- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: Scaling the Internet of Things? Not a Problem! (by Shane Kerr)
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Jun '16

30 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article by Shane Kerr on RIPE Labs talking about some challenges for the Internet of Things: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/shane/scaling-the-internet-of-things-not-a-pr… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Geoff Huston on the Open Internet
by Mirjam Kuehne 29 Jun '16

29 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new article by Geoff Huston on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/open-season?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-… It talks about the Open Internet and if public policy can help to preserve it. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20
by Corinne Cath 24 Jun '16

24 Jun '16

Dear all, I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects. I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup: The working group discusses the following: 1. The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are *not* to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg>. This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. 2. The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list> mailing list. 3. The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. 4. The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-464>, describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies> (PDP) itself. The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO <http://www.nro.net/>) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group. I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele? best, On Fri, Jun 24, 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. Re: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, > Issue 16 (Michael Oghia) > 2. Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:44:21 +0300 > From: Michael Oghia <mike.oghia(a)gmail.com> > To: Constanze.Buerger(a)bmi.bund.de > Cc: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>, Gordon Lennox > <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > Message-ID: > <CAMCMt7oat=fWQxn_kOub6cbdq1Mu_os172J3nWiHHb-d_= > oVxA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you for sharing this Constanze! > > Indeed, the more we work together, the more we will accomplish things. I am > sure of that. Collaboration is how we built the Internet, and and I firmly > believe collaboration and openness is how we will continue to ensure it > evolves in a way that is advantageous and beneficial to humanity. > > -Michael > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM, <Constanze.Buerger(a)bmi.bund.de> wrote: > > > We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: > > > > For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content ? we have the > > process. J > > > > > > > > For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: > > > > New role of public administration and governments > > > > > > > > The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only > > ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home > > with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 > solutions, > > worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. > > The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running > and > > we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. > About > > this communication way and the role of public administration in the > > community I told you last year. > > > > But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. > > > > The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are > > driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. > In > > hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but > we > > have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a > problem > > because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. > > > > So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts > > and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . > > > > . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social > > and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to > > figure out a new ?Thinking? and new ?Cooperation Forms?. > > > > Regards > > > > Constanze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Im > > Auftrag von *Michael Oghia > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 > > *An:* Gordon Lennox > > *Cc:* Cooperation WG > > *Betreff:* [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg > > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > > > > > > > > I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. > > > > > > > > My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact > > decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and > > once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are > > positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen > to > > listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work > > with diplomats and a lot of training with government. > > > > > > > > In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of > politics > > and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, > > etc. -- are still people. Just people. > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox < > gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I agree. > > > > One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question > and > > you get a response. > > > > But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is > > not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong > > disagreement about values. > > > > I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. > > Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour > > there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And > > it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > > > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > > > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > > > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > > > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > > > > > >

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16
by Corinne Cath 23 Jun '16

