation (or other politicized topics). The Coop-WG is not a lobbying organization. The focus should be on illuminating how the technology works and highlight discussions and fact-based concerns raised in the Coop-WG. This approach allows the Coop-WG to engage a large community hailing from separate sectors, some of whom disagree with each other. It also allows the Coop-WG to remain credible, and provide clear factual information to those who can use it to improve the content of policy and regulation. ● Develop an understanding of areas where RIPE’s expertise can add value. ○ What are the policy areas that governments, policy makers, and others doing advocacy work are currently working on, and on which of those areas could we assist to improve their technical understanding? With the RIPE community, we should continually work to gather questions and topics of interest to which we can contribute. ○ Work with the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to understand the policy areas relevant to the RIPE community. The Coop-WG can be a useful forum for the RIPE community to share information on trends and developments in government policy – especially those that affect the operational community. ○ The Coop-WG can support RIPE NCC to prepare position statements or papers for public consultations and general white papers that increase knowledge on technologies/operational procedures relevant to the RIPE community.

5 4

London
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

5 4

Internet governance
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

A sort of conversation seem to be starting and I am not sure where it will take us. It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council. You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: "What is the situation we have decided to change: The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, will present an EU vision for Internet governance as part of the overall internet strategy. The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables. The complexity of the current multi stakeholder approach to Internet Governance has to be further developed in a comprehensible manner so as to ensure inclusiveness of all actors. The establishment of GIPO will contribute to this. ..." http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/connect/en/content/international-internet-governanc… So they want to reform the multi-stakeholder set-up? And by the way I am intrigued by the mention of "enhanced coordination". That always had a special EU meaning and that was not what people, perhaps naively, thought. Meanwhile ICANN is also busy. Steve Crocker writes: "As anyone who has followed the global discourse on Internet governance knows, the multistakeholder model is under threat. Some governments have expressed a clear interest in putting multilateral organizations in charge of Internet policymaking. As the Internet has taken on a larger role in the economy and society, some governments have grown increasingly uncomfortable with their perceived lack of control. More recently, ICANN has received requests to expand its remit to address issues beyond the coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers. This we will not do. The ICANN Board recognizes that the single, open, global, interoperable Internet is under threat of failing due to emerging pressures on multistakeholder governance. As a consequence, the Board gave the ICANN CEO a mandate to work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition to evaluate and participate in the formation a movement or initiative for an Internet cooperation agenda. We are pleased with his initial engagement with the Internet organizations and the broader multistakeholder community. ..." http://blog.icann.org/2013/11/icanns-mandate-to-preserve-and-enhance-multis… Watch this space? Gordon

7 22

Re: [cooperation-wg] London
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 24 Nov '13

24 Nov '13

Gordon London for what exactly? regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:13 To: connect-bof(a)ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] London Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

3 2

Re: [cooperation-wg] London
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 24 Nov '13

24 Nov '13

Gordon ICANN has been held in far more restrictive environments without any filters or traffic shaping .. (and it's on in London next year) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:35 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: connect-bof(a)ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] London Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Co-chairs Cooperation Working Group
by Maria Häll 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

Dear Coop WG colleagues We are happy to announce that the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, in line with earlier co-chair's proposal (almost) three weeks ago, have the following co-chairs: Meredith Whittaker, Google Alan van Gaever, Ofcom Maria Häll, SUNET Thanks a lot, Coop WG members, for your support! We have had our first teleconf meeting this afternoon. Early upcoming week we will send a proposal to Coop WG mailing list on topics to focus on and how to do that etc. We are very much looking forward to work together in the Coop WG, with RIPE NCC and the rest of the RIPE Community. Best, Meredith, Alain and Maria co-chairs Cooperation Working Group

1 0

Swedish Parliament decision on one unified market for telecom
by Patrik Fältström 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

The Swedish Parliament Thursday last week decided that they do believe the suggested regulation do go too far related to the subsidiary principle and will send a letter to Brussels regarding the matter. In Swedish: <http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/A…> Longer background, also in Swedish: <http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/2…> Patrik

1 1

Regulation proposed by European Commission
by Gordon Lennox 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. ------- The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. So now we have a new proposed regulation. I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm But the "communication" is probably better: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-europe… Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-… If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… ------ So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: Brussels, 11.9.2013 COM(2013) 627 final 2013/0309 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications markets, each with a limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, and one spectrum policy.>> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on reasonable terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new types of online services.>> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> ----- So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. The second point says an awful lot in a few words! The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. ----- Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. For more information on the proposal consult EC website. ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html ---- So suggestions. I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. I think a discussion here would be much better. If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. ** or a community input with the help of NCC. One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. Enough for now? Gordon

5 10

São Paulo will host international conference on Internet governance
by Nurani Nimpuno 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

For those of you who haven't seen the press release yesterday. Google translate: http://goo.gl/TSESH8 Nurani São Paulo will host international conference on Internet governance Scheduled for 23 and April 24, the meeting will address topics such as network security, espionage and cyber crimes Brasilia, 11/18/2013 - Sao Paulo will host on 23 and 24 April 2014, an international conference to discuss the new model of global governance of the Internet. The Federal Government's proposal was announced on the morning of Monday the Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo. From left to right, Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo The idea for the meeting came from the speech of President Dilma Rousseff at the opening of the UN General Assembly, prompted by revelations that the U.S. government spied authorities and Brazilian companies. According to Bernardo, the event will have a "nongovernmental nature" and will require a call very wide. "Governments are invited to participate, but will be mostly a multisectoral meeting also involving representatives of civil society and the private sector," he said. The Foreign Minister said that the aim of the meeting is to hold a broad debate with all concerned sectors. "The idea is to build international governance that can above all ensure individual freedom and protecting human rights in order to use to the fullest the new media with the internet as its centerpiece," he said. Already the Minister of Science and Technology cited the Brazilian model participatory and democratic governance of the internet's Internet Steering Committee (CGI), created in 1995 and brings together 20 members. "This proposal of São Paulo meeting came a beautiful experience that Brazil has in the field of Internet governance. There are representatives from all major sectors of society. The Decalogue which guides their actions is already recognized worldwide. So Brazil has a leading position in this sector, "he said. The Minister Paulo Bernardo said that the proposed meeting is broader than the project of Marco Civil Internet being discussed in Congress. According to him, some assignments of Internet control should be maintained with the third sector. "What we found is that governments should act where it is necessary, as in cases of cyber crime, terrorism, espionage and pedophilia. Our March calendar has principles that can be replicated, but does not deal with international issues that still need to be addressed, "he added.

1 1

Debriefing of meeting with Members of the European Parliament on 11/11/13
by Alain Van Gaever 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Yesterday, on the 11th of November we went to the European Parliament to discuss the proposed Single Market Regulation (COM(2013) 627 final ) and meet with 2 Members of the European Parliament, namely: - Pilar Del Castillo and http://www.pilardelcastillo.es - Marietje Schaake http://www.marietjeschaake.eu Present from our side: · Wouter van Hulten, wouter(a)vanhulten.com · Alain Van Gaever, co-chair-elect RIPE Cooperation WG, avangaev(a)gmail.com · Bastiaan Goslings, bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net · Gordon Lennox gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com · Joy Marino, chair Milan Internet Exchange j.marino(a)mix-it.net · Nina Bargisen, nihb(a)netflix.com · Innocenzo Gemma, inno(a)innogenna.it (observer) On the agenda: the following items related to the Single Market Regulation were discussed - Assured Service Quality (ASQ) – proposal - Net Neutrality - Depeering practices - Engagement with the community of IP experts (Link to the draft Regulation: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-a… ) Most relevant Articles: Art.19, Art.23, Art.24 Short debriefing of the meeting: 1. ASQ: we expressed our concerns that the introduction of the Assured Service Quality is a “solution in search of a problem”. That it is not needed. And that this ASQ-proposal would be harmful to the evolution and innovative power of the Internet. MEP Del Castillo informed us that the ASQ-related articles would be removed in the draft she would send for translation next Thursday. 2. Net Neutrality: we expressed our concerns that given the importance of this topic it should not be rushed through. While a consensus could not be achieved (given the difficulty of the topic and the short time frame available this is hardly surprising) MEP Del Castillo seemed to suggest that she would strengthen the “non discriminatory “ principle in the Regulations. 3. De-peering: The importance of peering and the European model of IXPs was highlighted. Concerns were expressed regarding the situation in Italy where Telecom Italia is de-peering. It was noted that “de-peering” is an issue which is more relevant in other legislative/regulatory instruments and is not part of the proposed Single Market Regulation (relevant instruments are: Review of Relevant markets, DG Comp investigations). We explained that the European model of peering is currently being copied in the US, under the Open-IX initiative. MEP Del Castillo mentioned she would highlight this issue with her colleague MEP Trautmann. Further information would be welcomed. 4. We stressed the importance of engaging with the EU institutions, including of course the European Parliament, and our collective willingness to do so. It is important that the Internet community is heard when proposed regulation, which affects the functioning of the Internet, is being developed and discussed. Next Steps: 1. MEP Del Castillo’s text will go to translation this Thursday 14 November. Suggestions are still welcome. If you will submit feedback, please ensure you provide them in the form of proposed modifications to the current text, and with a justification why this change is needed. For those who want to engage individually, the MEP contact details can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96945/MARIETJE_SCHAAKE_home.htmland http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28390/PILAR_DEL+CASTILLO+VERA_home.ht… Moving forward / Recommendations 1. This time we were faced with particularly short time-frames between proposed legislation “leaving” the Commission and then being debated in Council and Parliament. It is however also more difficult in general correcting many things once they have been drafted and agreed by the Commission. We should therefore try and engage sooner in the legislative process. This means ideally before any legislation is actually proposed (i.e. talking directly to the European Commission). It is believed that Commission officials would welcome views from the Internet community. We should therefore start to establish a list of interlocutors and contacts so we could provide appropriate expertise. We should also seek to establish a view on what the Commission is going to do - in terms of their own forward planning. 2. Feedback and comment on any and all of this is most welcome on the list mailto:cooperation-wg@ripe.net Alain Van Gaever

1 0

CENTR opinion on the NIS Directive
by Wim Degezelle 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Dear All CENTR has published its opinion on the Draft Directive concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union (NIS Directive): <http://www.centr.org/CENTR_opinion_on_EU_NIS_directive> http://www.centr.org/CENTR_opinion_on_EU_NIS_directive The opinion welcomes the focus of the draft Directive on enabling a culture of security and trust but expresses concern that the text moves away from enabling the development of a security framework, in favour of a prescriptive, regulatory environment. Draft Directive on NIS http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_directive_en.pdf The draft Directive is currently being discussed by the European Parliament and the Member States' Representatives in Brussels. Parliament and Council are expected to finalise their opinions by the first months of 2014. If there is agreement between both opinions, the new legislation could still be accepted before next year's European elections, and in such a scenario, has to be transposed into national law by 2016. Kind Regards Wim signature2

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
by Marco Hogewoning 08 Nov '13

08 Nov '13

Hi Meredith, Just to chime in, that would certainly be a very useful document to have. As I am sure a lot of you are aware, but for those who are not. The IAB/IETF is currently also looking into this topic, with a draft document that looks at all the technical considerations for filtering, the text of which can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-filtering-considerations Grtx, MarcoH On Nov 8, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> wrote: > A bit +1 to Niall's call for sharing more technical clarity with policymakers (and the world). This seems like a very positive direction for this group. > > An overall suggestion -- I think it would make sense to frame such as document as an examination of content blocking (pertinent social issue whose importance is clear to people who may not know what DNS is). After announcing the scope, we then enumerate the technical issues (explain DNS!) and methods and concerns. I.e. create a technical guide to a politically/socially relevant issue, making it easier for non-experts to recognize its importance, and recognize how to profitably connect the information contained to pending decisions (etc.). > > With that, I would be happy to help whoever leads pull together a draft, but I don't have the expertise to lead drafting. > > Cheers, > Meredith > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: > May I for domain blocking with the help of DNS also recommend reading of SSAC document SAC-050 and SAC-056: > > <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents> > > Patrik Fältström > SSAC Chair > > On 7 nov 2013, at 19:29, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / human rights. >> >> Gordon >> >> On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs(a)schiefner.de> wrote: >> >>> All - >>> >>> anyone willing to take the lead for this? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. >>> >>> On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" >>>> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message >>>> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the >>>> wider French Internet community. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Niall O'Reilly >>> >> >> > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > >

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 9
by Wout de Natris 08 Nov '13

08 Nov '13

+1 (or actually +2) from me, Wout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - De Natris Consult Raaphorst 33 Tel: +31 648388813 2352 KJ Leiderdorp Skype: wout.de.natris denatrisconsult(a)hotmail.nl http://www.denatrisconsult.nl Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 9 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:53:45 +0100 > > 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. Re: (no subject) (Erika.Hersaeus(a)pts.se) > 2. Re: [connect-bof] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF > (Gert Doering) > 3. Re: DNS-based filtering (Carsten Schiefner) > 4. Re: DNS-based filtering (Gordon Lennox) > 5. Re: DNS-based filtering (Patrik F?ltstr?m) > 6. Re: DNS-based filtering (Meredith Whittaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:56:09 +0000 > From: <Erika.Hersaeus(a)pts.se> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) > To: <bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net>, <nihb(a)netflix.com> > Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net, Richard.Leaning(a)europol.europa.eu, > paf(a)frobbit.se > Message-ID: <F9B35F1FF22AED4B9198995E2F969B801D2F436C@maildb01> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear all, > > Both have my support! > > Kind regards, > Erika > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr?n: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] F?r Bastiaan Goslings > Skickat: den 7 november 2013 10:26 > Till: Nina Bargisen > Kopia: Bastiaan Goslings; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net; Leaning, Richard; Patrik F?ltstr?m > ?mne: Re: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) > > +1from me too > > -Bastiaan > > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Nina Bargisen <nihb(a)netflix.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Nina > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf(a)frobbit.se> wrote: > > I support. > > > > Patrik > > > > On 6 nov 2013, at 19:24, Leaning, Richard <Richard.Leaning(a)europol.europa.eu> wrote: > > > > > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > > > > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Maria H?ll > > > co-chair Cooperation WG > > > > > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > > > Email: maria(a)sunet.se > > > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > > > Web: www.sunet.se > > > > > > > > > Dear Maria, > > > > > > Both these nominations have my support. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > Richard leaning > > > Cyber Community Engagement > > > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > > > Europol > > > > > > Richard.leaning(a)europol.europa.eu > > > +31 638769131 > > > > > > ******************* > > > > > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. > > > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > > > > > ******************* > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:44:37 +0100 > From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] On Consensus and Humming > in the IETF > To: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb(a)ipv.sx>, "connect-bof(a)ripe.net" > <connect-bof(a)ripe.net>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" > <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <20131107124437.GS81676(a)Space.Net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:01:32PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> wrote: > > > > > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > > >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. > > >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > > > > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? > > I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) > > We'll go along with it anyway! > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >

1 0

(no subject)
by Leaning, Richard 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. Regards, Maria Häll co-chair Cooperation WG CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se Dear Maria, Both these nominations have my support. Cheers Dick Richard leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Richard.leaning(a)europol.europa.eu +31 638769131 ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. *******************

6 5

On Consensus and Humming in the IETF
by Gordon Lennox 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

I have been sharing this Internet draft by Pete Resnick with various people and getting very positive feed-back which has encouraged me to share more widely: Title : On Consensus and Humming in the IETF Author(s) : Pete Resnick Filename : draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-10-04 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/msg53974.html The text is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 It is a useful read for anyone who is looking for consensus in our kind of environment. Regards, Gordon @ Vancouver

5 5

Proposal - co-chairs RIPE Cooperation Working Group
by Maria Häll 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Dear Colleauges, As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. Regards, Maria Häll co-chair Cooperation WG CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

3 2

Regulation proposed by European Commission
by Gordon Lennox 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

