- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

22 Jun '16

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

3 4

The Working Group
by Gordon Lennox 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

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

5 7

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

20 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

20 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

11 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

10 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

09 Jun '16

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

2 1

Co-chair attributes
by Gordon Lennox 06 Jun '16

06 Jun '16

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

3 2

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

05 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

02 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

02 Jun '16

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

11 22

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

01 Jun '16

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

2 2

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

01 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

26 May '16

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

3 3

New mailing list format
by Meredith Whittaker 26 May '16

26 May '16

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

1 0

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

26 May '16

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

2 1

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

26 May '16

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

5 7

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

26 May '16

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

4 6

Chairs of this wg
by Patrik Fältström 26 May '16

26 May '16

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

5 4

Choosing chairs
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

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

1 0

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

25 May '16

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

4 6

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

25 May '16

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

1 0

WTSA
by Patrik Fältström 24 May '16

24 May '16

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

2 1

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

23 May '16

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

1 0

eIDs
by Gordon Lennox 13 May '16

13 May '16

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

3 3