- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

09 May '13

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

1 0

WTPF in Geneva
by Patrik Fältström 06 May '13

06 May '13

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

3 12

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

03 May '13

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

1 0

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

01 May '13

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

1 0

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

01 May '13

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

2 1

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

26 Apr '13

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

8 8

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

26 Apr '13

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

2 2

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

23 Apr '13

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

1 0

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

22 Apr '13

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

2 1

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

17 Apr '13

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

2 5

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

16 Apr '13

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

1 0

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

26 Mar '13

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

1 0

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

21 Feb '13

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

1 0

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

20 Feb '13

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

1 0

New EU Cybersecurity Plan
by Gordon Lennox 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

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

1 0

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

13 Feb '13

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

1 0

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

13 Feb '13

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

2 1

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

13 Feb '13

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

2 2

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

01 Feb '13

1 0

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

01 Feb '13

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

4 3

CleanIT Update
by Brian Nisbet 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

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

2 1

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

05 Dec '12

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

1 0

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

06 Nov '12

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

2 1

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

19 Oct '12

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

1 0

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

09 Oct '12

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

1 0