- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Co-chair attributes: some suggestions
by Jim Reid 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

A consensus seems to be emerging about who should join Meredith as co-chairs. I don’t want to derail that. In parallel to those deliberations, I think it would be helpful to suggest a list of essential or highly desirable qualities that a co-chair of this WG should have. The list below is a first attempt at that. Feel free to suggest others or disagree with these suggestions. It’s improbable that any one individual could hope to tick all of these boxes. That should be possible however when these qualities are spread across 2 or 3 people. The trick is finding the right balance of skills and experience. And I suppose deciding how to prioritise whatever set of requirements emerges: eg “foo is mandatory, bar is nice to have, foobar is highly desirable”. Meredith’s initial three criteria are no-brainers. But they do set the bar rather low. IMO the WG leadership needs to have more than those baseline qualities of being willing, able to attend and available. Here goes (in no particular order): 1) Roots in the RIPE Community 2) A good understanding of how things are done at RIPE (policy-making, consensus driven decision making, openness, lowest possible barriers to entry, inclusiveness, etc) 3) A good understanding of the NCC and its role in supporting RIPE and its WGs 4) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential roles other Internet institutions (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IGF, trade associations etc) along with an understanding how these institutions intersect with the RIPE community and how/when to best work with them 5) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential positions in government/regulatory circles 6) An appreciation of current legislation and regulation which affects the RIPE community 7) An understanding of future trends in 6) - like new EU Directives, stuff that might pop up from ITU, WCIT, etc and who is driving that 8) Able to engage with legislators and regulators about relevant technology/standards developments like IoT, 5G, IPv6 migration and the IPv4 run-out, crypto, RPKI, next generation broadband (whatever that might be) and so on 9) (Mostly) based in the RIPE service region 10) Ability to engage with government/regulatory policy-makers as well as those in other Internet institutions and represent the RIPE community in those fora

1 0

Press releases from European Commission, Brussels, 25 May 2016
by Gordon Lennox 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

The European Commission today tabled a package of measures to allow consumers and companies to buy and sell products and services online more easily and confidently across the EU. The European Commission today proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech better. http://europa.eu/rapid/latest-press-releases.htm

11 22

Details about the nature of my self-nomination as wg co-chair
by Analia Aspis 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

Dear group, I have been following the discussion related to co-chairs nominees. In order to let the group to know a bit more my profile and my commitement to the wg, here I go with some extra explanations: 1. "*One chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU)*" I am a South American academic but with a different profile from the classic academics. Since I did start with ICT policy issues, I have been very involved with CS and goverment, listening to their point of view so as to perform a more comprehensive understanding of policy development process. In general temrs, LatinAmericans always "watch and apply" policies from the "North". In this sense, I am very excited to be part of policy discussions, so as to understand and give my perspective from another point of view. 2. *WG involves outreach and bringing others into the community* In the same direction as pointed out above, definetively I would like to involve more specilist to RIPE community since I do feel that there are are still few understanding of RIPE's actions in many organizations from my region. I was one of them until the past months when I started silently to follow the discussion. I feel that it is now my moment to act actively and this does not mean to be the enemy of the done, conversly, it is adding a new dynamic. For sure I will need time to learn and understand the key points of the group, but all the challenges I had in life, this is a new one. 3. *We should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG* I think I can offer a comprehensive point of view of the issues, contribute to the understanding of the different backgrounds and situations. Moreover, I do consider the research as a unique opportunity to enhance her research work across Latin America and to start an active network not only in the region but collaborate worldwide. I do have strong experience in tasks related to assist in the design, execution and analysis on different research project, write about different themes of IT and IG, coordinate mutlistakeholder, attend and speak in conferences related to governance and politics, being always updated with the current mission of international agencies which work with technology and teaching about IT from different points of view, including legal, technical and social aspects, teach about internet issues, of course including all the fields related to ICANN, IGF, ITU, and other organizations, relationships between domain names and commercial law, dispute resolutions, social developments among others and organize seminars within my Research Center to promote and study IG issues Finally, you can check out my whole profile here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15w3r3fVETcOHhJemRJSnIyeUk/view?usp=shari… ..... Kind regards, Analía Aspis

