- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

IXP Best Practice Forum
by Michael Oghia 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, Building on last year's IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on enabling environments for establishing successful IXPs <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/creating-an-e…>, this year's IXP BPF aims to identify success stories and list factors that can contribute to the development and success of IXPs as well as the broader Internet ecosystem. I am reaching out to the RIPE community in particular due to many of the efforts by both the community as well as RIPE NCC in promoting IXPs and interconnection in general <http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/consultation2015/Attachments/36/RIPE-NCC-IXP-IT…> . The IXP BPF is a consensus-driven, bottom-up, and inclusive collaborative effort, one that brings together professional expertise from across stakeholder groups in order to generate a practical, constructive, and relevant outcome document. We are currently soliciting feedback and brainstorming ideas, especially related to the scope and goals of this year's IXP BPF, and invite you to contribute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/144r3BIFX8QF6wg5m-QNdNfDcYHOVoic4fSMKYA4… . If you are not already involved, I encourage you to add suggestions to the document, share it among your networks, and contact Wim Degezelle, the IXP BPF project manager, or Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, one of our IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) coordinators, for more information or if you have any questions. Additionally, you can sign up for the mailing list at: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org. Kind regards, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

1 0

Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

Dear group members, This is a joint message by Julf and Achilleas. Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. We regret that Meredith and Collin decided to step down, we hope they will continue to follow the Workgroup and provide advice based on their experience and knowledge. We also ask for the support of the Group and the RIPE team, in order to fulfil the Group's objectives and have a successful meeting already in Madrid. To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). Best regards Julf and Achilleas From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:29 PM To: Jim Reid Cc: RIPE Co-operation WG Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Thanks, all, Jim, I appreciate your reiterating the process. The issue is, as I see it, that we've already gone through two rounds of this process, imperfect as they may have been, and pretending that "doing it again" will produce something "better" seems like a stretch. To review -- we have four candidates. These are: · Achilleas Kemos · Collin Anderson · Julf Helsingius · Analia Aspis Analia won't be able to make the RIPE meetings. So, while her experience is formidable and her voice very welcome on the list, she does not look like a good choice for Co-chair. That leaves us with three candidates. I know Collin, he has been a shadow chair in the past, helping organize and assemble WG sessions, and working on a number of policy and research issues in collaboration with RIPE community members. Achilleas brings considerable policy expertise, and can help bring policymakers from EC and otherwise into the RIPE community. This is a great asset. Julf is a last-minute candidate who is clearly invested and experienced. His tone is even-keeled, and by all accounts, he appears to be someone who'd be a pleasure to work with. So this is what I will do: given that I feel the years of work I've put into the Co-op WG are not being weighted or acknowledged, that many list members would prefer to see me reflect back their opinion passively than voice my own based on these years of experience, and given the increasing time-pressures I'm under in all other areas of life, I am going to step down. I will remain available to answer questions and help guide the process through Barcelona, but I will no longer be Co-chair. In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com<mailto:jim@rfc1035.com>> wrote: > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com<mailto:meredithrachel@google.com>> wrote: > > So, what do you suggest? It’s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG Meredith. That’s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation with the WG. However given where we are, here’s what I would do if I was in your shoes. Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn’t followed and things have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that never happened and start from scratch once more. There’s no point apportioning blame or playing “he said, she said” about what happened since that would not help. I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go beyond that by naming any personal preferences or “qualified candidates”. This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then there’s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last words... Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for nominees. When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it would be helpful to clearly state the dates when “nominations” close, when the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. hope this helps -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

The 5G consultation
by Gordon Lennox 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

This is sort of just for the record - because we are too late! There was another consultation: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/targeted-consultation-co… A short time-scale to respond and a a "targeted" consultation. So I guess they did not want to hear from individual experts and civil society. Which is a pity given that network neutrality is of interest to very many people and that much of the 5G community is clearly and publicly against network neutrality. They are arguing for the neutrality legislation to be relaxed and at the same time for public subsidies. Gordon

3 4

New on RIPE Labs: Internet Access Disruption In Turkey - July 2016
by Mirjam Kuehne 19 Jul '16

19 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, With the attempted coup in Turkey, reports went out about social media being throttled and/or blocked. We analysed data about this that we collected with RIPE Atlas and the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI). Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/internet-access-disruption-in-turke… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Open ITU consultation on the Internet
by Jim Reid 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

The ITU’s created an open consultation on "Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”. More details are here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-feb2016.aspx It might be worthwhile for this WG to submit something. Or ask our respective governments what sort of response, if any, they’re preparing.