This is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and various associated documents, from the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to the community: ** the Commission's view of the sector ** market consolidation ** interconnection ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on Gordon

3 6

Cooperation WG co-chairs - proposal
by Maria Häll 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Dear Colleagues, Firstly, let me apologise for not sending a message of action on this issue. I have not been fully online due to a sad situation in my family where a young family member unexpectedly passed away some days ago. As a current co-Chair of this working group, I have reviewed the messages sent to the Coop WG list and I am very pleased to see that we have four wonderful candidates that have expressed their interest to serve as co-Chair. Each Candidate has sent an introduction mail explaining their reasons for standing as a co-Chair. We have the following candidates confirmed: Alain van Gaever, Ofcom Erika Hersaeus, The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS Meredith Whittaker, Google Niall O'Reilly, IT Services Unit at University College Dublin To date, there is no set procedure to select working group Chairs, this is open to the working group to decide. I would like to have the co-Chairs installed as soon as possible (before the Warsaw meeting) that means that a consensus decision needs to be made on this list. I believe this is possible without the overhead of organising an online voting process. For efficiency reasons I think that this WG should not have more than three co-chairs. That would be sufficient in case one of us would not be able to physically attend a meeting as well as for continuity of this WG in case one of us would step down. Please remember that the bulk of the work needs to be done by the actual working group participants and not only the co-Chairs. And that is also the way things have been working before and still do. Moving forward, I propose that we select two new co-chairs to be a reflection of the broader community in RIPE. As I noted from discussions on the list, I see support for co-chairs coming from a government and industry background that would complement me, with my current affiliation to academia. After considering all the candidates’ backgrounds, sector affiliation, country diversity and experience in the Internet Governance space, I propose to this working group to have Alain van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker to be the co-chairs and ask for your full support in this proposal. In a moment, I will send a separate, more formal, mail to this list asking the WG to formally show their support to approve these candidates. I thank all of you for your enthusiasm and commitment to this WG and hope that we continue the productive discussions and exchange of information and identify areas where this WG and the RIPE community can contribute. Warm Regards, Maria Häll co-chair RIPE Cooperation WG CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF
by Chris Buckridge 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this year’s theme of “Building Bridges – Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.” Several members of the RIPE NCC’s staff and Senior Management attended, along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as speakers in a number of the workshops. Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised together with Netnod): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource Organisation): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organisation): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 Anne-Rachel Inné, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis for the secretariat and future meetings. The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC’s participation at the IGF in 2014 via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Chris Thanks for the update Regards Michele On 4 Nov 2013, at 14:02, Chris Buckridge <chrisb(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this year’s theme of “Building Bridges – Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.” > > Several members of the RIPE NCC’s staff and Senior Management attended, along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. > > Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as speakers in a number of the workshops. > > Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: > > Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised together with Netnod): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 > > IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 > > Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 > > Anne-Rachel Inné, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis for the secretariat and future meetings. > > The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC’s participation at the IGF in 2014 via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. > > Best regards > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Nomination of co-chair of Cooperation WG
by Maria Häll 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Dear Coop WG colleagues As you all know Patrik Fältström has stepped down as co-chair of the Cooperation Working Group. As remaining co-chair I would like to nominate Niall O'Reilly as new co-chair of the WG. Niall will present himself on the list shortly. If any of you have any other person to nominate, just get back to me on the mailing list or bring it up on the agenda item on this issue on the WG session at 16.00 today. _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll CEO/Föreståndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
by Wout de Natris 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Dear all, Reading Gordon's comments, observations and the invitation to speak e.g. with Marietje Schaaken, I reiterate my comment made in Athens two weeks ago, that the RIPE community must seriously contemplate whether it can afford to go without an at minimum semi-permanent person aimed at following and lobbying the European Commission and Parliament. Why? Policies, whether national or at EU level, are years in the making. The earlier representatives from interested parties speak with the civil servants appointed to work on a policy, the greater the odds that messages come across and positions are understood. Once the wording is more or less set in stone, like when a text is presented to the European Parliament, the civil servants have done most of their work. Lobbying them is then too late and the rest indirect. The window of opportunity at the drafting stage is closed. Industry lobbies Brussels extensively and at times very successfully. In its own direct interest. The internet related organisations do not. If this is important, and the topics discussed in Athens suggested to me that it is, the conclusion is that an organisation like RIPE can not afford to ignore politics. Only being there from the start gives influence in the drafting and thinking process. Recent actions from e.g. I* show that positions and actions change, but perhaps not rigorously enough. Internet has become a very political topic. For the internet related organisations the consequence is that politics can no longer be ignored. Hence my advice: Be there from the start from now on and match the more selfish lobbying from corporations with and for the common good. Being there means knowing which fights to pick and the right moment to step in and knowing the right people; efficiency. The side effect is positive also. The right people get to know RIPE (NCC) and hence will show up at roundtables and meetings more to discuss and participate and learn. Best, Wout > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by > European Commission > To: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Wouter van Hulten <wouter(a)vanhulten.com> > > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com>, "connect-bof(a)ripe.net" <connect-bof(a)ripe.net>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > > Thanks for this clear summary. > > > > I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. > > > > Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. > > > > Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-packa… > > Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-con… > > > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. > > > > Wouter > > > > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > > Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > > Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > > For more information on the proposal consult EC website <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma…> > > > > > > > > On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. > >> > >> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. > >> > >> ------- > >> > >> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. > >> > >> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! > >> > >> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. > >> > >> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. > >> > >> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. > >> > >> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. > >> > >> So now we have a new proposed regulation. > >> > >> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. > >> > >> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: > >> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? > >> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? > >> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? > >> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services > >> ** ... and so on > >> > >> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: > >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm > >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm > >> > >> But the "communication" is probably better: > >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-europe… > >> > >> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: > >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-… > >> > >> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. > >> > >> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: > >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… > >> > >> ------ > >> > >> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: > >> > >> Brussels, 11.9.2013 > >> COM(2013) 627 final > >> 2013/0309 (COD) > >> > >> Proposal for a > >> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL > >> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic > >> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives > >> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) > >> No 531/2012 > >> > >> <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications markets, each with a > >> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half > >> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of > >> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, > >> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This > >> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to > >> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast > >> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers > >> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, > >> and one spectrum policy.>> > >> > >> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on reasonable > >> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new > >> types of online services.>> > >> > >> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of > >> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with > >> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and > >> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the > >> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting > >> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider > >> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based > >> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in > >> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster > >> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A > >> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore > >> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply > >> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> > >> > >> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made > >> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP > >> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network > >> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the > >> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified > >> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. > >> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! > >> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. > >> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? > >> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. > >> > >> ----- > >> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: > >> > >> <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > >> > >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. > >> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. > >> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> > >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> So suggestions. > >> > >> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. > >> > >> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. > >> > >> I think a discussion here would be much better. > >> > >> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: > >> > >> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. > >> > >> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. > >> > >> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. > >> > >> Enough for now? > >> > >> Gordon > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> connect-bof mailing list > >> connect-bof(a)ripe.net > >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof > >> > > > >

1 0

Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
by Erika.Hersaeus＠pts.se 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear all, I would like to introduce myself regarding the nomination as co-chair of the Cooperation WG. For those of you who don´t know me, I´m Erika Hersaeus and I work at the Swedish NRA - The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS, since several years. I´m interested in enhancing the cooperation and dialogue between the EU Commission, governments, authorities, and the technical community! I would be taking on the role as a representative of my employer. PTS recognize the importance of taking part of the existing processes on Internet Governance, for instance the RIPE meetings and the PDP, and to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community. I´ve experience from e.g. regulation, cooperation and promoting Network and Information Security in Sweden. I´ve been attending RIPE meetings since 2008 in order to follow and take part in the development and discussions within the community´s area since PTS is the Swedish sector authority for electronic communications and we need to be updated on what´s going on. For instance I´ve been working with promoting the deployment of IPv6 and DNSSEC in public bodies in Sweden - also in enhanced cooperation. We also have experience from when there has been a lack of dialogue, which did not result in successful regulation, wherefore I´m an advocate of enhanced dialogue between governments and the technical community. I´ve also experience from arranging Swedish Cooperation fora since 2007. PTS is the host for RGIG, Reference Group on Internet Governance, where representatives from different ministries, authorities, the private sector and the Internet community, meet three times per year. We use an email list between the meetings in order to distribute information about accurate issues, for instance EU directives, ITU resolutions, information from RIPE, articles etc. I would be glad to make an effort in having more representatives from the regulation side, governments, NRA, etc. taking part of the RIPE Community and enhancing the dialogue! If you have any questions, please don´t hesitate to contact me. Regards, Erika

1 0

Candidates
by Gordon Lennox 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

If I understand well we now have four (possible) candidates for co-chair: Alain van Gaever Erika Hersaeus Meredith Whittaker Niall O'Reilly This is great! Four good people - yet with quite different backgrounds and skills. It really shows the interest if the WG. And there is a lot of important work to be done. Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. Not on a people level and not on a work level. Among other things we in the EU will be beginning the transition to a new Parliament and a new Commission around then. So what should be the plan? Best, Gordon

4 3

Re: [cooperation-wg] Candidates
by Malcolm Hutty 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

If we have two positions vacant,it strikes me we should strive to get the best of both worlds: someone with a background in government crossing over into the tech community, and someone with a background in the tech community crossing over into the world of policy. Malcolm.

2 1

Barroso on ICTs
by Gordon Lennox 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

http://ec.europa.eu/news/pdf/131024_en.pdf

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
by Wout de Natris 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

Jim´s suggestions make a lot of sense. +1 from me. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:00:03 +0200 > > 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. Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG > (Alain Van Gaever) > 2. Candidates (Gordon Lennox) > 3. appointing a new co-chair (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:16:39 +0100 > From: Alain Van Gaever <avangaev(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE > Cooperation WG > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CANeNdNK2bqDfSEU_YTRFJi5ueWgMv+FBy=8Vpij640jWs-V6Dg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dear all, > > > During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the > RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European > Institutions and other governmental organisations. > > > Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I > could lend a hand. > > > I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on > the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO > office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more > background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: > uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ > > > Therefore ? if the RIPE community approves ? I would like to introduce my > candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. > > > With kind regards, > > > Alain Van Gaever >

1 0

Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
by Alain Van Gaever 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

Dear all, During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European Institutions and other governmental organisations. Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I could lend a hand. I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ Therefore – if the RIPE community approves – I would like to introduce my candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. With kind regards, Alain Van Gaever

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: How “National” is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure?
by Mirjam Kuehne 23 Oct '13

23 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Razvan C. Oprea's presentation during the MAT-WG at the recent RIPE Meeting in Athens, we put a summary report on RIPE Labs: How “National” is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/benno_overeinder/dutch-critical-ip-infrastruc… This is a contribution by Benno Overeinder, Fahimeh Alizadeh and Razvan C. Oprea. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Neelie Kroes calls for a serious global debate on Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Worth an attentive listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzB8gyq43k

1 0

European Parliament
by Gordon Lennox 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a clear interest in Internet matters. https://www.eifonline.org/members.html There are others of course! Gordon

6 5

Cooperation WG co-shair self nomination
by Meredith Whittaker 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Hello all, I'm interested in working with you to continue to the growth and development of an empirical, technically-founded, data-based voice in policy and governance. I would be taking on this role in my personal capacity, not as a representative of my employer. Bio/soapbox: I'm a Program Manager at Google Research, focusing on Open Source and Open Data (net: how do we provide verifiable data in place of rhetoric and assurances of trustworthiness?). I know many of you (hello!), and those I know have likely heard me monologue about the need for the technical community's input in policymaking. This is my wheelhouse -- in the quest not to totally mess up the Internet, I can think of few things more important. Both because naive political mandates could seriously harm the utility and viability of the most revolutionary engine for human communication since Gutenberg, and because (listen up) these same careless mandates almost certainly take no account of the way networks *actually work,* hampering Operators (your) agency to make sensible decisions and innovations. All that to say, I'd be honored and happy to work with the formidable intellects at RIPE to help develop this technical voice. With some deference to brevity, I'll leave it there. Please ask me any questions. Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

1 0

Draft RIPE NCC submission on EU NIS Directive
by Chris Buckridge 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, As noted in the recent RIPE Labs article on European Union (EU) engagement, the RIPE NCC has been working with representatives of the RIPE community to address the European Commission's proposed EU Directive on network and information security (NIS). This proposed Directive is currently under consideration by the European Parliament and is available online at: http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_directive_en.pdf The aim of this Directive is "to ensure a high common level of network and information security (NIS) across the EU", specifically through the establishment of national Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), improved information sharing between national authorities and required reporting on risk levels and security incidents by providers of "information society services". RIPE community members and RIPE NCC staff have identified several areas of concern with the current draft of the Directive, and these concerns form the basis of the draft response below. We would like to invite feedback from this working group on whether there is support for the position(s) taken in the statement, whether there is support for the RIPE NCC engaging Members of the European Parliament on this issue, and any other thoughts. There will also be a discussion of this issue in the RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session, which takes place on Thursday, 17 October, 16:00-17:30 local time (UTC+3). You can follow and contribute to this session either on-site in Athens or remotely at: https://ripe67.ripe.net/live/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC -------------------------- The RIPE NCC welcomes the European Commission's efforts in the area of network and information security (NIS), premised on the need for closer international cooperation to meet the global nature of network security issues. We also welcome the Directive's acknowledgement of the need for all stakeholder groups to participate in developing solutions to NIS challenges. Drawing on discussions with members of the RIPE community and internally, the RIPE NCC would like to raise a general concern with the current draft. While the proposed Directive recognises the importance of "informal cooperation mechanisms", we believe that there is an important and formal role for multi-stakeholder mechanisms and processes in refining the implementation details of the Directive. Recognition of such a role would be particularly useful in relation to the following specific aspects of the Directive: 1. Scope The RIPE NCC believes that there is a need to clarify the scope of the Directive, particularly with regard to the following terms: - "information society services which enable the provision of other information society services" - "significant impact" (in relation to security incidents) In line with the purpose and the legal basis of the Directive (i.e. ensuring the functioning of the Internal Market according to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), we believe that the Directive should be clearly limited to organisations or security incidents that directly impact the Internal Market. Clear criteria should be developed via transparent, multi-stakeholder processes to identify those incidents or organisations covered by the Directive. 2. Establishment of security requirements The Directive aims to establish security requirements for market operators and public administrations, and to this end it empowers the Commission to: - Draw up a list of standards by means of implementing acts [1] - Adopt delegated acts concerning the definition of circumstances in which public administrations and market operators are required to notify incidents The Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union notes the role of multi-stakeholder, bottom-up procedures in developing and maintaining security standards. We believe it would be appropriate that the specification of such standards and definitions in the context of this Directive should also be the outcome of such formal, multi-stakeholder processes. This would help to ensure the inclusion of input from all relevant stakeholders and the flexibility and responsiveness that is required in an online environment. [1] Definitions of "implementing acts" and "delegated acts": http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/lisbo…

1 0

RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU
by Chris Buckridge 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European Union. It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals regarding electronic identification (eID) and network and information security (NIS): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We also look forward to further discussion of these issues at the upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

7 6

Agenda - Cooperation WG at RIPE 67 in Athens
by Maria Häll 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

Dear all, See agenda below. RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group DRAFT AGENDA A. Panel: IXPs, Internet Traffic and Public Policy (Moderated by Patrik Fältström, Netnod) B. Update on Proposed EU Electronic Identification (eID) and Trust Services Regulation (Athina Fragkouli, RIPE NCC) C. ICANN European Strategy Development (Nigel Hickson, ICANN) D. RIPE NCC External Relations Update: The Year Ahead (Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC) E. Planning for RIPE Cooperation WG Co-Chair Z. AOB See you in Athens! / Maria Häll, co-chair RIPE Cooperation WG