2 2

Signature Draft of IANA Numbering Services SLA
by Athina Fragkouli 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, In the interest of transparency, the Number Resource Organization has published an update on progress made on development of the Service Level Agreement between the IANA Numbering Services Operator (ICANN) and the five Regional Internet Registries. A draft 5.2 is now publicly available, and is considered a “signature draft”. This RIRs expect that this SLA will be signed by all parties at the same time frame as the rest of the accountability measures approved by the ICANN Board. https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5-2-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-t… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

For meeting attendees -- relevant BoF this evening
by Meredith Whittaker 26 May '16

26 May '16

[If you're not attending the RIPE meeting in person, you can stop reading now] Hi those at the meeting, I wanted to draw your attention to a BoF happening this evening that may be of interest. Corinne Cath, Oxford Researcher and repeat RIPE attendee (CCed), will be screening a short film that explores how Internet protocols and standards can be architected (or not) to promote Human Rights. - *What: *Movie Screening and Beer BOF: "Net of Rights" - *When: *6pm/17:00 this evening - *Where:* Tutorial Room (to the left of the main room, along the far-left wall across from the espresso cart) Clearly, this is a topic that falls right into the remit of cooperation, and the concomitant challenges of thinking through the social, political, and technical at once. I believe many of you will enjoy it. Oh, and THERE WILL BE FREE BEER. Thanks! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

3 3

New mailing list format
by Meredith Whittaker 26 May '16

26 May '16

Hi all, Mihnea, CCed, approached me early to discuss the new RIPE Forum mailing list format. A test list, where you can see format and UX, is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-forum-test More information is below. I am very happy with this format, and believe that implementation will increase the ease of communication on the list. However, before it's deployed, I want to make sure the community has a chance to weigh in. Please direct any questions and comments to Mihnea. Best, Meredith *More information on the new RIPE Forum design and deployment, from Mihnea: * Dear colleagues, There’s a new way to participate on the RIPE Working Group mailing lists! Introducing the RIPE Forum, a web-based interface for reading and sending emails on RIPE community mailing lists. We developed the RIPE Forum in-house based on feedback we received from members of the RIPE community who wanted the option to interact and share information in a more modern way. But it’s important to note that this new interface is completely optional – those who like using the established mailing list system can continue on as they always have, and won’t notice any difference. Several weeks ago the RIPE Forum was deployed on the RIPE Atlas mailing list as a pilot. The test was a success with no major issues detected and very positive comments were received from users. We have presented the results to the Working Group chairs and it was decided to deploy the RIPE Forum to all RIPE Working Group mailing lists. We invite you have a look yourself: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ We created a special mailing list for testing purposes, so that any conversations about the platform itself can be contained there without disrupting the regular flow of discussions on the Working Group mailing lists. Feel free to send test messages and try out the RIPE Forum on this special list. https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-forum-test If you’d like to learn more about how the forum works or the background behind the project, please take a look at this RIPE Labs article that was published for the pilot phase: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/introducing-the-ripe-forum The forum is still in "beta" status – there might be still some bugs and we are continuously working to improve things, so please keep that in mind while exploring the forum. You can give your feedback by clicking on the “Report a bug” button on the forum, or leave a comment on the above RIPE Labs article. We hope you’ll enjoy the RIPE Forum, and look forward to your feedback! -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

Vb: Re: On the Nature of WG Chairs...
by Maud.Karlberg＠vll.se 26 May '16

26 May '16

Hi! Can you please take me away from this sendlist? Maud Karlberg Vänliga hälsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr Västerbottens läns landsting 901 85 Umeå 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik ----- Vidarebefordrat av Maud Karlberg/US/VLL/SE på 2016-05-26 15:34 ----- Från: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> Till: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> Kopia: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> Datum: 2016-05-26 15:04 Ärende: Re: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... Sänt av: "cooperation-wg" <cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> Brian, this is an excellent point. The perfect should not be the enemy of the done, and we should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG. Discussion of what these qualities are is productive and welcome, of course. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com > wrote: I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" more. Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for obvious reasons. I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something for the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

