- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Internet governance
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

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

7 22

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

24 Nov '13

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

3 2

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

24 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

22 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

20 Nov '13

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

1 1

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

19 Nov '13

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

5 10

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

19 Nov '13

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

1 1

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

12 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

11 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

08 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

08 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

07 Nov '13

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

6 5

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

07 Nov '13

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

5 5

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

05 Nov '13

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

3 2

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

05 Nov '13

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

3 6

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

05 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

04 Nov '13

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

2 1

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

04 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

30 Oct '13

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

2 1

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

30 Oct '13

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

1 0

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

29 Oct '13

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

1 0

Candidates
by Gordon Lennox 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

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

4 3

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

27 Oct '13

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

2 1

Barroso on ICTs
by Gordon Lennox 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

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

1 0

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

26 Oct '13

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

1 0