1 0

[news] RIPE NCC Commits Additional Support to the Internet Governance Forum
by Axel Pawlik 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has announced that it will provide 50,000 USD in financial support for the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) event in Bali, Indonesia. This one-time contribution is provided in response to an urgent appeal from the IGF 2013 Secretariat Committee, and is in addition to the 100,000 USD already provided by the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) via the Number Resource Organization (NRO). Both ARIN and APNIC have made the same commitment to additional funding for the eighth IGF event, and others in the multi-stakeholder community have also committed to increasing their contributions. The IGF is a major annual venue for Internet governance-related discussions, bringing together a diverse range of Internet stakeholders from around the world to consider a wide range of subjects. It has also served as an important platform for the RIPE NCC to defend the open and bottom-up processes of the RIR system. The ongoing health and stability of this forum is key to the realisation of true multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet. The RIRs have repeatedly argued the need for significant, ongoing financial commitments from all stakeholder groups. Concerns about whether the 2013 event would be able to proceed have served to highlight the fragility of the IGF with its current funding base. In making this additional contribution, the RIPE NCC again calls on all Internet stakeholders to contribute financially to the IGF. Only through a broad, multi-stakeholder base of support can we ensure that the IGF will continue to serve its very important role in Internet governance. Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

[news] RIPE NCC Responds to UN CSTD Questionnaire on Enhanced Cooperation
by Chris Buckridge 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has submitted responded to a public questionnaire posted by the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on enhanced Cooperation. Our response reflects the many efforts of the RIPE NCC and RIPE community to build productive relationships across traditional stakeholder divisions, in the spirit of enhanced cooperation. The full text of our submission is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/cstd-… Best regards Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Enabling CDN-ISP Collaboration
by Georgios Smaragdakis 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

Dear all, - In T-Labs/TU Berlin we maintain a website with all our research activities on CDN-ISP collaboration that are very related to RIPE Cooperation working group objectives: http://www.smaragdakis.net/research/Collaboration - For the most recent document on CDN-ISP collaboration and Network Functions Virtualization please see our paper that appears in ACM SIGCOMM CCR July 2013 issue: "Pushing CDN-ISP Collaboration to the Limit" http://www.smaragdakis.net/publications/CCR-NetPaaS best regards, --George ---------------------------------- Georgios Smaragdakis, Senior Researcher Deutsche Telekom Laboratories Technical University of Berlin http://www.smaragdakis.net

1 0

Redirecționat: new draft CAs Redirecționat: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 3rd shadows' meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss)
by ANDERSDOTTER Amelia 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Dear all, I was given the advice to send this e-mail to the cooperation group of RIPE. I know that you have had concerns with the system proposed by the European Commission for trust service providers in it's eIDAS regulation, and that you held a special hearing on this topic on Thursday May 17th (https://ripe66.ripe.net/archives/steno/21/). I have also understood that you were largely unsatisfied with the Commission's insurances. The issue in the European Parliament is as follows: You can find the complete set of amendments on the regulation as proposed by the industry committee here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html?linkedD… You can also find a systematic of the amendments that I personally tabled here: http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/dossiers/eid And so you may notice that many of the amendments actually go sort of the right direction. Now we are in "compromise proceedings". This means that representatives from the various political groups (I represent the Greens/EFA) meet to discuss how to politically proceed with the file. On the topic of QTSPs I have proposed deleting all mentioning of qualified X in favour of a model that promotes transparency (responsible vulnerability disclosure, audit reports, transparent instruction sets from supervisory bodies, etc). Basically a self-regulatory model where, if something goes wrong, the idea is that it is known and can be fixed. However, qualified X and advanced X are legacies from the e-signatures directive in 1999. The Commission has not proposed to remedy this system even though it has turned out not to work in any member state and mostly not been conducive to any particular development. I have argued with my colleagues that security-by-transparency is much more supported and promoted in the community that actually develops secure solutions for whatever, and that security-by-policy is a legacy system which has proven mostly to fail. Further it means unnecessary red-tape with no benefit, as well as a risk of lock-in for crucial society functions. Unfortunately, member in the European Parliament have been given a very poor base of making decisions on this issue from the European Commission, and now we need for the Conservative group (EPP) to either agree or not that red-tape and lock-in are bad things, with little additional value for society, or not. If not, it may well be that a grand coalition of S&D and EPP keeps all the qualified stuff in, thereby destroying, I fear, many of the functioning self-regulatory models already in existance. I am not really able to carry this argument on my own though - the problem for me is that I am up against a 13 year old legislation (e-sig directive 1999) that the Commission in its wisdom has chosen not to change much, other than making it into a regulation, despite having investigated it for a long time. It would be very helpful if RIPE were to support my case before, say, Tuesday July 2nd so that we can have the EPP not flat out reject my approach of not creating stupid paper work for no good reason. Should anyone have any specific questions about my proposed transparency requirements they are free to contact me at any time, you can also check the above provided links. best regards, Amelia Piratpartiet ________________________________________ De la: Patrik Fältström [paf(a)frobbit.se] Trimis: 29 iunie 2013 16:21 Către: ANDERSDOTTER Amelia Cc: maria(a)sunet.se; gordon.lennox(a)gmail.com; fredrik(a)kirei.se; athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net; leifj(a)sunet.se Subiect: Re: new draft CAs Redirecționat: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 3rd shadows' meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss) Amelia, I think you directly could send mail to cooperation wg of RIPE... ;-) <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> As well as other activities. Patrik On 29 jun 2013, at 14:45, ANDERSDOTTER Amelia <amelia.andersdotter(a)europarl.europa.eu> wrote: > dear all, > > in thse compromise amendments we could have had responsible vulnerability disclosure and a removal of the qualified stuff that i believe many of you are in agreement with me should not be there. > > however, the EPP needs to be convinced that red tape is not good. > > if the EpP could be convinced of this then the S&D will cave. > > however, at present we are lacking lobbies that are backing me up in these claism, and so we are likely to go for security-by-policy rather than security-by-transparency. and then we will also have trustmarks in article 18a(new) since ITRE will not over-ride IMCO unless ITRE chooses a different approach from IMCO whcih we do not if we go for security-by-policy and trustmarks. > > and so, i in no way wish to stress you unduly in your important activities, but i anyway have done so now, because the compromises are important. > > /a > > ________________________________________ > De la: KAARTINEN Elina > Trimis: 28 iunie 2013 17:10 > Către: KAARTINEN Elina; ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; RUDOLF Michael; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subiect: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 3rd shadows' meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss) > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > the rapporteur Ms Ulvskog would like to invite you to a shadows' meeting that will take place on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss). > > Please, find enclosed the revised CA proposal for the e-ID part. Furthermore the rapporteur would like to support the idea of the replacement of the word identification with the word authentication in articles 3(2) and 3(3) and all other articles which do not obviously relate to the definition of "electronic identification". The CA text to this effect will be proposed by the rapporteur later. > > Please, find attached also the very first draft CAs concerning the trust services part. These CAs are still very preliminary and still subject to changes. The rapporteur would like to however already discuss these proposals with you next week. Further CAs will follow on the trust services part to cover all related articles. > > The scope of the shadows' meeting would be: > - to reach a political agreement on the first set of CAs (e-ID part of Regulation) > - discuss further the enclosed CAs on the trust services and define the framework for the remaining part of the Regulation > > Kind regards, > Elina > > Elina Kaartinen > Administrator > European Parliament > Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) - Secretariat > Rue Wiertz 60 > B-1047 Brussels > Office (BRU): ATR 00 K 065 > Tel (BRU): +32 2 283 2388 > Email: elina.kaartinen(a)europarl.europa.eu<mailto:elina.kaartinen@europarl.europa.eu> > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/> > > > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 18 June 2013 12:05 > To: KAARTINEN Elina; ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subject: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 2nd shadows' meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 15h30-16h30 > Importance: High > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > the rapporteur Ms Ulvskog would like to invite you to a shadows' meeting that will take place in in Brussels on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 15h30-16h30. The meeting will concentrate on the trust services part of the eIDAS Regulation. > > As discussed in Strasbourg last week, there will be also a third shadows' meeting before the summer break. It is planned for Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss). Could you kindly take already also note on this meeting and put it in your calendar. > > In the meanwhile and as agreed the draft compromises (e-ID part) will be circulated by email. > > Kind regards, > Elina > > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 10 June 2013 15:19 > To: KAARTINEN Elina; ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subject: REMINDER - ITRE draft report on eIDAS - shadows' meeting in Strasbourg on 12 June 2013 at 9h00-10h30 meeting room M04096 (Winston Churchill) + AMs now available in all languages > Importance: High > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > Further to the shadows' meeting on Wednesday, 12 June at 9h00-10h30 (meeting room M04096/Winston Churchill), the amendments translated in all languages can be found from here: > > http://www.itrenet.ep.parl.union.eu/itrenet/cms/cache/offonce/welcome/work_… > > Kind regards, > Elina > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 29 May 2013 09:35 > To: ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subject: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - shadows' meeting in Strasbourg on 12 June 2013 at 9h00-10h30 meeting room M04096 (Winston Churchill) > Importance: High > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > Further to the amendments (XM file) circulated last week, the rapporteur Ms Ulvskog would like to invite you to a shadows' meeting that will take place in Strasbourg on 12 June 2013 at 9h00-10h30 meeting room M04096 (Winston Churchill). > > If possible, could you inform the ITRE Secretariat (Elina Kaartinen) in advance on your availability. > > Kind regards, > Elina Kaartinen > ITRE Secretariat > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 24 May 2013 14:08 > To: ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; TRAUNG Peter; GUCCIONE Stefano; YU Wan Tung Perlie; DE WIT Catharina; CECIRE Alessandra; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; KONKEL Agnieszka; KONSTANTOPOULOS Panos; DE FRUTOS GOMEZ Jose Manuel; KNÖFEL Susanne; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; DEL MONTE Micaela; RODRIGUES Joao; PUPPAN Daniel; ELEFTERIE Kristina; TANG Kaisa; PORRINO Fabrizio; SILVEIRA DA CUNHA Patricia; RODRIGUES Joao; ANAGNOSTOPOULOU Ioanna; PUPPAN Daniel; PORRINO Fabrizio; DE FRUTOS GOMEZ Jose Manuel; AHNBORG Sara; TANG Kaisa; KNÖFEL Susanne; DEL MONTE Micaela; KONKEL Agnieszka; VASILE-TOVORNIK Alina Gabriela; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib; KAARTINEN Elina > Subject: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - amendments (2 XM files) - consideration of the amendments ITRE meeting of 19-20 June 2013 > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > please, find enclosed already for your information the amendments tabled to the ITRE draft report on eIDAS (XM files). > > A shadows' meeting in Strasbourg in June has been planned (exact time and place tbc). > > The consideration of the amendments will take place in the ITRE meeting of 19-20 June 2013 > > > Timetable as reminder: > > Indicative Timetable ITRE Report > > Exchange of views > > 18 December 2012 > > > > > Consideration of draft report > > 24 April 2013 > > Deadline for tabling amendments > > 15 May 2013 at 12h00 > > > > > Consideration of amendments > > > 19-20 June 2013 > > Vote ITRE (mandate) > > > 18-19 September 2013 > > Vote Plenary > > tbc > > > > > Kind regards, > Elina > > Elina Kaartinen > Administrator > European Parliament > Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) - Secretariat > Rue Wiertz 60 > B-1047 Brussels > Office (BRU): ATR 00 K 065 > Tel (BRU): +32 2 283 2388 > Email: elina.kaartinen(a)europarl.europa.eu<mailto:elina.kaartinen@europarl.europa.eu> > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/> > > > <draft CAs- 1st version- Art 1-8+ Recitals- version 26 June.doc><CA on trust services article 11-14 Eidas 280613.doc>

2 1

RIPE NCC Response to Proposed EC Regulation on Electronic ID and Trust Services
by Axel Pawlik 28 Jun '13

28 Jun '13

Dear colleagues, At the recent RIPE 66 Meeting, Andrea Servida of the European Commission delivered a presentation on the proposed EU Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. Video, transcript and minutes of the session are available at: https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ Text of this proposed Regulation is available on the European Commission website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0238:EN:… [available in various languages and formats] Based on the RIPE 66 presentation and the discussions that it provoked, the RIPE NCC has identified a number of serious concerns with the proposal, and we believe that the current proposal text may be interpreted in ways that conflict with the basic intent of the Regulation. Specifically, we believe that the proposal could be interpreted as applying to technologies and services beyond electronic identification (eID) and eID-related trust services, perhaps extending to cover unrelated technologies to eID such as Domain Name Security Extensions (DNSSEC) and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). An analysis about the scope of the proposed Regulation and possible implications can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… Such a broad scope for the Regulation could serve to inhibit efforts by the Internet technical community in the EU (often in collaboration with colleagues and counterparts around the world) to secure the infrastructure of the Internet. We also believe that such a broad scope is not the intention of the Regulation. The RIPE NCC plans to send a letter, detailing our concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. A draft of this letter can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… It is important to send this letter quickly to ensure that officials have a chance to reflect on our concerns before committing to a position on the Regulation. With that in mind, we would appreciate any feedback from the RIPE community on the language of the letter, the positions and the strategy. Such feedback may be provided on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list or directly to the RIPE NCC at <ncc(a)ripe.net>. We would also welcome any information that community members can provide on MEPs that might have an interest in this issue. We encourage RIPE community members to contact their national MEPs regarding this Regulation, and please feel free to use any or all of the language found in the draft RIPE NCC letter. Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director, RIPE NCC

3 2

RIPE NCC Launches New Initiatives at EuroDIG 2013
by Chris Buckridge 27 Jun '13

27 Jun '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has posted a report on our participation at last week's EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance) meeting in Lisbon, including two new initiatives launched by the RIPE NCC at the event: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/rip… Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

eID and Trust Services
by Gordon Lennox 21 Jun '13

21 Jun '13

Here is a video of an exchange in the Parliament on the topic presented and discussed in Dublin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPqbqjisF6Y Regards, Gordon

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Response to Proposed EC Regulation on Electronic ID and Trust Services
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 17 Jun '13