2 1

On the Nature of WG Chairs...
by Brian Nisbet 26 May '16

26 May '16

Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/

5 7

Status on co-chairs process?
by Gordon Lennox 26 May '16

26 May '16

Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning. The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not have the time this topic required during the session. I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process. I still think though that we should keep with published the process. This is where I think we are: * the chair requests candidates. Done. * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. On-going? I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this weekend? ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. ** the chair announces the consensus. I see no need to rush this any faster. Do people agree? I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. Gordon

4 6

Chairs of this wg
by Patrik Fältström 26 May '16

26 May '16

All, I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair. I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a responsibility in the RIPE PDP. I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU). And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability. I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not want to be alone. But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct people, and not because we must have two co-chairs. I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment. Patrik

5 4

Choosing chairs
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

In advance of any discussion we will have on the choice of new co-chairs I have looked again at the process as drafted by Meredith. I still think it is OK. It might be word-smithed a little in the future, not to change the ideas but to make it a little bit more robust. But that is not urgent. And anyway I don’t think anyone in the community is going to start counting commas. Looking at what is going on elsewhere it was nice to see that at least one other WG adopted Meredith’s text! But looking wider I see words like elections, consensus, decisions. I don’t think there is conflict. But here is my take. We have tended to avoid elections as we don’t have a nice list of people who are eligible to vote and anyway the folk active on mailing lists are also important. We tend to go instead for consensus. But maybe to point out the obvious somebody has to decide that there is consensus. That decision is perhaps the most important job of a chair / co-chair. And if they ever get it wrong people ought to make that clear and the conversation can then continue. That is basically again what Meredith proposed. Getting consensus can though take time. So a quick “show of hands” can be useful for certain quick decisions. But maybe not for the choice of WG chairs. There are though other situations where we vote - obviously when we have a list of those eligible to vote but also where there is no chair to make the call. That is the situation we will have when we decide on the RIPE chair. So consensus within the WG but voting at the level of RIPE? And so no conflict? Gordon

1 0

European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

Please look at full press release for some more details. Snippets follow: Commission proposes new e-commerce rules to help consumers and companies reap full benefit of Single Market - Brussels, 25 May 2016 The European Commission today tabled a package of measures to allow consumers and companies to buy and sell products and services online more easily and confidently across the EU. Today’s e-commerce package is composed of: • A legislative proposal to address unjustified geoblocking and other forms of discrimination on the grounds of nationality, residence or establishment; • A legislative proposal on cross-border parcel delivery services to increase the transparency of prices and improve regulatory oversight; • A legislative proposal to strengthen enforcement of consumers' rights and guidance to clarify, among others, what qualifies as an unfair commercial practice in the digital world. The proposed revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation will give more powers to national authorities to better enforce consumer rights. They will be able to: • check if websites geo-block consumers or offer after-sales conditions not respecting EU rules (e.g. withdrawal rights); • order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; • request information from domain registrars and banks to detect the identity of the responsible trader. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1887_en.htm

4 6

Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

Please look at the press release for more details. Snippets follow: Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms - Brussels, 25 May 2016 The European Commission today proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech better. This proposal also reflects a new approach to online platforms, addressing challenges in different areas. As part of its Digital Single Market strategy, today the Commission presented an updated Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD); the common rules which have governed audiovisual media, ensured cultural diversity and the free circulation of content in the EU for almost 30 years. Nowadays viewers do not only watch video content via their TV channels but also increasingly via video-on-demand services (such as Netflix and MUBI) and video-sharing platforms (such as YouTube and Dailymotion). This is why the Commission wants to achieve a better balance of the rules which today apply to traditional broadcasters, video-on-demand providers and video-sharing platforms, especially when it comes to protecting children. The revised AVMSD also strengthens the promotion of European cultural diversity, ensures the independence of audiovisual regulators and gives more flexibility to broadcasters over advertising. This proposal reflects the new approach of the Commission towards online platforms - like online marketplaces, search engines, payment systems, social media, video and content-sharing sites. Since the launch of the Digital Single Market strategy in May 2015, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the social and economic role of these new players. Today the Commission concluded that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach was not appropriate for consumers to benefit from the opportunities and for the rules to meet the different challenges posed by the very diverse types of online platforms. Based on this approach, the Commission will look at each area where it can act, from telecoms to copyright rules, to address any specific problems in a future-proof way for all market players. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1873_en.htm