23 Jun '16

To those interested in the next steps of the Bildt report, I am will be attending a meeting organized by EU MEP Marietje Schaake next week. see: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2016/06/european-launch-of-our-internet-the-f… Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest. On Gordon's comments on the net of rights movie. I appreciate your thoughts and kind words, but I have to disagree with your assertion that it demonizes the Internet. I think the documentary does not demonize or blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its technical infrastructure. Best On Thu, Jun 23, 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. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Jim Reid) > 2. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Gordon Lennox) > 4. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) > 5. Copenhagen - The Movie! (Gordon Lennox) > 6. Re: Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity > offerings? (Alessandro Vesely) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:28:27 +0100 > From: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <F41783E4-5A03-4150-884C-DA44CC11EF69(a)rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > This is an interesting document. I?ve only skimmed through and not yet > read it in detail. > > Does anyone know what happens now? Will it be up for > discussion/consultation at some governance forum like WSIS or ICANN? How > can people and organisations comment on the report? > The motherhood and apple pie statements on page viii ("What Happens > Next??) are rather vague about next steps. > > In particular, what does > > > ?... conceive of a new model that embraces greater involvement of those > whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the > network and to exercise their fundamental rights online. This new vision of > ?multi-stakeholderism? requires a more collaborative, global and > decentralized model of decision making; enhanced coordination and > cooperation across institutions and actors; increased interoperability in > terms of identifying and describing issues and approaches for resolution > throughout the ecosystem; open information sharing and evidence- based > decision making; and expertise- or issue-based organization to allow for > both localization and scale in problem solving. > ... > To continue to be effective, Internet governance will need to be more > inclusive and more distributed.? > > actually mean in practice and where is this new vision/model to be > developed? > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:29:59 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <576AD927.8080404(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > > of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > document actually says. > > Julf > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:00:23 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <A0430C4C-B038-4B6B-A091-274C4706D187(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) > > I pointed to the article by Kieren which in turn points to the report. > > In order to encourage people to at least go and read what Kieren said I > supplied a couple of tasty ?nibbles? from his article. > > I had hoped that some people would then go on, as Jim has done, and look > at the actual report. > > :-) > > Gordon > > > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > >> Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > >> of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > > document actually says. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:04:35 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <576AE143.1090706(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) > > Ah, my apologies - I have been reading the original > report, but not Kieren's article, so I didn't realize > you were quoting him. > > Julf > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:54:13 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Copenhagen - The Movie! > Message-ID: <76D5EDAA-7FD3-47E3-A03F-09ED358465D6(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > For people who were ?not there? - either not in Copenhagen or just in > another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource. > > And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit > some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, > stuff perhaps of general interest. > > So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme. > > But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware > and that is the ?Net of Rights? video from the screening organised by > Corinne. > > https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/ > > Personal takeaways. > > The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the > presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is > that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the > Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and > there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence. > > There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with > governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a > useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard > contradiction there. We are not talking about ?evil regimes? elsewhere. We > are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very > large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are > obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. > ?Snoopers' charter" anyone? > > I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet?. That sends the > wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various > players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the > problem. I also don?t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly > somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not > know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those > who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had > several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. > Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get > it right? with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the > agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding > MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK. > > There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the > Internet technical communities, the ?techies? of the IETF and RIPE, were > politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That > does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in > Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned > and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA > interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was > friendly. > > A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by > the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation > from Chris for other possible directions. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:20:03 +0200 > From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely(a)tana.it> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet > connectivity offerings? > Message-ID: <576BA9C3.4070004(a)tana.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Thanks for all replies. I note none of them came from Italy or Spain... > > On Wed 22/Jun/2016 16:11:00 +0200 Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > > > Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is > something that > > is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the > > culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set > up a > > mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or > buy a > > postbox company in the Seychelles? > > There have been several privacy-safeguarding improvements in residential > connections. I welcome them. > > Requiring a VAT number is different, though. Every Italian citizen has a > fiscal code, which is as good as a VAT number for identification purposes. > Yet, after years, one of my connection providers still invoices me using my > expired VAT number. Could that be rooted in 11-digit VAT numbers vs > 16-byte > alphanumeric fiscal codes? Hmm... not in this millennium, I'd say. > > I'd rule out specific laws, because the other connection provider I have > did > switch to fiscal code invoicing upon request to do so. However, I doubt > they > would have offered me that contract if I hadn't have a VAT number at the > time. > > A third provider, who promised me everything over the phone last month, > retracted all /after having laid new fiber cables to my office/, saying > they > cannot do their "microbusiness" contract without VAT number. They > invoiced me > zero euro for missing the deal. > > Others just quit the conversation as they hear about no VAT number. Note > that > residential lines, which I use too, are somewhat cheaper for "physical > persons" > than for businesses. > > The only high level manager I spoke with dismissed the argument as obvious, > saying "Every provider does so". "You mean in Italy?!" I objected. He > said yes. > > > The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other > than > > that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that > companies > > try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone > number > > on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have > gotten > > an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in > the USA... > > Postmaster.live.com used to check enlisting requests by (also) writing to > WHOIS > contacts. Many methods can enforce one another. And yes, it is something > of a > pita to switch provider on a mail server. > > > The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same > thing > > as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should > give out a > > copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds > the > > same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security > when > > people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it > without > > questioning the legality of it. > > Agreed. BTW, bank payments, along with email addresses, make for trusted > IDs. > Erogo ergo sum. I don't think FB wants to gain the same level of > accountability as, say, PayPal, as an informal ID certifier. > > Ale > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath

6 9

Copenhagen - The Movie!
by Gordon Lennox 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

For people who were “not there” - either not in Copenhagen or just in another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource. And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, stuff perhaps of general interest. So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme. But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware and that is the “Net of Rights” video from the screening organised by Corinne. https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/ Personal takeaways. The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence. There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard contradiction there. We are not talking about “evil regimes” elsewhere. We are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. “Snoopers' charter" anyone? I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet”. That sends the wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the problem. I also don’t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get it right” with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK. There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the Internet technical communities, the “techies” of the IETF and RIPE, were politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was friendly. A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation from Chris for other possible directions. Gordon

1 0

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

22 Jun '16

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

3 4

The Working Group
by Gordon Lennox 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

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

5 7

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

20 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

20 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

11 Jun '16

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

1 0