17 Jun '13

Axel Thanks to you and RIPE for taking the lead on this. I've forwarded it to a couple of other interested parties. With respect to the current draft I'm supportive of the proposed text Regards Michele On 17 Jun 2013, at 03:49, Axel Pawlik <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > At the recent RIPE 66 Meeting, Andrea Servida of the European Commission delivered a presentation on the proposed EU Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. Video, transcript and minutes of the session are available at: > https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ > > Text of this proposed Regulation is available on the European Commission website: > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0238:EN:… > [available in various languages and formats] > > Based on the RIPE 66 presentation and the discussions that it provoked, the RIPE NCC has identified a number of serious concerns with the proposal, and we believe that the current proposal text may be interpreted in ways that conflict with the basic intent of the Regulation. > > Specifically, we believe that the proposal could be interpreted as applying to technologies and services beyond electronic identification (eID) and eID-related trust services, perhaps extending to cover unrelated technologies to eID such as Domain Name Security Extensions (DNSSEC) and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). An analysis > about the scope of the proposed Regulation and possible implications can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… > > Such a broad scope for the Regulation could serve to inhibit efforts by the Internet technical community in the EU (often in collaboration with colleagues and counterparts around the world) to secure the infrastructure of the Internet. We also believe that such a broad scope is not the intention of the Regulation. > > The RIPE NCC plans to send a letter, detailing our concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. A draft of this letter can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… > > It is important to send this letter quickly to ensure that officials have a chance to reflect on our concerns before committing to a position on the Regulation. With that in mind, we would appreciate any feedback from the RIPE community on the language of the letter, the positions and the strategy. Such feedback may be provided on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list or directly to the RIPE NCC at <ncc(a)ripe.net>. > > We would also welcome any information that community members can provide on MEPs that might have an interest in this issue. We encourage RIPE community members to contact their national MEPs regarding this Regulation, and please feel free to use any or all of the language found in the draft RIPE NCC letter. > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director, RIPE NCC > -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Minutes Cooperation WG - RIPE66 Dublin
by Maria Häll 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Dear Coop WG friends, Here are the minutes from the meeting: Cooperation Working Group Agenda Thursday, 16 May 11:00 – 12:30 The Co-Chairs introduced the agenda. Maria Häll noted her new role as CEO for SUNET, the Swedish university network. A. RIPE NCC External Relations Update Paul Rendek, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC Paul Rendek spoke about the RIPE NCC's External Relations work, focusing on developments in the law enforcement area and some of the issues that have been raised by Internet stakeholders in the Middle East (including suggestions of the need for an "Arab RIR"). Chris Buckridge presented updates on two International Telecommunication Union (ITU) events, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) and the World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-13). He also discussed the Internet-related work going on in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which the RIPE NCC and industry partners are contributing to via the Internet Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC) to the OECD. Jim Reid noted the challenges faced in engaging a complex organisation like the ITU, and asked about the broader strategy of RIPE NCC to handle this. Chris noted that goal was to address the government concerns at the heart of the complex discussions, and that coordination and resource-sharing between technical organisations (including the other RIRs and I* organisations) was vital to achieving this in the ITU context. Paul Rendek also noted that the complexity and specificity of the ITU forums can be a strength, providing an outlet for ITU stakeholders to consider or study issues without affecting policy-making in other forums. Tahar Schaa noted a defensive tone in some of the RIRs' submissions in the WTPF process, and argued that the RIRs should be more confident in pressing the case that the current governance systems have been responsible for the Internet's emergence and growth. He also suggested that many of the issues identified by governments, such as multilingual TLDs, are not pressing issues for Internet users. Chris noted that this kind of feedback is one reason that the RIPE NCC reports on its engagement in such detail. He also noted that there is a need to engage governments without aggravating their concerns - how to achieve this is an ongoing discussion. Constanze Bürger commended the RIPE NCC's engagement, and encouraged other governments to bring their concerns to open forums such as the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. B. eID and Trust Services Regulation in the EU Andrea Servida, European Commission DG CONNECT Andrea Servida presented on the European Commission's draft European Regulation regarding electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the EU market. He described the scope of the proposed Regulation, its intended purpose, and how the Commission sees it being implemented by Member States. Jim Reid questioned how the electronic data gathered by eID services would be stored, used or potentially misused. Andrea noted that the set-up of such systems (including safeguards for user data) would generally be handled at a national level, but that at the cross-border level, the European Commission will work to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure that only the information necessary for a specific purpose can be accessed. Patrick Tarpey asked about the intended use of secondary national legislation and whether this might result in security and operational practices differing from state to state, including the strength of cryptographic controls. He noted that such differences could means gaps in security. Andrea noted that the proposal is intended to improve on the current situation, and that while there may be differences across states, the Commission is working with Member States to ensure that there will be common levels of security assured. Patrick sought clarification on whether this might result in different approaches to revocation of cryptographic material; Andrea noted that the goal of the Regulation would be to help harmonise such differences across Member States. Tahar Schaa questioned whether the Regulation was intended to cover (or create competition for) existing electronic identification mechanisms from the private sector, such as Google or Amazon IDs. Andrea noted that the intention is that Member States could decide to bring any existing identification mechanisms, whether public or private, under legislation within the framework of the Regulation. He clarified though that the intent is only for the Regulation to cover identification schemes used to access public services. Patrik Fältström noted that Article 5 of the Regulation notes that the Commission will maintain a list of electronic ID schemes to be accepted by EU Member States, and expressed surprise that the Commission had not been involved in the discussions surrounding development and deployment of DNSSEC and RPKI schemes. He identified a clash between such schemes, developed through bottom-up processes in the technical community, and this Regulation. Andrea argued that the Commission had conducted extensive public consultation, and that the Regulation leaves the choice to Member State which eID schemes to use; the list maintained by the Commission will help facilitate the use of eIDs across different countries which will require building trust. D. Public/Private Cooperation on Internet Issues: The Irish Experience Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd Michele Neylon presented on the Irish Internet industry and its relationship to the Irish government, particularly regarding Internet governance issues. He also noted that the Irish industry has been relatively slow in IPv6 adoption. Donal Cunningham noted that his company had been asked, when tendering for a government project, to include IPv6 compatibility, and that the government then followed up by actually asking for their IPv6 allocation. Brian Nisbet noted that one area of positive activity from the Irish government was that the Department of Communications and Department of Education had been investing heavily in broadband for schools. Michele suggested that while there was good work being done, it was being done in isolation, and that better coordination between the public and private sectors would be welcome. C. Building Cooperation with the Academic Networks Community Maria Häll, SUNET Maria delivered a very brief presentation, noting her new role with the Swedish university network, and highlighting the importance of cooperation between all stakeholder groups, including academia. She emphasised her hope to see national research and education networks (NRENs) take a greater interest in Internet governance issues. Paul Rendek noted that the RIPE NCC is focused on building relationships with NRENs, and this includes helping them get involved in Internet governance discussions. Maria closed the meeting. _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll Co-Chair RIPE Cooperation WG

1 0

CoE -"Network Neutrality and Human Rights"
by Gordon Lennox 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Last week the Council of Europe had a "multi-stakeholder dialogue on network neutrality and human rights". See: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/ http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/NN%20Conf%202013/default_en.asp It was a good meeting. Some of the flavour can be had from Chris Marsden's opening presentation. http://www.slideshare.net/EXCCELessex/pre-history-of-european-network-neutr… A short outcomes paper of the major points of discussion is now being prepared which will, after participants comments, be communicated to the 47 member state representatives of the CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) to consider and propose further action. Regards, Gordon

1 0

CoE -"Network Neutrality and Human Rights"
by Gordon Lennox 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Last week the Council of Europe had a "multi-stakeholder dialogue on network neutrality and human rights". See: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/ http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/NN%20Conf%202013/default_en.asp It was a good meeting. Some of the flavour can be had from Chris Marsden's opening presentation. http://www.slideshare.net/EXCCELessex/pre-history-of-european-network-neutr… A short outcomes paper of the major points of discussion is now being prepared which will, after participants comments, be communicated to the 47 member state representatives of the CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) to consider and propose further action. Regards, Gordon

1 0

Change of representative of the European Commission
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Dear all, I would like to let you know that following an internal restructuring within the "International relations" unit of DG CONNECT, the official "liaison" of the European Commission with the RIPE Cooperation Working Group will be - as of today - Mr Achilleas Kemos (in copy). A request to subscribe Mr Kemos to this mailing list has already been submitted this morning. Until the subscription becomes effective, thanks for keeping Mr Kemos in copy to further exchanges. Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 29 May '13

29 May '13

Well it would be helpful to know who is actually in this group to start with Also I'd be wary of setting restrictions on who should / shouldn't be chair / co-chair, as participation levels in general are usually pretty low .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland(a)perry.co.uk] Sent: 29 May 2013 15:18 To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg In message <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F(a)frobbit.se>, at 09:42:59 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> remarked: >As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod And Maria also moved jobs, so now's the time for the RIPE community to decide if this government/industry WG should be recruiting new talent. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a criticism of Maria's move, nor her personal capabilities, but I think the WG should have a co-chair who is still on the government (ministry/regulator) side of the fence. People move jobs, they change their responsibilities; we should recognise that. -- Roland Perry

3 2

Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg
by Patrik Fältström 29 May '13

29 May '13

All, As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod started to work much more operationally with Internet related issues. This includes many things covered by the cooperation wg, like immediate proposed legislative things. But this change have had impact on the amount of time I have on administrative issues, and the time I have I must primarily spend on my position as chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN. This does not imply any kind of decrease in Netnod support of, and my participation in, RIPE processes, and I do notice explicitly you did like the coffee in the breaks in Dublin :-) I have mentioned this upcoming decision of mine to my co-chair Maria Häll, and also to the contact persons at RIPE NCC, so I hope they are not (too) surprised. So, you will still see me around, first with a report from me and Athina related to the proposed regulation that was presented and discussed in Dublin. I hope we will be ready early next week. Regards, Patrik

2 1

RIPE NCC Report on the ITU WTPF-13
by Chris Buckridge 27 May '13

27 May '13

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the recent ITU World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-13): https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-report-on-the-itu-… Any comments or questions are welcome on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Call for expressions of interest - Network and Information Security
by Gordon Lennox 21 May '13

21 May '13

The Commission will launch the Network and Information Security (NIS) Public-Private Platform on 17 June 2013. The output of the platform will feed into the Commission recommendations on cybersecurity across the value chain to be adopted in 2014. Interested stakeholders are invited to express their interest in participating in the platform before 24 May 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-–-ca…

3 3

My summary of discussion on COM(2012) 238/2
by Patrik Fältström 19 May '13

19 May '13

My summary of the discussion is positive, although when you read the below it sounds negative. Yes, I am worried personally about the proposed regulation, but that has been the case for months -- and increased worried I am after the meeting Thursday. I am though optimistic the question whether I should be worried, or no longer, can be resolved as many people said they will now help looking at the proposal. So yes, concerned, very concerned, but also happy finally discussion starts. So, discussions related to the proposed regulation COM(2012) 238/2 has started also in the organisations and areas which develop protocol and operational practices for the Internet. This happened previous week at the RIPE meeting that took place in Dublin. After some discussions with the EU Commission it was clear they could not participate on site, but on video. Quite irritating I must say that Commission that do issue (basis for) legislation that is quite specific without participating directly in the multi stakeholder discussions that exists on these topics. Last time I had this kind of discussion with COM it was related to the future of E.164 numbers in Europe. You can see a summary of the discussion including exchange of letters here: <http://stupid.domain.name/node/1459> Last time I find COM did participate actively on technical matters was when Per Blixt did come to a RIPE meeting and not only participated but also listened. Andrea Glorioso, Linda Corugedo Steneberg and others have participated in discussions related to Internet Governance of course, although as much in the RIPE community as elsewhere (ICANN, EuroDIG for example). So COM did not send a person this time either, but Andrea Servida that is one of the main persons related to the proposed regulation participated via a video conference. He presented and also responded to questions. Which of course was better than nothing. My view of the situation *before* the meeting you can find here <http://stupid.domain.name/node/1674>. You can find slides used for the cooperation working group here <https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/>. The ones interesting are the ones from Andrea Servida and the one from Patrik Fältström named "Article 5". At <https://ripe66.ripe.net/archives/#Thursday> you can see video, transcripts and more. In short, Andrea in my eyes confirmed the proposed regulation is not only about e-ID but much more general and related to all different kind of validation of who one communicate with. Not only e-ID but also "what web site one communicate with". This in turn to many in the room have impact on the models built for Internet at the moment using technologies like RPKI and DNSSEC which are directions there is broad consensus about. Due to the discussions RIPE NCC has decided to investigate whether it is true that the regulation MIGHT have impact on DNSSEC, RPKI or federated identity systems. The review will be done in a number of steps, all so that incremental results can be delivered as there is a lack of time regarding sending feedback to the European Parliament and Council where the proposal is currently discussed. Several country representatives (in a broad meaning), including SE, UK, DE and USA has contacted me and asked what my position is, and as a non-lawyer of course I can not say definitely. The good thing is that finally people do connect this proposed regulation with Internet. Something I claim COM has not done. Because the largest problem is once again that COM has developed a text without participating in the processes that exists for technical development. This implies people do not disagree with the over all problem statement, but to the proposed solution of the problem. When then objecting, it is as if one disagree with the problem existing. A summary of the situation is that the solution that is proposed is that in a combination of Brussels and Member States it is explicitly decided who are to be trust providers, and further that those trust providers must be trusted for various services that require among other things age, citizenship, residency and more (once again, according to Brussels/Member States). A different solution, which is more "modern" and also deployed, is that different systems do require different levels and kind of security. In some areas those are called "federations". Then for each such federation there is a combined certification and accreditation process by which the providers can be approved. Parties can then trust whoever they want as long as they have passed this audit. Decision of trust stays with whoever takes the risk. And here we have not started looking at the questions on the sovereignty member states of EU has in relationship with each other, and the built in contradiction between this and the interest in free movement of goods and services. Or the fact the proposed regulation define for example the following terms (as found by Gordon -- thanks): electronic identification; electronic identification means; electronic identification scheme; signatory; electronic signature; advanced electronic signature; qualified electronic signature; electronic signature creation data; certificate; qualified certificate for electronic signature; trust service; qualified trust service; trust service provider; qualified trust service provider; product; electronic signature creation device; qualified electronic signature creation device; creator of a seal; electronic seal; advanced electronic seal; qualified electronic seal; electronic seal creation data; qualified certificate for electronic seal; electronic time stamp; qualified electronic time stamp; electronic document; electronic delivery service (including proof of sending or receiving the data); qualified electronic deliver service; qualified certificate for website authentication; validation data. I have no idea whether anyone have checked the definition of these terms to see how they match or not match the general view in the world, and for example matches the definitions used in for example trade discussions between EU and USA, within OECD and/or WTO. Anyway, at last the discussion has started, and the first answers on the landscape should come from RIPE NCC that time should have read the document with a lawyers eyes. And we can know whether we should continue to be worried, or whether this is something that indeed is not impacting what is happening on the Internet. Patrik

1 0

Agenda item on electronic identification and trust services
by Gordon Lennox 09 May '13

09 May '13

The European Commission has made a proposal for a Regulation "on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market" - COM(2012) 238 final. I am very pleased that the co-chairs have put this draft regulation on the agenda and that indeed Andrea Servida, who is responsible in DG Connect for the Task Force “Legislation Team (eIDAS)”, will make a presentation. While I most certainly do not wish to prejudge what Andrea will say I think a bit of "marketing" might be useful - to explain a bit more why I personally think this regulation is of importance to the RIPE community now. So let me start with a bit of "EU 101". At its simplest the Commission proposes legislation, after obviously having consulted and reflected and so on, and it is then for the Council (the member states directly) and the Parliament to possibly modify and then adopt the legislation. There are then three basic instruments open to the Commission. There is the Directive which once agreed at the EU level, is normally transposed into national law. That means further discussion at the national level. There is the Regulation which become EU legislation on adoption. There is the Decision which is directed towards a specific member state or entity. This proposed Regulation is to an extent a follow-on and replacement for a previous Directive - 1999/93/EC on a "Community framework for electronic signatures". It seems agreed that the signatures Directive did not fully deliver. This Regulation will replace that "e-signature Directive" from 1999 - and nullify the previously transposed legislation? In the press release for this proposal European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said "People and businesses should be able to transact within a borderless Digital Single Market, that is the value of Internet. Legal certainty and trust is also essential, so a more comprehensive eSignatures and eIdentification Regulation is needed. ... This proposal will mean you can make the most of your e-ID, if you have one. With mutual recognition of national e-IDs and common standards for trust services and eSignatures, we can prevent a national carve-up of the Internet and online public services and make life easier for millions of businesses and even more citizens. " So the proposal has been made by the Commission and it is currently being discussed in Council and in Parliament. I have had though a variety of conversations recently about the proposal and they have thrown up a number of concerns. The proposal seems complex and different people seem to take quite different things away from it. This is perhaps linked to questions about the scope of the regulation. There are perhaps two main dimensions to regarding the scope. First there are the actors and users. Is it only about the public sector? Is it about the public sector and a particular bit of the private sector or any bit of the private sector, in the EU or elsewhere, that might find it useful? Or will the private sector be specifically precluded from using some of the services? Secondly the range of services. The regulation includes a number of definitions: electronic identification; electronic identification means; electronic identification scheme; signatory; electronic signature; advanced electronic signature; qualified electronic signature; electronic signature creation data; certificate; qualified certificate for electronic signature; trust service; qualified trust service; trust service provider; qualified trust service provider; product; electronic signature creation device; qualified electronic signature creation device; creator of a seal; electronic seal; advanced electronic seal; qualified electronic seal; electronic seal creation data; qualified certificate for electronic seal; electronic time stamp; qualified electronic time stamp; electronic document; electronic delivery service (including proof of sending or receiving the data); qualified electronic deliver service; qualified certificate for website authentication; validation data. There are then articles on notification, coordination and liability, and on supervision, mutual assistance and security requirements, and so on. And all this has to be read keeping in mind that legislators like to have "technology neutral" text and not to refer to specific standards for example. There two other things I would draw to your attention though. One is fairly explicit in the proposal and that is that the regulation when adopted will confer on the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts. This kind of thing is not that unusual. But some see this, in this instance, as adding an additional degree of uncertainty, leaving some things unclear. The other is the issue of "agreed text". Any legislation in the coming years - and that can be 10-15 years or more in this case - and anywhere in the EU will be effectively constrained by these definitions for things like electronic signature and electronic seal and so on. Again this is quite normal. But you need to be aware of it. I hope all that means that many of you will be there for a productive WG session in Dublin with good questions for Andrea after his presentation. I look forward to seeing you there. In the meantime, thanks again to the co-chairs and to Andrea for agreeing to speak. Fáilte go Baile Átha Cliath, Gordon