1 0

WTSA
by Patrik Fältström 24 May '16

24 May '16

Hi, As we are moving into a new ITU planning cycle, with specifically WTSA later during 2016 that sets the Study Groups, it is important that we all decide what organization we would like to deal with what issues. To help with this preparatory work ISOC have created this document that I think makes it quite clear what issues might come up: <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/itu-world-telecommunication-standardizat…> One of the main reasons I think this is important is that we have a terrible experience when ITU-T started to discuss MPLS related issues, something already dealt with in the IETF and we can not have the same overlap between organizations again. Because of this, now is the time to ensure ITU-T do not bring up issues already dealt with in other organizations, and in a similar way we should not redo in non-ITU-T environments things dealt with in ITU-T. I for example think it is of ultimate importance that any IP address policy (of any shape or form) is deal with in the RIRs. And not in any ITU-T study group. And I ask whether this WG is where coordination in the RIPE Community can take place? Patrik

2 1

Update on EU Platform Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 23 May '16

23 May '16

>From Politico: *14 GOVERNMENTS WRITE TO REJECT ‘ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL’ PLATFORM REGULATION: * The governments believe an EU regulation of Internet platform would “hamper innovation.” They would like to see more ambitious digital single market proposals from the Commission, and a “positive approach.” The U.K. and Poland head the list of signatories. Germany, France, Italy, Spain did not join. http://politi.co/1NEYNKN <http://politico.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e26c1a1c392386a968d02fdbc…>

1 0

eIDs
by Gordon Lennox 13 May '16

13 May '16

We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. Now here is the UK take: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introdu… If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to share. (I am not sure why I wrote “nice” there.) :-) Gordon

3 3

Call for co-chair nominations
by Meredith Whittaker 12 May '16

12 May '16

This is the thread where I, as Chair, officially call for Coop-WG co-chair nominees to identify yourselves, and provide a bit of background about who you are and why you'd bring energy and great content to the Coop-WG. Per the process, we'll leave this open for two weeks. I encourage discussion, questions, and and other productive activity that helps you get to know the nominees on this thread. Thanks, Meredith -- currently the sole Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

5 5

New on RIPE Labs: The Internet for Things
by Mirjam Kuehne 11 May '16

11 May '16

Dear colleagues, Please see this new RIPE Labs article by Byron Ellacott, Senior Software Architect at APNIC: The Internet of Things without the Internet is just things, and we’ve had things since the first caveman used a pointy stick to draw on a wall. What then does the Internet bring to things to justify a capital T? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/the-internet-for-things?pk_campaign=la… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation to the CRISP call 10th May UTC1300 Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12]
by Nurani Nimpuno 10 May '16

10 May '16

FYI. (Apologies for the very late notice.) Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation to the CRISP call 10th May UTC1300 Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] > Date: 10 maj 2016 10:43:07 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > FYI. Anyone is welcome to attend the coming call as an observer as usual. > > > Izumi > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] > Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:07:09 -0400 > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > To: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > CC: crisp(a)nro.net > > Dear CRISP Team > > Please find the webex details below > > Unfortunately I’ll be in transit by the time of the call. I’ll ask ARIN staff to support the meeting. > > Regards > > German > > > CRISP Meeting > Tuesday, May 10, 2016 > 1:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 1 hr > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m997f5f40cb1b5a93229a05efc0a19… > Meeting number: 704 589 239 > Meeting password: crisp > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 704 589 239 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=461171… > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties
by Meredith Whittaker 05 May '16

05 May '16

Hi Co-op WG, Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selectio…> for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy community as well as the network research community, and is frequently consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging policy considerations with technology issues. Thanks, Meredith Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

