- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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