1 0

WTPF in Geneva
by Patrik Fältström 06 May '13

06 May '13

Parallell with the RIPE Meeting in Dublin is the WTPF meeting in Geneva. We will on the Thursday get a report from RIPE NCC on what they have done and many of us do follow remotely very close what is happening. I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view. You can find other documents, all public, here: <http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-INF/en> Patrik

3 12

Agenda for upcoming Cooperation WG - at RIPE 66
by Maria Häll 03 May '13

03 May '13

Hi all Coop WG colleagues See agenda for the session below. 1. RIPE NCC External Relations Update - Paul Rendek, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC 2. eID and Trust Services Regulation in the EU - Daphné Lévêque, European Commission DG CONNECT 3. Building Cooperation with the Academic Networks Community - Maria Häll, SUNET 4. Public/private Cooperation on Internet Issues: The Irish Experience - Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd 5. AOB See you at Cooperation WG session at RIPE 66, Thursday 16 May 11-12.30 Have a nice weekend! _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll CEO/Föreståndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

1 0

[news] RIRs Submit Remarks to ITU WTPF-13
by Paul Rendek 01 May '13

01 May '13

Dear colleagues, On 29 April 2013, the RIPE NCC, as a sector member of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), formally submitted a document to the ITU Secretariat on behalf of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The document addresses a range of issues that will be discussed at the upcoming ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF-13): https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… In mid-April, various RIPE community members gave feedback on a draft of this document. It was updated ahead of its official submission and now includes more detailed information to address some of the opinions discussed by the Informal Expert Group (IEG) that was convened in preparation for the WTPF-13. An annex has been added outlining the efforts of the five RIRs to support the deployment of IPv6 and IPv6 capacity building. Representatives of all five RIRs will be present at WTPF-13 and, as always, are available for consultation on any of the points raised in this document, as well as any other aspects of RIR business. RIPE community members are encouraged to comment or raise questions on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC

1 0

Changed copyright rules for orphaned work in UK?
by Patrik Fältström 01 May '13

01 May '13

See this, might interest people on this list: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/> Patrik

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance
by Nick Hilliard 26 Apr '13

26 Apr '13

Paul, The various IXP associations may be interested in working with the NROs on a statement on Option 1: "Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity". As it stands, the RIR_WTPF13_2 document suggests that the NRO gives the ITU blanket support for their position: "The RIRs support this Opinion." There are pre-existing structures in place for fostering IXP growth, and the ITU's involvement in creating new structures would probably be quite unhelpful. Nick On 23/04/2013 09:34, Paul Rendek wrote: > [Apologies for duplicates] > > Dear colleagues, > > The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) in Geneva this May. This event is being convened specifically to look at Internet-related public policy matters. > > The primary input document to this meeting is a report by the ITU Secretary General, including six Opinions agreed to by an Informal Experts Group (IEG) that met three times over the past year. These Opinions touch on issues including management of Internet number resources, encouraging IPv6 adoption, support for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), multi-stakeholder governance and Enhanced Cooperation. > > The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have drafted responses to the five Opinions that relate directly to the RIRs' areas of expertise and coordination. A document containing these responses has been published at: > http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR_WTPF13_2.pdf > > The full Secretary General's report (including the six Opinions) is available at: > http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en > > I invite you to post any questions or comments regarding this document to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list (cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net). > > Best regards, > > Paul Rendek > Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC > > > >

8 8

EU proposa on qualified signatures
by Patrik Fältström 26 Apr '13

26 Apr '13

All, There is as some of you might know a discussion in EU related to e-ID and a new proposed regulation on trust services. One summary of the situation is made by member of the European Parliament Amelia Andersdotter that criticizes the proposal that is on the table for the parliament. I have personally had problems with the original directive, and this proposal even more as it tries to enforce onto people and organisations who to trust. Or more specifically, who you should trust as a trusted third party. I think federated solutions are better as "one size does not fit all", and with federated solutions one can more easily build services the way "it was intended" on the Internet. Anyway, here is the summary by Amelia, and maybe we should spend some time on this in Dublin, if people are interested? http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/eid-and-trust-services-regulation/ Patrik

2 2

RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance
by Paul Rendek 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) in Geneva this May. This event is being convened specifically to look at Internet-related public policy matters. The primary input document to this meeting is a report by the ITU Secretary General, including six Opinions agreed to by an Informal Experts Group (IEG) that met three times over the past year. These Opinions touch on issues including management of Internet number resources, encouraging IPv6 adoption, support for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), multi-stakeholder governance and Enhanced Cooperation. The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have drafted responses to the five Opinions that relate directly to the RIRs' areas of expertise and coordination. A document containing these responses has been published at: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR_WTPF13_2.pdf The full Secretary General's report (including the six Opinions) is available at: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en I invite you to post any questions or comments regarding this document to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list (cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net). Best regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC

1 0

Comment on eid-and-trust-services-regulation
by Alessandro Vesely 22 Apr '13

22 Apr '13

Amelia, I read your blog (see link in the post below) and wish to thank you for your work and for your amendments to the eIDSA. In particular, I support how you'd move art. 11 to art. 4a and the additions brought there. It seems that, if techniques like OAuth 2.0 or similar --based on pseudonyms like email addresses-- take root, then mailbox providers may become the trust service providers of choice for a number of mundane transactions, including shopping and subscriptions to newsletters and mailing lists. The ability to generate pseudonyms ad-hoc (the part before the "@") can allow complete anonymity, and possibly trace unwanted leakage of the pseudonym itself. In addition, a provider chosen by the data subjects can register such transactions on their behalf: Any other method for acquiring consent ends up being registered on the processor's side only, which I consider unfair of Directive 95/46/EC. Regards A mailbox provider -------- Original Message -------- From: Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:00:07 +0200 To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [cooperation-wg] EU proposa on qualified signatures All, There is as some of you might know a discussion in EU related to e-ID and a new proposed regulation on trust services. One summary of the situation is made by member of the European Parliament Amelia Andersdotter that criticizes the proposal that is on the table for the parliament. I have personally had problems with the original directive, and this proposal even more as it tries to enforce onto people and organisations who to trust. Or more specifically, who you should trust as a trusted third party. I think federated solutions are better as "one size does not fit all", and with federated solutions one can more easily build services the way "it was intended" on the Internet. Anyway, here is the summary by Amelia, and maybe we should spend some time on this in Dublin, if people are interested? http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/eid-and-trust-services-regulation/ Patrik

2 1

Internet Enforcement Continued Coordination and Delivery
by sandro.parranca＠anacom.pt 17 Apr '13

17 Apr '13

Dear GEntleman, I am currently a delegate on the IECCD group for incident responses, investigation capabilities and stratagies for e-commerce fraudulent practicies. I find that one of the major dificulties are related with the tracking and finding the responsables for the fraudulent website. Specialy in a global domain. Shouln't this ipe's wg be participating in this process? On line investigations should be supported by the CSIRT's. Best rgs, SP Pense no ambiente. Imprima o conteúdo desta mensagem apenas se for absolutamente necessário. Este email e ficheiros em anexo sao confidenciais e destinados somente ao conhecimento e utilizacao da(s) pessoa(s) ou entidade(s) a quem foram enderecados. Se recebeu este email ou anexos por erro, ou a eles teve acesso nao sendo o destinatario, por favor elimine-os contactando o remetente. Please consider the environment before printing this mail note. This email and files transmitted with it are confidential and intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other party. ICP-ANACOM - Autoridade Nacional de Comunicacoes http://www.anacom.pt

2 5

Re: [cooperation-wg] Internet Enforcement Continued Coordination and Delivery
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 16 Apr '13

16 Apr '13

Sandro What would RIPE be doing exactly? Regards Michele On 16 Apr 2013, at 12:14, <sandro.parranca(a)anacom.pt> wrote: > Dear GEntleman, > > I am currently a delegate on the IECCD group for incident responses, investigation capabilities and stratagies for e-commerce fraudulent practicies. > > I find that one of the major dificulties are related with the tracking and finding the responsables for the fraudulent website. Specialy in a global domain. > > Shouln't this ipe's wg be participating in this process? > > On line investigations should be supported by the CSIRT's. > > Best rgs, > SP > > > > Pense no ambiente. Imprima o conteúdo desta mensagem apenas se for absolutamente necessário. > > Este email e ficheiros em anexo sao confidenciais e destinados somente ao conhecimento e utilizacao da(s) pessoa(s) ou entidade(s) a quem foram enderecados. Se recebeu este email ou anexos por erro, ou a eles teve acesso nao sendo o destinatario, por favor elimine-os contactando o remetente. > > Please consider the environment before printing this mail note. > > This email and files transmitted with it are confidential and intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without using, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other party. > > ICP-ANACOM - Autoridade Nacional de Comunicacoes http://www.anacom.pt > Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

RIPE NCC Hosts Brussels Roundtable Meeting for Governments and Regulators
by Chris Buckridge 26 Mar '13

26 Mar '13

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, Last Tuesday, 19 March 2013, the RIPE NCC hosted a Roundtable Meeting for Governments and Regulators at the Hotel Le Plaza in Brussels. The meeting attracted around 40 representatives of government, regulators and industry to discuss issues including RIPE IPv4 transfer policies and the ongoing Internet governance discussions in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). A report of the meeting is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/rip… If you have any questions or comments, we are happy to discuss them on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or you can send an email to <roundtable(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC to Host Arab IGF MAG Meeting and Open Consultation
by Chris Buckridge 21 Feb '13

21 Feb '13

Dear colleagues, We have posted a news item on www.ripe.net regarding the upcoming Arab IGF Open Consultation and Arab Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (AMAG) meeting, which will be hosted by the RIPE NCC and the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the UAE. The two events will run from 3-5 March at the Radisson Royal Hotel in Dubai, UAE, with the AMAG meeting in closed sessions on 3 and 5 March and the Open Consultation on 4-5 March. Anyone with an interest is welcome to attend the Open Consultation, and remote participation facilities will also be available. The programme will also include a public session on “Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance in the Arab World”, with speakers including ICANN President and CEO, Fadi Chehade, and Chairman of the ICANN Board, Steve Crocker. The RIPE NCC is honoured to be working with the UAE TRA and the Arab IGF Secretariat to facilitate the community-driven development of the 2013 Arab IGF agenda. Full details are online at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/ripe-… Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Internet Governance and the RIPE NCC: The Year Ahead
by Chris Buckridge 20 Feb '13

20 Feb '13

Dear colleagues, We have just published an article on RIPE Labs that details some of the major Internet governance-related discussions currently taking place, as well as the RIPE NCC's priorities and activities in this area for the coming year. We encourage you to read the article and comment, either on RIPE Labs or on this mailing list. Feedback from the RIPE NCC membership and RIPE community is vital in shaping the RIPE NCC's position and strategy in relation to these issues. We also welcome any suggestions on how to improve the RIPE NCC's engagement with the public sector and other Internet stakeholders in your country or region. You can read the article in full at: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-t… Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

New EU Cybersecurity Plan
by Gordon Lennox 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

"EU Cybersecurity plan to protect open internet and online freedom and opportunity - Cyber Security strategy and Proposal for a Directive" http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/eu-cybersecurity-plan-protect-op…

1 0

Fwd: ITU-T SG 2 meetings - summary
by Patrik Fältström 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Forwarded with permission from Veni Markovski. Veni wrote among other things: > It is worth to notice how the ITU plays the game of occupying more and more space from the I* organizations - starting with ad hoc groups, study groups, dedicated groups, ITRs, and - late next year - with the change in their mandate. > > I am afraid that there is no (easy) way out of this labyrinth. > > The IPv4 legacy was discussed also at the last Council Working Group on Internet, and is now open for public comments, see here: <http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx>, namely: > > > • Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. Patrik Fältström

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

And more importantly, what should we be doing? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Carsten Schiefner [ripe-wgs.cs(a)schiefner.de] Sent: 12 February 2013 23:01 To: Patrik Fältström Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the well-worded statement. However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? Thanks and best, Carsten On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik Fältström wrote: > ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public > Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" > > · Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting > spam. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to effectively countering > and combatting spam. > > · Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues > concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 > addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. > > · Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to developmental aspects > of the Internet. > > http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx > > Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting > with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of > the meeting: > >> Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, >> United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico >> >> The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU >> conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to >> take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried >> out, in other organizations. >> >> The member states note the extensive work on policy development and >> procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder >> forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As >> proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to >> provide information to the CWG before conducting public >> consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. >> >> The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, >> including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in >> existing multi-stakeholder fora. > > Patrik Fältström

2 1

ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
by Patrik Fältström 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" · Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to effectively countering and combatting spam. · Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. · Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to developmental aspects of the Internet. http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of the meeting: > Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico > > The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried out, in other organizations. > > The member states note the extensive work on policy development and procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to provide information to the CWG before conducting public consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. > > The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in existing multi-stakeholder fora. Patrik Fältström

2 2

Re: [cooperation-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet -CleanIT
by Dr Michiel de Weger 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

1 0

RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT
by Nash, Steve 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

CleanIT (www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Reducing-terrorist-use-of-… ) seems to me to be a useful report asking governments to facilitate awareness and fund "referral units", and "Internet Companies" to provide reasonable end-user feedback mechanisms on suspected Terrorist Internet use. - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue. Regards Steve Nash Steve.nash(a)theiet.org -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: 31 January 2013 12:34 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CleanIT Update Brian, I am sure many people on the coop wg is interested in this work, so thank you for copying the mailing list. Patrik Fältström Co-chair cooperation working group On 31 jan 2013, at 12:55, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: > Colleagues, > > (And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.) > > You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/ > > This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here: > > http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/ > > It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities. > > If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know. > > Brian >

4 3

CleanIT Update
by Brian Nisbet 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

Colleagues, (And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.) You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/ This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here: http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/ It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities. If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know. Brian

2 1

RIPE NCC Report on IGF 2012
by Chris Buckridge 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