6 17

Co-Chair Nominations Introduction (Anderson)
by Collin Anderson 05 May '16

05 May '16

Hi Cooperation WG community – I'm Collin Anderson, an independent network researcher based out of Washington, D.C. I had reached out to Meredith about the possibility of more active participation previously but had suspected this introduction would arise in Copenhagen, so I apologize then for not reaching out through the list first to make a case for myself. I have attended the last four RIPE Meetings, presented at two of those meetings in the Coop WG [1][2], been a supportive resource in the planning of three of those sessions, and have an earlier history of interacting with the RIPE Atlas platform in pursuit of public interest issues [3]. Those presentations and papers are representative of my background and involvements (cda.io) – the nexus of the Internet, its architecture and public policy, with an interest in accessibility and security. A substantial portion of my time is dedicated to Measurement Lab, however, I also collaborate with a broader range of NGOs and academic institutions on producing research on these issues in Europe and the United States. Hence Coop WG is interesting to me because it is where all of the issues that RIPE maintains expertise in comes into more uncertain questions of external application (from my perspective at least). Outside of this, the question of how I would make an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community is particularly relevant. I'm specifically interested in the Coop WG being a mechanism of inclusion for local communities – by the virtue of the rotation of the meetings across the region there is an opportunity to bring in representatives of the NGO and public sector that wouldn't otherwise have the means or awareness to come to RIPE. So more local presence outside of generous sponsorships of much needed coffee baristas. My research has always attempted to support the pairing of technical expertise with local impact and local communities that wouldn't otherwise have access to those resources, and I believe that this principle would be a mechanism for Coop WG to fulfill its mission. So, my ambition would be to support conversations like the eID thread that seems to be the most active discussion on Coop-WG in a year, but also to bring in people that wouldn't otherwise have access to this community – but who should interact and will be novel to form connections with. I would be a generative resource because I happen to have some of these relationships by virtue of my mode of operation professionally, but also because I am personally motivated toward that objective. I would be happy to answer any questions here (on-thread or off-thread) or in Denmark in a couple of weeks, and my apologies again for the misstep. Cordially, Collin Anderson [1] https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10079/ [2] https://ripe71.ripe.net/archives/video/1176/ [3] https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci14/workshop-program/presentation/ande…

2 1

Elephants and eIDs
by Gordon Lennox 02 May '16

02 May '16

Some people here may remember the presentation on eIDs at a previous RIPE meeting. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process A draft Commission document which mentions eIDs has recently been “leaked”. http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Platforms-Communication.p… See in particular the top of page 12. I understand from folk within the bubble (the Brussels/EU bubble) that this kind of thing is now seen as a way of testing the reaction of experts, of those really interested, before proceeding. So any prompt reaction, and this could be individual reactions rather than the reactions of organisations, may be useful. Indeed any reaction now may more useful than when the Commission has taken a formal position on the proposal and when the services are naturally obliged to defend it. This item from The Register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/eu_login_youtube_national_id_card/ - would suggest that one person to write to is the Estonian Commissioner. Regards, Gordon

6 14

New on RIPE Labs: Broadband Services and Infrastructure Mapping
by Mirjam Kuehne 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Dear colleagues, Please find on RIPE Labs a short report about a conference on Broadband Services and Infrastructure Mapping, where a number of interesting mapping projects were presented. My colleague Emile Aben attended and presented RIPE Atlas: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/broadband-services-and-infrastructu… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Net Futures 2016
by Gordon Lennox 24 Apr '16

24 Apr '16

Last week saw Net Futures 2016 in Brussels. http://netfutures2016.eu/ A good opportunity to hear people like Andrus Ansip - Vice-President & Commissioner for Digital Single Market, Günther Oettinger - Commissioner for Digital Economy & Society, Lise Fuhr - Director General of ETNO, Mats Granryd - GSMA Director General and so on; people you tend not to get all together in the same place that often. There are various videos available and I have been told slide-packs may be available soon. But I can recommend a look at the speeches given by the two Commissioners: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/ansip/announcements/speech-given-… https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-s… It was interesting how various ideas were presented. The current “consumer Internet” versus the future “industrial Internet”. The perceived need to move from "one size fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the different requirements of different vertical sectors, and that can deliver "guaranteed and ubiquitous quality of service”. The tying together of “things" with 5G. So a “thing” is something with one or more sim’s? And so it is somehow tied to mobile operator? And anyway 5G does almost everything? And so on. I could recommend going to Net Futures 2017! Gordon

2 2

Cruz and Co Send ICANN Another Letter
by Gordon Lennox 06 Apr '16

06 Apr '16

<< Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz (and others) has sent yet another letter to ICANN. This time round, the letter is addressed both to the Chairman of the ICANN Board, Dr Steve Crocker, as well as to former CEO Fadi Chehadé. The letter repeats some of the questions previously put to ICANN, though the wording is much blunter this time round. . . . >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160405_cruz_and_co_send_icann_another_lette…