3 2

Co-chairs - current status?
by Gordon Lennox 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort she put in. However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates for the positions of co-chair: • Achilleas Kemos • Collin Anderson • Julf Helsingius • Analia Aspis After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.” Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have settled down. Gordon

3 3

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6
by Corinne Cath 14 Jul '16

14 Jul '16

Dear all, I would like to echo the sentiments by Gordon and Julf. It is a great loss for the cooperation WG that Meredith has decided to step down, and I hope she reconsiders. I cannot speak for the group, but I want to say that her enthusiasm, experience and dedication will be sorely missed. Something we will all realize soon enough. The same holds for Collin's efforts and support to the WG. I hope the remaining candidates are not scared away by what seems to be politics with a very very tiny 'p', that have colored the discussions and going-ons of late in this WG. I also believe that we should move swiftly in putting in place new (co) chairs, and I support Gordon's suggestions on how to move forward. Best, Corinne Cath On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Co-chairs - current status? (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Meredith Whittaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:42:57 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has > done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort > she put in. > > However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates > for the positions of co-chair: > > ? Achilleas Kemos > ? Collin Anderson > ? Julf Helsingius > ? Analia Aspis > > After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint > Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.? > > Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and > whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. > > I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could > confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. > > We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have > settled down. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:59:26 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <5786574E.1050906(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > step down as she has done. > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > think we all agree that her contributions have been > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > to provide additional support and resources. > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > co-chairs for the WG. > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > their positions. > > Julf > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:51:22 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> > To: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > Cc: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: > < > CAHx-7Ow+6S+bwvM3p8yT_bdHctzju_PN3SDrkmKsEDHZZKC9QA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Julf, Gordon, > > Thank you for your kind words. > > I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although I appreciate the > entreaty. This due both to the climate on the WG list, and to my personal > workload, which was already making it very difficult to act as chair. Note > that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He has merely dedicated > his time and expertise to the group in the past. > > Thanks, > Meredith > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > > step down as she has done. > > > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > > think we all agree that her contributions have been > > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > > to provide additional support and resources. > > > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > > co-chairs for the WG. > > > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > > their positions. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC >

2 1

time-lines for co-chair appointments
by Jim Reid 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-) Could you please clarify matters? I have three questions: [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting. [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria? It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.

8 12

Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
by Peter Koch 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Johan Helsingius wrote: > I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, > but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) > to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are > people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. I feel that we have a significant confusion regarding the chairs' role and position. <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selectio…> is quite clear in stating that the two or three chairs are collectively chairing the goup, but the WG gets to decide (which is not unlike the other RIPE WGs). I have not received signals that the WG was accidentally off track with combining its choices. -Peter

1 0

Fwd: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Johan Helsingius 03 Jul '16

03 Jul '16

Just back from ICANN56 - and I am sure you all saw this announcement that Nick sent out. On Wednesday, RIPE (and the other RIRs) and ICANN signed the IANA Numbering Services SLA, so the work of the CRISP team is now done (and the team dissolved). At ICANN56 we also clarified some of the outstanding issues related to the post-transition IANA, and earlier in June NTIA published a report stating that their criteria for the transition have been fulfilled, so we are closer and closer to actually completing the transition - US politics willing... Julf -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:35:42 +0200 From: Nick Hyrka <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: ripencc-management(a)ripe.net Organization: RIPE NCC To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Helsinki, Finland – 29 June 2016. The RIRs and ICANN signed the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services today at ICANN 56 in Helsinki, Finland. This agreement documents the arrangements for provision by ICANN of IANA numbering services, after the IANA stewardship transition which is expected to occur on 30 September 2016. The SLA will only come into effect with the transition, and will have no effect whatsoever before that time. This event is a significant milestone in the long process of transition planning which started in March 2014 with US Government announcement. The process involved huge efforts by the Internet number community collectively, and by teams formed specifically to carry out the work. In particular the NRO Executive Council expresses its sincere thanks for the contribution by CRISP members during the last year and a half in the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. The CRISP Team worked tirelessly to integrate and consolidate the views from the five different regional communities into a single proposal. As the work of the CRISP team is now finally complete, we hereby announce that the team is formally dissolved. Finally the NRO EC also wishes acknowledge the support of the ICANN Board and staff who worked hard with us to finalise the SLA and ensure it was completed on time. The final version of the SLA is available at: http://www.nro.net/sla

1 0