Dear colleagues, The seventh Internet Governance Forum took place in Baku, Azerbaijan from 6-9 November 2012, bringing together more than 1600 people from 128 countries. The RIPE NCC participated in the event, working with fellow Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and industry partners to develop the IGF program, organise workshops and contribute to discussions. Reports and session transcripts have now been published on the IGF website for the three workshops that the RIPE NCC was involved in organising: Workshop 99: Moving to IPv6: Challenges for Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organization (NRO)) http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no99-moving-ipv6-challenges-internet-g… Workshop 100: Internet Governance and RPKI (Organised by the NRO) http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no100-internet-governance-and-rpki#rep… Workshop 117: Best Common Practices for Building Internet Capacity (Organised by RIPE NCC, AFRINIC and the Arab IGF) http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no117-best-common-practices-building-i… The RIPE NCC also contributed to workshops on Internet Exchange Point development (Workshop 159), Developing a National/Regional Framework of Principles for Internet Governance (Workshop 170), and two sessions discussing output from the Arab IGF. The main plenary session on Managing Critical Internet Resources (CIRs) considered issues surrounding the ICANN new gTLD program, Intergovernmentalism (focusing on the ITU, WCIT and the International Telecommunications Regulations) and IPv4 markets. Each of these discussions built on work done in earlier workshops, with APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston representing the RIR community perspective on the panels. A transcript of this session is available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-pr… Looking ahead, APNIC Director General Paul Wilson spoke to the Closing Ceremony, highlighting the ongoing concerns regarding IGF funding and the importance of maintaining the IGF as part of a broader, multi-stakeholder, bottom-up system of Internet governance. There were also calls from many participants for the IGF to take a more active role in defining and facilitating "Enhanced Cooperation", a key concept in Internet governance processes since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003. The next IGF will be held in late 2013 in Indonesia. Paul Rendek will continue in his role as a member of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which will develop the themes and working methods for the event. There will also be opportunities for members of the general public to contribute feedback and ideas through Open Consultations, the first of which will take place at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 28 February 2013. We welcome any questions or comments regarding the RIPE NCC's participation in IGF 2013 on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Euro-IX EC Position Statement on the Review of the ITRs
by Bijal Sanghani 06 Nov '12

06 Nov '12

Dear Cooperation WG Members, Today the Euro-IX Board posted a position statement on the review of the ITRs, please see details of the press release below - regards, Bijal === Euro-IX Executive Committee Position Statement on the Review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Amsterdam, The Netherlands 18 October 2012 In December 2012, the World Conference on International Telecommunications will consider a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations. As some proposed amendments may have a negative impact on the future of the Internet, the Euro-IX Board (Executive Committee) has prepared a Position Statement. The statement lists the points which are considered important to ensure the open, competitive and innovative nature of the Internet in the future. The Euro-IX Board has encouraged the members of Euro-IX to talk to their Government representatives and share the position statement with them and also with the members (customers, participants) of the exchange point. The position statement can be found in the link below - https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1042-EuroIX-EC-WCIT-Position-Statement-pd… About Euro-IX: Euro-IX (European Internet Exchange Association) was formed in May 2001 with the intention to further develop, strengthen and improve the Internet Exchange Point (IXP) community. Euro-IX is a collaboration of the leading Internet Exchange Points that connect the networks of Internet service providers, carriers and content providers to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic. https://euro-ix.net

2 1

Minutes from meeting at RIPE-65
by Patrik Fältström 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

All, Here are the minutes from the meeting at the last RIPE meeting. Thanks to specifically Chris that took the minutes. Regards, Patrik Co-chair, cooperation wg Cooperation Working Group Minutes [Draft] RIPE 65, Thursday, 27 September, 11:00 – 12:30 A. Discussion of ITU Issues - Input from RIPE 65 Plenary on Internet Governance & WCIT, Patrik Fältström Patrik summarised some of the issues raised in the Internet Governance and WCIT panel that took place in the RIPE 65 Plenary. He noted the importance of specific words in how we discuss Internet governance issues, including the word "governance" itself. He also noted questions from some network operators as to why they should take an interest in WCIT. He emphasised the need for all Internet stakeholders to engage with the public sector in their home country. - Process towards WCIT from a CEPT perspective, Anders Jönsson Anders Jönsson, former Chair of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Committee for ITU Policy (ComITU), presented an overview of that group and the regional preparation process leading up to WCIT. Maria Häll raised the question of who could participate in the various regional ITU preparatory meetings. Anders noted that different organisations have different rules: CEPT allows a number of observer organisations, including RIPE NCC, ETNO, ISOC, ICANN. The Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) applies the same principle, though their meetings often have 300-400 representatives, so they are organised differently to CEPT. Olaf Kolkman noted that while the CEPT states have made no proposals on certain Internet-related issues (as listed in Anders' slides), it is unclear whether the CEPT would push back against proposals on these issues from other regions, or may be willing to entertain others' proposals? Anders noted that while the CEPT negotiating position is based on certain high-level principles, once negotiation starts, all parties will need to prioritise what they hope to achieve in the ITRs. Carsten Schiefner asked about Criterion 1, "As an International Treaty, the ITRs should address high level strategic and policy issues" - to what extent does this make it impossible to make significant changes to the existing ITR text? Anders reiterated that the CEPT "guiding criteria" are a starting point, but that in the negotiation process there will necessarily need to be compromise. Patrik Fältström noted the potential of the revised ITRs to affect the role of the ITU itself. Anders agreed that the ITRs may have a significant affect on what the ITU does and how it works, as has in the past been demonstrated by other ITU agreements and international treaties. It is also clear that if you change the definitions of terms like "telecommunications" (to "telecommunications/ICT"), you change the scope of the ITU's work. Patrik also noted the ETNO proposal, and asked whether CEPT's Criterion 1 would prevent CEPT from supporting it. Anders noted that the CEPT will need to consider both whether the ETNO proposal raises issues that should be discussed in some forum, and whether it is appropriate for such issues to be addressed via the ITRs. Tahar Schaa noted that the Internet was built by private companies in a transparent manner, and that many in the Internet community do not see any justification for limiting transparency in Member States' Internet governance discussions. Anders noted that CEPT has aimed to limit their discussions to issues between Member States, rather than those issues which directly affect individuals. Anders also directed people to a recent discussion held at the UN in New York between several high level government and ITU representatives [available at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/25722111] Paul Rendek thanked Anders for his role in inviting RIPE NCC and other industry partners to take part in the CEPT Com-ITU. - What is happening re WCIT: Definitions of Operating Agencies, Telecommunication etc., Phil Rushton Phil discussed the definitions being discussed in WCIT discussions, and noted the significance of changing these definitions or trying to apply them to contemporary technologies. Some of the definitions currently being examined in preparatory meetings are "Recognised Operating Agency" (which some are pushing to change to "Operating Agency") and "telecommunication" (which may be changed to "telecommunication/ICT", and may be expanded to include all "processing" of communications). - Looking ahead to WTPF, Cathy Handley Cathy discussed the ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, which will take place in May 2013. The sole input document is a Secretary-General's report, which will reflect input from an Informal Experts Group (IEG), of which Cathy and APNIC Director General Paul Wilson are members. The Number Resource Organization (NRO, representing the five RIRs) has submitted a document correcting some confusion about IP addressing issues. Cathy noted that the IEG is a non-decisional group, but that non-ITU members can follow and contribute to it via community representatives. Olaf Kolkman noted that the potential impact of the WTPF (and other ITU events) remains quite vague. Cathy committed to send some additional information to the Cooperation WG list. Maria Häll asked about any connection between WTPF, WCIT and the ITRs. Cathy noted that the WTPF is part of a much larger chain of events (including the World Telecommunication Development Conference and Plenipotentiary Conference, both in 2014). The WTPF, however, is one of the few forums where non-members can participate, and is therefore an important opportunity. Andrew Sullivan sounded a sceptical note regarding whether Internet technical community contributions would even be included in the Secretary-General's report. Dmitry Burkov questioned how some of the proposed changes to the ITRs could be implemented in reality. He noted that the US did not even ratify the 1988 ITRs, and for the revised ITRs to have a significant impact they would need to be ratified and integrated into national legislation in all ITU Member States. Maria noted that the language and method of implementation will be decided as part of the negotiation process. Dmitry noted that he doesn't see any real consequences coming out of this work. Maria thanked Cathy and Paul Wilson for their work in the WTPF Informal Experts Group. - Updates from Regional ITU groups (including Arab States), Paul Rendek Paul gave an update on some of the other regional preparations going on, including RIPE NCC's participation in CEPT, and RIPE NCC's cooperation with AFRINIC to contribute to the Arab Group. He noted that a significant issue is the breadth of the language being used, and that the RIRs will have a strong delegation going to Dubai for WCIT-12. Wout de Natris recalled the recent Council of Europe Octopus meeting on cybercrime, and the Russian delegation's statement that they would not sign the Budapest Convention on cybercrime, but would instead rely on the ITU. Dmitry Burkov later noted that in relation to the Budapest Convention, the Russian opposition was based on quite specific issues with the Convention that affect national sovereignty. Meredith Whittaker echoed the point that the Internet technical community is not defining the potential threats clearly enough, and people need to understand what is at stake. She noted that the pushback to SOPA/PIPA legislation in the US was the result of effectively engaging and educating Internet users. Rob Blokzijl noted that half of the current ITRs list government reservations, and suggested that the contemporary environment may result in a treaty with many more reservations. Maria also noted that the status of the ITRs (mandatory or optional) is one item for negotiation. Fahad AlShirawi noted that most governments are driven by a fear of something they have no control over, and need to be reminded of the benefits that the Internet in its open form has brought them. - Modern Paradigm for Global Standards Development, Andrei Robachevsky Andrei gave an overview of the OpenStand project, which is dedicated to promoting a jointly developed and proven set of principles that establish The Modern Paradigm for Standards. Maria Häll asked if the ITU had endorsed the OpenStand principles. Andrei noted they have not at this stage, and that standards organisations that wish to sign on should provide a statement of how they live up to these ideals. - Building on the Success of the IGF: Paul Rendek gave an overview of the planning underway for the global Internet Governance Forum, which will take place in Baku in November 2012, and the first Arab IGF, which will take place in Kuwait in October 2012. - AOB Steve Nash noted that the Internet technical community cannot pretend that governments are going to go away, and that they need to continue to find ways to allow governments to take an active interest in Internet governance. He noted that while the ITU may not be the ideal vehicle for government involvement, there may need to be new international organisations developed.

1 0

First Arab IGF now happening
by Chris Buckridge 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear colleagues, The first Arab Internet Governance Forum event is now taking place in Kuwait. It will run for three days, from 9-11 October. The program is available at: http://arabigf.kits.org.kw/program/ You can follow events via webcast and contribute via chat on the Arab IGF website: http://arabigf.kits.org.kw/livestream/ The RIPE NCC is proud to be a supporter and sponsor of the Arab IGF. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

WTPF-13 IEG
by Gordon Lennox 27 Sep '12

27 Sep '12

Informal Experts Group In accordance with the Council Decision 562, the Secretary-General will convene a balanced, informal group of experts(IEG) - who are active in preparing for the Forum in their own country - to assist in the successive stages of the preparatory process. At its session in 2012, the Council agreed that all relevant stakeholders should participate in the work of the IEG so as to contribute their unique perspective to the preparatory process, based on the roles and responsibilities that the stakeholders may have under Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda (2005). Consequently, participation in the work of the IEG will be open to stakeholders in accordance with Council decision, taking into account Decision 562 and the need to maintain a balanced group of experts, and also room and seating capacity for IEG meetings at ITU headquarters in Geneva. Relevant stakeholders are invited to express their interest in participating in the work of the IEG by completing a request form. ..... http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx

2 1

Fwd: [WCIT] WCIT Briefing Session for Civil Society Stakeholders - at ITU (in Geneva)
by Gordon Lennox 22 Sep '12

22 Sep '12

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Najarian, Paul B" <NajarianPB(a)STATE.GOV> > Subject: [WCIT] WCIT Briefing Session for Civil Society Stakeholders - at ITU (in Geneva) > Date: 22 September, 2012 05:05:02 CEST > To: <WCIT(a)LMLIST.STATE.GOV> > Reply-To: "Najarian, Paul B" <NajarianPB(a)STATE.GOV> > > On Sep. 19, the ITU issued an invitation for a WCIT-12 briefing session for Civil Society, which will be held on October 9, from 3 to 4:30 pm (GVA time), at the ITU (in Geneva). > > This session is in conjunction with the WCIT and WTSA preparatory information session, on Oct. 8 and 9. > > Registration deadline is 5 October, and is open. > > Remote participation is available upon request (make your request with the ITU). > > Additional information and a link to Registration is available at the following: > > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/WCIT%20Briefing%20Session%20for%20C… > > > > > Paul Najarian > U.S. Department of State > Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) > Communication and Information Policy (CIP) > 2201 C Street, NW; Rm-5806 > Washington, DC 20520 > Tel: 202-647-7847 > Fax: 202-647-0158 >

1 0

Update on the EU Clean-IT project
by Bastiaan Goslings 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

All, See below - might be of interest to this group too. A 'CleanIT project update' is on the AA WG agenda - unfortunately this session on the 27th clashes with the Roundtable Meeting. Regards, -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer Begin forwarded message: > From: Erik Bais <erik(a)bais.name> > Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Update on the EU Clean-IT project > Date: September 21, 2012 1:17:09 PM GMT+02:00 > To: "anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Hi, > > The EU Clean-IT project did a presentation on RIPE64. > EDRI (European Digital Rights) was informed via a leaked document on the projects wishlist and planned (internal) discussion topics and current recommendations. > > They posted a summary on their website: http://www.edri.org/cleanIT > > The document itself can be found here: http://www.edri.org/files/cleanIT_sept2012.pdf > > If this is where the EU regulation is moving towards, under the umbrella of terrorism …. Oh boy ... > > Regards, > Erik Bais

1 0

Next week is RIPE Meeting
by Patrik Fältström 21 Sep '12

21 Sep '12

All, Next week is the RIPE Meeting and we have a meeting on Thursday. The agenda is updated over time so please have a look now and then. The over arching topic for "cooperation issues" is this time "global governance in a multistakeholder world" and specifically this is triggered by WCIT and the question of what a treaty really implies, and what such can (and can not) include and why. The discussions start on Tuesday where there will be I hope an interesting panel on the topic. See https://ripe65.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary-agenda/ > Tuesday, 25 September 16:00 – 17:30 > > Plenary > > Internet Governance Update Panel > Patrik Fältström, Cooperation Working Group Chair > > Mike Blanche, Google > Cathy Handley, ARIN > Gordon Lennox, Former official of the European Commission > Christine Runnegar, ISOC The goal is that this will be a discussion panel. I will moderate, ask questions of course that triggers the discussion, but I also welcome either before or during the meeting suggestions. We will then on Thursday on the cooperation wg continue this with more discussions in the wg. This time the working group meeting will be part of what RIPE call "government roundtable meeting" where also the address policy wg is included. We hope this will attract more non-traditional RIPE delegates to the meeting itself. We do hope this will be interesting for us all, and we are looking forward to next week. Regards, Patrik & Maria Co-chairs Cooperation Working Group

1 0

First Arab IGF, 9-11 October in Kuwait
by Paul Rendek 11 Sep '12

11 Sep '12

Dear colleagues, The first Arab Internet Governance Forum (IGF) event will take place in Kuwait, running from 9-11 October. Based on the model of multi-stakeholder dialogue and governance that has underpinned the global IGF over six years, this event marks a significant new opportunity for all Internet stakeholders in the region to participate more fully in Internet governance, and to focus on issues of specific relevance to the Arab region. The RIPE NCC is proud to be a major supporter and sponsor of the Arab Internet Governance Forum. We strongly encourage members of the Internet technical community to take an active role in this event and help to ensure that the fundamental concerns of those who have developed and operate networks are represented. The RIPE NCC is working with industry partners, including AFRINIC, to organise several sessions as part of the event, on topics including Critical Internet Resources (CIR), IPv6 deployment and best practices for Internet capacity building. Even if you are unable to attend, there will be opportunities for you to contribute remotely to these discussions. All relevant information, including online registration, can be found on the website of the host organisation, the Kuwait Information Technology Society (KITS): http://arabigf.kits.org.kw/ Fellowship program ------------------------- The Arab IGF Secretariat is offering fellowships covering airfare or accommodation for a number of attendees. If you are interested in applying for one of these fellowships, please read the attached document on eligibility, and complete the attached application form. If you are interested in contributing to any of the sessions listed in the draft agenda, you can contact the local host organisation or the RIPE NCC. Industry sponsorship is also welcome, and we encourage anyone with an interest in sponsoring to make contact with the local host organisation. Best regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC

1 0

Internet governance hits mainstream media
by Jim Reid 23 Aug '12

23 Aug '12

Here's a fairly interesting piece here about the upcoming IGF and ITR meetings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/fight-control-internet-… Shame about the hype about "secretive UN agencies" and "ITU to take over the interweb" threads though. This might be because of the author's affiliation. YMMV.

1 0

First Arab IGF: New Website, Online Registration Now Open
by Chris Buckridge 22 Aug '12

22 Aug '12

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is proud to be a major supporter and sponsor of the Arab Internet Governance Forum, which will hold its first meeting from 9-11 October at the Regency Hotel in Kuwait. Online registration for the event is now open, via the host website: http://arabigf.kits.org.kw Please note that a call for workshops at the first meeting of the Arab IGF is still open. Interested parties are encouraged to submit workshop proposals using the template available at: http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/download/1_4cf80222a902be64a1… [Word] Proposals should be submitted by email to <workshops(a)igfarab.org> by 31 August 2012. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

an unwelcome ITR development?
by Jim Reid 17 Aug '12

17 Aug '12

http://wcitleaks.org is publishing contributions (ITU-speak for discussion papers, agenda items, etc) which are likely to be discussed at the ITR meeting in December. According to http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/Russia%2040.pdf, Russia wants the ITU to effectively become an RIR and allocate IPv6 addresses. See item 8 at the bottom of page 3 of their list of changes to the ITR Articles. Looks like someone's been drinking the Nav6 Kool- Aid. Sigh. Will the NCC as a Sector Member, (and the other RIRs?) submit a response to this? Should concerned members of this WG be contacting their governments?

7 12

European Commission Open Consultations
by Chris Buckridge 27 Jul '12

27 Jul '12

Dear colleagues, The European Commission this week launched two public consultations that members of this working group may have an interest in responding to: - On-line public consultation on "specific aspects of transparency, traffic management and switching in an Open Internet" http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/actions/oit-consulta… - On-line public consultation on Improving Network and Information Security (NIS) in the EU http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=securitystrategy2 The final date for submissions on both open consultations is 15 October 2012. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

ISOC Paper on Interconnection Arrangements
by Patrik Fältström 26 Jul '12

26 Jul '12

Hi, ISOC has, based on the number of proposals for WCIT calling for special provisions in the ITRs written a document that I think would be interesting for the participants of the cooperation wg. Sally of ISOC writes: > Dear colleagues, > > In recent months, a number of proposals have come forward in the WCIT process that call for provisions to be included in the ITRs to create a new model of Internet interconnection that would establish an end-to-end quality of service delivery mechanism with pre-defined end-to-end performance objectives, and; to establish a system of settlements between network operators based on sending-party-network-pays. > > ISOC has great concerns with these are proposals and we thought that an analysis might be useful for the community and for policy makers. This analysis is attached. There have been many comments on the various mailing lists about these issues and those comments have been quite useful in helping to shape this paper - so, thank you! We fully expect this analysis to evolve in the run-up to the WCIT as the proposals to the Conference also evolve. > > http://www.internetsociety.org/internet-interconnections-commercial-arrange… > > In the meantime, we hope that you find this to be useful. We are working to translate the document now. > > Best Regards, > Sally > Patrik Fältström co-chair cooperation wg

1 0

Update on ITU Activity
by Chris Buckridge 13 Jul '12

13 Jul '12

Dear colleagues, This year has already brought a deluge of news and commentary about the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), but I wanted to share a couple of recent developments that may be of interest to the members of this Working Group. ITU IPv6 Group --------------------- Established by ITU Council in 2009, this group was tasked with reporting on a number of issues raised by ITU Member States regarding the distribution of IPv6 address space and the deployment of IPv6. Further details about the group, including its full Terms of Reference, can be found here: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/others/ipv6/Pages/default.aspx At the fourth meeting of the ITU IPv6 Group in June 2012, the participants agreed that the group's mission, as laid out in the Terms of Reference, had been fulfilled. The report of that meeting recommended that ITU Council officially close the group, and Council has now accepted and acted upon this recommendation. Also contained in the report of the fourth meeting were the following findings: • That "current IPv6 allocation policies and processes met the needs of stakeholders." • That "future work of IPv6 human capacity building activities and project on technical, policy and economic aspects of the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 will be continued and led by ITU-BDT in collaboration with interested partner entities (RIRs, NAv6, Cisco, etc.) and partner States (Czech Republic, Sudan, Sweden, etc.)." WCIT and the ITRs -------------------------- The most recent ITU Council meeting also discussed the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) and the revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The Internet technical community (including the RIPE NCC and other RIRs) and other ITU stakeholders have been arguing strongly for greater openness and transparency in the WCIT process. Council has now agreed to make public the working draft of the revised ITRs (CWG-WCIT TD-64), although access to the individual proposals will remain restricted to ITU Members. The ITU Secretariat will post the draft ITRs online at: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx Finally, the RIPE NCC has updated the ITU-related information on its website, which now includes links to a number of articles by APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston that are relevant to discussion of the ITRs: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… If you have any questions regarding the RIPE NCC's engagement with the ITU, we are happy to discuss the subject on this mailing list (<cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>). Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Perspectives on the ITR Revisions
by Mirjam Kuehne 25 Jun '12

25 Jun '12

Dear colleagues, Please find two new articles on RIPE Labs contributed by APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston: 1. Occam's ITRs https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/occams-itrs In this article Geoff talks about the upcoming review of the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) and how this could potentially affect your network operations. 2. The QoS Emperor's Wardrobe https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/the-qos-emperors-wardrobe This article looks at the history and status of Quality of Service (QoS). Recent proposals for revising the ITRs have suggested basing a new IP interconnection framework around the concept of end-to-end Quality of Service. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC Submission to CEPT Com-ITU
by Chris Buckridge 23 May '12

23 May '12

Dear colleagues, As noted during the Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 64, the RIPE NCC was recently granted observer status in the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Committee for ITU Policy (ComITU). This committee organises the coordination of CEPT actions and positions in relation to various ITU activities, including the development of Common European Proposals (CEPs) in the lead-up to WCIT-12 and the revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). Following discussions between various members of the RIPE community, RIPE NCC staff and European government representatives, the RIPE NCC has submitted a document for the consideration of CEPT Member States at this week's Com-ITU meeting. The submission discusses the potential consequences for the Internet industry of proposals to include Calling Line Identification (CLI) regulation in the ITRs. The Internet Society and ICANN, both observers in the CEPT Com-ITU, have also signed on in support of this submission. The full text of the document is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… If you have any questions or comments, please post them to this working group list, or privately to chrisb(a)ripe.net. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

2 1

Minutes from coop wg at RIPE-64
by Patrik Fältström 02 May '12

02 May '12

Hi All, You can find minutes of the previous meeting for the cooperation working group published as <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/coop/minutes/ripe-64> If there are questions or otherwise issues that someone have with the minutes, do not hesitate contacting me. Regards, Patrik Fältström co-chair of the Cooperation WG

1 0

Time to register to EuroDIG 14-15 June
by Erika.Hersaeus＠pts.se 19 Apr '12

19 Apr '12

Welcome to join the European Dialogue on Internet Governance 14-15 June, 2012 in Stockholm, Sweden The Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS) is happy to invite you to participate at EuroDIG, European Dialogue on Internet Governance, on June 14-15, 2012 in Stockholm, Sweden. EuroDIG is an open and transparent multi-stakeholder forum and gives a great opportunity to meet representatives across the sectors of society - governments, business and industry as well as civil society alike - to discuss public policy issues of Internet's future, its challenges and opportunities. Confirmed speakers are Her Majesty the Queen of Sweden, Vice President of the European Commisson, Ms Neelie Kroes, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Carl Bildt, Swedish Minister for Information Technology and Energy, Ms Anna-Karin Hatt, besides a wide range of other stake holders. For draft program and more information: http://www.eurodig.org/ To register: http://www.eurodig.org/important/registration-open-2 We look forward to seeing you in Stockholm! ______________________________ Lise Alkerstedt Adviser Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS) Office of the Director-General Phone: +46 8 678 55 30 Mobile: +46 73 644 55 30 lise.alkerstedt(a)pts.se<mailto:lise.alkerstedt@pts.se> www.pts.se<http://www.pts.se/> PTS works to ensure that everyone in Sweden shall have access to efficient, affordable and secure communications services.

1 0

Possible agenda topic - EU funded research
by Gordon Lennox 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

The Commission like other similar organisations has its “cycles”. Some are fairly clean-cut such as the Commission itself – the College, the 27 Commissioners. Others are overlap to an extent. This coming year is perhaps more interesting than most when it comes to our research funding. We are coming towards the end of Framework Programme 7 - FP7 - and a proposal has been developed for what should happen next - Horizon 2020. For details on FP7: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home And for some information on Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020 A lot of the topics which have been and are being funded and which indeed may be funded are of relevance to this community – work on the “future internet” and on IPv6 to mention but two. It ought to be useful therefore to see if people from the research side of INFSO could come to a RIPE meeting to present what has been achieved and the Commission’s proposal for the future. If there is interest then I am sure the co-chairs can take this forward. In the meantime - happy new year! Gordon

3 4

CSTD Working Group meeting happening now
by Chris Buckridge 12 Jan '12

12 Jan '12

Dear colleagues, At the last meeting of the Cooperation WG, there was an update from Nurani Nimpuno on the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This group is currently meeting, and a number of RIPE community members are tweeting live updates from the meeting. For those that are interested, search for #CSTDWG on Twitter. More information on this group is available at: http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] Possible agenda topic - EU funded research
by Michiel Ettema 12 Jan '12

12 Jan '12

Hi Gordon, We are a participant in the FP7 GEN6 (Governements enabled with IPv6) program. If there are any questions of the RIPE community you'd like to ask there I can help to direct them to the appropriate people. Regards, Michiel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:09:07 +0100 From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Possible agenda topic - EU funded research To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <CAP1z8s8gf9vRb0jgBHC2tBHJkCMayLxKXbu1sAxmioR2sGMQkQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 The Commission like other similar organisations has its ?cycles?. Some are fairly clean-cut such as the Commission itself ? the College, the 27 Commissioners. Others are overlap to an extent. This coming year is perhaps more interesting than most when it comes to our research funding. We are coming towards the end of Framework Programme 7 - FP7 - and a proposal has been developed for what should happen next - Horizon 2020. For details on FP7: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home And for some information on Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020 A lot of the topics which have been and are being funded and which indeed may be funded are of relevance to this community ? work on the ?future internet? and on IPv6 to mention but two. It ought to be useful therefore to see if people from the research side of INFSO could come to a RIPE meeting to present what has been achieved and the Commission?s proposal for the future. If there is interest then I am sure the co-chairs can take this forward. In the meantime - happy new year! Gordon ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ==================================================================

2 1

Cloud computing / new documents
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Dear all, in the context of the development of the European Cloud Computing strategy, which was briefly referred to in this mailing list, you may be interested to know that the following documents have been recently published on the website of the European Commission: - Final report of the public consultation on Cloud Computing (16 May - 31 August 2011) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/ccco… - Recommendations from the "select industry group" to the European Commission on the orientation of a Cloud Computing strategy for Europe http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/indu… http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/anne… (annexes) Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Information Society and Media Unit A3 (Internet; Network and Information Security) Avenue de Beaulieu 33 (2/84) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 0

"No Disconnect Strategy"
by Gordon Lennox 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

A press release, some aspects of which I presume are of particular interest to this group: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1525&format=H…

3 2

Work Programme 2012 of the European Commission published
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

Dear all, as I mentioned during my presentation at RIPE 63, one of the main tools to know what the European Commission is planning to do / is doing is the so-called Commission Work Programme or CWP. You might be interested to know that on 15 November, the European Commission published its CWP for 2012. You can find all the documents at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm. What you may probably be more interested in is the so-called Annex I, which lists with some more detail the specific "key initiatives" of the CWP (see http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/cwp2012_annex_en.pdf). The Annex is divided by "policy themes". RIPE members may possibly be interested in the actions under the "Digital Agenda" theme (21-25), as well as action 60 (Fighting European Cybercrime), 87 (On-line gambling in the Internal Market), 91 (Initiative on notice and takedown procedures). Or also other initiatives, depending on your tastes. :) Two further points: - Annex I to the CWP includes what you may think of as "major" initiatives, but is not per se a full and exhaustive list of everything the Commission is planning to do. - Further details on (most of) the initiatives in Annex I of the CWP, as well as on other initiatives which are not in Annex I of the CWP but the Commission is nonetheless working on, are available via so-called "roadmaps" at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2012_en.htm. The list of "roadmaps" (and also, as a matter of fact, the CWP) is updated on a rolling basis. I hope this is, if not useful, at least mildly interesting. Please let me know if I can provide further information, noting however that (a) the management of the CWP is not under the responsibility of DG Information Society and Media, but of the General Secretariat of the Commission; and that (b) I may not be personally involved in all the initiatives I mentioned above, and certainly not in all the initiatives in Annex I. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to help with providing the relevant contacts, should the need arise. Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Information Society and Media Unit A3 (Internet; Network and Information Security) Avenue de Beaulieu 33 (2/84) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

5 8

Interaction between Dutch police and RIPE NCC
by Patrik Fältström 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

Hi, I presume many of you have seen this original story on the RIPE website from Nov 9: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe… > RIPE NCC Blocks Registration in RIPE Registry Following Order from Dutch Police > 09 Nov 2011 > The RIPE NCC received a temporary order from the Dutch police to prevent any changes from being made to a registration of four specific blocks of IPv4 address space in the RIPE Registry. > > The order is effective from 8 November 2011 until 22 March 2012. This has been updated with new information on Nov 16: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe… > The RIPE NCC is receiving independent legal advice and is in discussion with the appropriate authorities. It is the intention of the RIPE NCC to pursue this matter further in Dutch court to establish a precedent so that it is certain of its rights regarding such orders. > > In the interest of transparency, the RIPE NCC is working on full disclosure of the background documents. The RIPE NCC will update the community if and when any other publishable materials become available. > > The RIPE NCC is committed to acting in the best interest of its membership and will continue to inform the Internet community on this matter as it progresses. > > The RIPE NCC has not withdrawn, removed or reclaimed the address blocks in question; it has temporarily locked a registration of address blocks. On this last page there is also a link to the police order itself: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-2011 Patrik Fältström Co-chair, Cooperation Working Group

2 1

Filtering and Blocking
by Gordon Lennox 22 Nov '11

22 Nov '11

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/20/filtering-and-blocking-closer-to-… An interesting article from Monika that mentions/quotes a number of knowledgeable people. Gordon

1 0

Big step forward at discussions of WTO
by Patrik Fältström 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Might also be interesting... Patrik Russia to cancel licensing of imported IT product, zero out duties - WTO GENEVA. (Interfax) - In the context of its accession to the World Trade Organization, Russia will remove restrictions on imported digital (cryptographic) equipment, and will also zero out import duties on high-tech goods. Licensing will not be need for dozens more products with cryptography, including wireless communications devices, electronic digital signatures, and smart cards, a WTO statement says. There will be no new restrictions, including expert evaluation, approval and licensing, the statement says. For devices for which the licensing of their import is retained, the procedures will be done only once. The rules for bringing digital devices into the Customs Union were integrated at the beginning of last year. Since then, importers have been obligated to obtain licensing or do notification of each model (cellphone, laptop computers, and so on) that supports cryptography. The notifica-tion is done by the producer of certain devices at Russia's Center for Licensing, and certification and the protection of state secrets by the FSB. Receiving licensing is not to take more than ninety days.

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Interaction between Dutch police and RIPE NCC
by Peter Koch 20 Nov '11

20 Nov '11

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-2011 the IP address ranges in this copy are concealed. Coincidentally, looking up addresses published in <http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/malware_110911/DNS-changer-ma…> as referred to by <http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/malware_110911/malware_110911> will provide some detail. -Peter

2 1

Material from the European Commission
by Andrea Glorioso 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Dear all, thanks for the opportunity to (start to) discuss cooperation opportunities between the European Commission and RIPE NCC, as well as for your flexibility in listening to me via phone. I do hope there will a chance to meet in person soon. As promised during my presentation, please find below the additional information on the activities of the European Commission: - Commission Work Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm - Commission at work: material that explains how the Commission discusses and takes decision: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/index_en.htm - Public consultations by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm As well as my contact details: Email (work): andrea.glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Email (home): andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://facebook.com/andreaglorioso Linkedin: https://linkedin.com/pub/andrea-glorioso/1/56a/178 Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/andreaglorioso Tel: +32-2-299-7682 GSM: +32-460-79-7682 I understand this information will be included in the "slides pack" you will receive at the end of the RIPE meeting. Please, do not hesitate get in touch with me whenever you need. Best regards, Andrea Glorioso

2 1

Material from the European Commission
by Andrea Glorioso 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Dear all, thanks for the opportunity to (start to) discuss cooperation opportunities between the European Commission and RIPE NCC, as well as for your flexibility in listening to me via phone. I do hope there will a chance to meet in person soon. As promised during my presentation, please find below the additional information on the activities of the European Commission: - Commission Work Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm - Commission at work: material that explains how the Commission discusses and takes decision: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/index_en.htm - Public consultations by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm As well as my contact details: Email (work): andrea.glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Email (home): andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://facebook.com/andreaglorioso Linkedin: https://linkedin.com/pub/andrea-glorioso/1/56a/178 Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/andreaglorioso Tel: +32-2-299-7682 GSM: +32-460-79-7682 I understand this information will be included in the "slides pack" you will receive at the end of the RIPE meeting. Please, do not hesitate get in touch with me whenever you need. Best regards, Andrea Glorioso

1 0

Presentation at RIPE meeting
by Patrik Fältström 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Gordon, If I understand things correctly, you will be on site in Vienna. I have talked with you, and you have been cc:ed, on various communication and tries we have made from RIPE community on getting people from COM and specifically INFSO participating at the RIPE meeting. You can see one summary I have of this here: http://stupid.domain.name/node/1459 Now, the question to you is whether you are interested in presenting at the cooperation wg? There seems to be some confusion from COM side what RIPE is, and we do not understand COM. You are one of the few that understand both sides. Maybe you can talk and present, and do whatever you think is needed to maybe bridge the gap that might exist. Or let me phrase it differently: You are a man with opinion. If we give you 20-30 minutes of time including discussions, are you interested in using it for something interesting for whoever will come to the meeting? Patrik

2 1

Agenda item, CSTD wg in Vienna?
by Patrik Fältström 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Nurani, On the Thursday of the RIPE week is the cooperation wg. One of the agenda items we would like to have a description of the CSTD wg (non) process. Are you interested in, willing to, etc do it? 5 min, i.e. short... Patrik

3 7

IPv6 Deployment in European Public Authorities
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

Hi all, On 28th of October, the 6DEPLOY-2 project, in cooperation with the European Commission, during the Future Internet Week, in Poznan (Poland), is organizing a workshop under the topic "IPv6 Deployment in European Public Authorities". Please register at http://www.week.fi-poznan.eu/6deploy/page/1518/Agenda_details.html to join us. If you are interested in getting a slot in the agenda, please, let me know in private email. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

NRO IGF Workshop Starting Shortly
by Chris Buckridge 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Dear colleagues, The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) workshop entitled "Enhancing Understanding: Facilitating Internet Governance Through Openness and Transparency" will start in one hour, at 08:00 UTC (11:00 in Nairobi). If you would like to take part remotely, you can join the WebEx session from the following URL: http://j.mp/IGF11D2R4 More information on this workshop is available at: http://www.nro.net/news/internet-governance-forum-2011-in-nairobi-kenya Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Internet Governance Forum next week
by Chris Buckridge 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Dear colleagues, The sixth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) takes place in Nairobi, Kenya, next week, running from 27-30 September. The RIPE NCC, participating with the other Regional Internet Registries as the Number Resource Organization (NRO), will be organising two workshops in the IGF schedule. Workshop 166. Enhancing Understanding: Facilitating Internet Governance Through Openness and Transparency Wednesday, 28 September, 11:00 -12:30 (UTC+3) Following on from an NRO workshop at last year's IGF entitled "Enhancing Transparency", this workshop will consider some of the issues raised in that discussion and look at strategies for improving understanding between different Internet stakeholder groups. Workshop 165. Understanding IPv6 Deployment and Transition Thursday, 29 September, 9:00-10:30 (UTC+3) This workshop will focus on IPv6 capacity building, remaining obstacles to IPv6 adoption and strategies that have proved successful in encouraging IPv6 adoption. For those not attending the IGF in person, remote participation is available in both of these workshops (and all other IGF sessions). Increased opportunities for remote participation is something that the NRO has argued for in discussions about the future of the IGF, and we would very much welcome remote contributions to the discussion. More information on how to access the remote participation can be found at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation-2011 More information on the two NRO-organised workshops is available at: http://www.nro.net/news/internet-governance-forum-2011-in-nairobi-kenya Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

'European Commission calls for greater government control over Internet'
by Bastiaan Goslings 08 Sep '11

08 Sep '11

Hi Cooperation WG, I came across http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control and decided it was a good enough reason for a first post to the list. 'Among a long series of measures promoted in no less than six papers by the EC’s Information Society and Media Directorate-General are: • A government veto over any new Internet extensions • The creation of a list of names, drawn up by governments, that would be banned from registration • Significant structural changes at overseeing organization ICANN, including at Board level and in the crucial IANA contract • An obligation for ICANN to follow governments’ advice unless deemed illegal or damaging to the Internet’s stability • Two new bodies to oversee ICANN decision-making and finances Combined together, the measures would provide governments with de facto control over the Internet’s naming systems and bring an end to the independent and autonomous approach that has defined the Internet’s domain name system since its inception.' The papers 'are billed as “informal background papers” and have not yet been published.' (For an 'analysis' see http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-papers-analysis: 'Together the papers represent a wholesale effort to put governments in charge of the Internet.') I am not an ICANN-watcher myself, nor am I aware of the nitty-gritty details of DNS-related discussions that go on in different (EU) fora. So it is hard for me to judge the merits of these .nxt articles. And maybe it is indeed just 'informal background' stuff. But this does sound quite serious though and, if it is, it comes as a surprise that I haven't seen it being mentioned elsewhere a lot... Any thoughts? Cheers, -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 12 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net

7 9

Minutes Cooperation WG 4 May 2011
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 30 Jun '11

30 Jun '11

Cooperation WG Wednesday, 4 May 2011 ? 14:00 Co-Chair Maria Häll introduced the agenda. The minutes of the previous Cooperation WG session were approved. B. Internet Intermediaries ? Moderators: Paul Rendek, Patrik Fältström - Introduction: Patrik Fältström - Internet Intermediaries - The human rights perspective - Striking a balance between integrity/neutrality, law enforcement, business Niall O?Reilly noted the importance of understanding how these three factors (neutrality, law enforcement and business) affect each other, and that the ?best? balance between them may favour two out of three. Patrik agreed that this was an important calculation, but one that is not widely enough discussed. Benedikt Stokkeland noted that there is a need for regulation in some areas that is going unmet. He cited the example of ADSL providers providing telephone services over ADSL, the reliability of which means it cannot be a replacement for a standard telephone in an emergency situation. He noted that ?Responsibility? is another axis that conflicts with the money-making axis - there is a need to ensure people can?t be sold something dangerous to them. Olaf Kolkman suggested that ?Public benefit? is a plane that cuts through this multi-plane structure in Patrik?s presentation. He also noted that in the non-Internet space, much experience has already been gained in balancing law enforcement and freedom/openness. In terms of regulation, there is a need to make available technology that is of public benefit in the long-term, and this should contribute to decision-making. Jim Reid argued that ?Public benefit? can mean many things ? RIPE may differ with the Chinese Government on what is constitutes ?public benefit?. He also noted that there are additional dimensions added to the calculation by ?alliances? between those different positions, and cited the UK, where ISPs challenged a law to make ISPs enforce laws, a decision based on their own business case, rather than in the interests of ?freedom?. Patrik added that different definitions of ?lawful? around the world also pose a problem. Wout de Natris suggested that this discussion demonstrates that all stakeholders are still learning how to work together, but that this cooperation will be vital in ensuring that when there is a crisis, governments do not ?panic? in responding. Constanze Bürger emphasised the need for awareness, and suggested that governments have a responsibility to ensure that the freedom of the Internet is not abused, but that regulation may not be the best tool for this. Patrik Fältström noted the lack of harmonization of positions even within governments, and that often, within a government, there is one group talking about opennesss and another group talking about cybercrime issues, each coming to different conclusions for Internet policy. Maria Häll asked whether it is actually desirable to have a different legal framework for the online world. Edmund Juskevicius, of Industry Canada, noted that the Internet tends to work pretty well most of the time, and asked how has this sort of cooperation been done up to this point. Patrik noted that there has been work done in some areas from an EU regulatory perspective, but there has been a more general lack of focus, and this is now starting to change. Paul Rendek also noted the greater interest being taken by international organisations like the OECD, with whom the RIPE NCC is working as part of the Internet Technical Advisory Committee. Malcolm Hutty highlighted the importance of government participation in developing cooperative relationships, and noted that this has often been lacking. In terms of the larger question of liability, he noted that there are people who break laws, through content or activity, and people want that stopped, and that this situation raises certain questions: what is the mechanism for doing this? If it is through intermediaries, what are the checks? Can private sector intermediaries act as law enforcement agencies, that is call in evidence, witnesses etc.? While such a solution may look attractive to stakeholders dealing with a large number of complaints, it would mean a very different system of justice for the online world. It is government?s role to create these definitions and balance the needs of law enforcement agencies against citizens? rights. Malcolm suggested that at this point, governments are only hearing from the complainants, and they need to take a more balanced view on such issues. Niall O?Reilly emphasised that it is governments that must face this responsibility and that there must be some kind of evidence-based review. He noted that in terms of the Internet, it will be impossible to predict the results of new policies without some kind of evidence-based review and discussion. Aleksi Suhonen highlighted the case of Finland?s child porn filter and the unforeseen consequences of this policy, which can serve as a warning case. He also noted that many operators are multi-national and therefore need to navigate different, often competing legislations, which can be very difficult. Toomas Lepik noted that the Palestinian government would like to turn off some Autonomous Systems from the routing path. Constanze Bürger argued that it is necessary to discuss these issues, and that the Internet poses real challenges in terms of borders, self-regulation and democracy. She noted that laws are not the only solution, and that government needs to look to other sectors for solutions as well. C. Update on European Union Activities: Data Retention Directive ? Patrik Fältström Jochem de Ruig of the RIPE NCC asked about law enforcement and data retention, and noted that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) have concerns regarding IPv6 and the logs that ISPs keep regarding assignments and allocations. Patrik noted that the first issue knowing which ISP is using which IP address, which comes back to the quality of the RIPE Database. He pointed out that some parties have argued we need something other than RIR databases, and for this reason he is wary of making changes to policy that will affect data quality in the RIR databases. If you find the ISP, the issue is then what is the responsibility of the ISP? At the moment, most existing regulation says that the ISP must know who had which IP address at a given time. It was noted that there are often different rules for IP, cell and fixed-line telephony, and this is problematic. Maria Häll and Patrik Fältström noted that Sweden has made a proposal (not implemented) that is technology neutral, but this is not reflected in the Directive. Patrik believes, though, that the people working on this in the Commission would like the revised Directive to be technology neutral. European Critical Infrastructure Directive ? Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Chris Buckridge Kurt Erik (Kurtis) Lindqvist and Chris Buckridge presented a brief summary of the discussions currently going on around the revision of the European Critical Infrastructure Directive, and the possibility that it will be expanded to cover the ICT sector. Leo Vegoda asked if the Directive intended to apply to organisations based in EU. Kurtis responded that it was his understanding that the Directive targets physical assets rather than organisations. Maria asked, given the closed nature of the EC discussions to date, whether there is a problem in terms of lack of information flowing between the different stakeholder groups. Kurtis acknowledged that an open discussion such as would happen at a RIPE Meeting would be preferable, but that it is a positive step that the Commission has reached out and invited a wide range of industry and technical community representatives to contribute to the discussion. Kurtis also gave a brief account of the recent critical infrastructure discussions held in Hungary, and the joint EU-US work that is being done. Jaap Akkerhuis noted that while the Directive talks about cross-border issues, there is a feeling that national telco industries don't talk to each other and are isolated. He also noted that for most telcos, borders don't really exist apart from regulation. Kurtis noted that the point of the work in this area is that physical assets clearly affect more than one country. While the industry can route around many borders and obstacles, however, the cable infrastructure demonstrates that there are limits to this. He noted that the Directive talks about infrastructure that affects more than 2 member states D. Update on Council of Europe Activities ? Wolfgang Kleinwächter Chris Buckridge gave a quick update on the work being done by in the Council of Europe on a set of Principles for Internet Governance, particularly the conference held in April that brought together a wide range of stakeholders to discuss the issue. This work is ongoing. Maria Häll commended the important work being done by the Council of Europe. E. CSTD WG Update ? Nurani Nimpuno Nurani Nimpuno provided an overview of the work being done in the Working Group convened by the UN?s Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to examine ways to improve the IGF. While initially composed only of government representatives, there was a concerted push for greater multistakeholder involvement, and Nurani was selected as one of the five technical community representatives. Nurani noted that the initial meeting turned out to not be very substantive, though it was clear that there are very diverging views on the issues. A second meeting in Geneva also failed to produce a report, and the WG?s report will now be written by the Chair. The technical community representatives have stated their objection to this outcome, as it places this back in the hands of Member States alone. Nurani noted that the technical and business communities have failed to some extent in reaching out to the civil society stakeholders, and that better coordination between these groups will be important moving forward. Maria Häll noted that this whole process is an attempt to make the multistakeholder model work on a global level. Constanze Bürger noted that it was difficult to convince some in government of the value of participating in the IGF, but noted that the regional and national IGFs can be very useful in this regard. Nurani agree on the need to more effectively demonstrate the value of the IGF to all stakeholders. F. ICANN GAC Update - Maria Häll Maria Häll gave an update on the activities of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), noting that has grown to 109 members. The issue of new gTLDs has been the major area of activity for the GAC over recent months, and the GAC has been working with the Board and community to resolve a range of issues identified in a ?Scorecard?. Z. AOB Steve Nash noted that while there has clearly a lot of work going on in this area, the working group?s mailing list has been virtually silent, and it would be great to see more discussion on the list. Maria agreed, and noted the Working Group Co-Chairs will be working to improve this over the coming weeks and months. Wout de Natris pointed out that few government people were in attendance, and that the technical community members need to take these specific topics to their relevant government people and challenge them to take part. He also noted, in response to an earlier point from Malcolm Hutty, that the Internet poses one significant difference for law enforcement to their usual work: when you track someone down on the Internet, you may have to go to addresses where the actual perpetrator isn?t there, only a hosting provider with a command-and-control centre for that network. This has major implications for obtaining evidence, and establishing a framework for how this works is a role for government and law enforcement. Jim Reid noted that it is clear that government representatives are not taking part in RIPE Meetings in great numbers, and it might be necessary to change tack. He suggested that it might be useful for more community members to take part in the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings. Paul Rendek thanked Jim for the suggestion. He noted that while the Roundtable Meetings are deliberately closed, to facilitate government participation, it may be useful to invite more community members to contribute, and the RIPE NCC will look into this option. Maria Häll closed the meeting. Best, Patrik and Maria För miljöns skull ? skriv inte ut detta meddelande i onödan

1 0