5 6

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Nurani Nimpuno 02 Apr '16

02 Apr '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 2 April 2016 at 01:41:32 GMT+2 > To: ianaxfer(a)nro.net > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > > Dear Colleagues, > > > The CRISP Team has reviewed the 5th Draft SLA, and we observe no inconsistencies observed with the number community proposal, i.e., the ICG proposal,including the changes made from the 4th Draft. > > Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… > > The focus of our review remains unchanged, and we primarily reviewed whether the SLA sufficiently covers the following four key elements of the number community proposal. > > * Service level requirements of the IANA Numbering Services are clearly defined to meet the expectations of the RIRs and the Internet numbers community > * The RIRs, and the Internet number Community through the Review Committee are able to conduct review of the service level, to ensure the service level is met in accordance with the SLA > * The RIRs have the ability to terminate the SLA, while at the same time ensuring the stability of the IANA Numbering Services, in accordance with the number community proposal > * The IPR and rights over data are transferred, in accordance with the number community proposal > > We would like to thank RIRs and ICANN for developing the 5th Draft in timely manner, and sharing it in a continued transparent manner with Internet number community. > For accountability of the SLA to be based on the ICG proposal with support from the community, it is our expectation that the completion of this SLA will continue to take place in such a transparent and open manner. > > As we have expressed in our review for the 4th Draft, as SLA provides the Internet number community with its required accountability measures on IANA Numbering Services, it must be considered as an essential commitment along with other improvements to ICANN’s accountability. While the SLA will have no effect until the transition actually takes place on 30 September 2016, it should be finalsed and signed, no later than the finalised changes to the ICANN Bylaws which have been specified by CCWG-accountability. > > It is our understanding and expectation that, the next version, reflecting feedback from the public comment by NRO until 15th April will be the final version of the SLA. > We trust the RIRs and ICANN continue to work constructively and transparently to finalise an SLA that respects the wishes of the number community including the timeline of its finalisation. > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Notice of Intent - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition
by Gordon Lennox 27 Mar '16

27 Mar '16

<< The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) intends to award on a sole source basis under authority of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 13.5-Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items (FAR 13.501) to the contractor, President and Fellows of Harvard College (Berkman Center), as the only capable source that can provide an independent review and assessment of a non-profit corporate governance structure designed for a multistakeholder setting in support of NTIA's broader evaluation and assessment of the proposal to enhance the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN's) accountability related to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition. The President and Fellows of Harvard College (Berkman Center) shall provide experts with experience and proven capability to perform an independent review and assessment of a non-profit corporate governance structure designed for a multistakeholder setting. This requires professional services of a unique, technical, and highly-skilled nature including through understanding of ICANN and it procedures and processes, multistakeholder approaches and processes, data analysis, and the Internet domain name system (DNS). Congress has mandated the review prior to NTIA transitioning it's stewardship of certain Internet technical functions to the global multistakeholder community, which is to be completed by June 30, 2016. . . . >> https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=bfc9cbacbbeb27a0ff16b3…

1 0

Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Call
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Mar '16

23 Mar '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP team Begin forwarded message: > From: Michael Abejuela <mabejuela(a)arin.net> > Date: 22 March 2016 at 20:08:39 GMT+1 > To: "crisp(a)nro.net" <crisp(a)nro.net> > Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Call > > Hello CRISP Team, > > The agenda for tomorrow’s call as well as Webex info is as follows: > > 1) ICANN55 Update and General Timelines > 2) Congressional Hearing > 3) SLA ver.5 review > 4) Other Implemenetation Status > a. IPR - Principal Terms > b. Review Committee - Members > 5) Reflection on the work completed overall > > > CRISP 2016 > > Wednesday, March 23, 2016 | 1:00 pm Greenwich Time (GMT) > > > Meeting number: 706 686 549 > Meeting password: crisp > > meeting link: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m0fd481c84ca42ec84567cf1a9328f > c89 > > > Audio connection: > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > > Global call-in numbers > https://ripencc.webex.com/cmp3000/webcomponents/widget/globalcallin/globalc > allin.do?siteurl=ripencc&serviceType=MC&eventID=446021207&tollFree=1 > > Show toll-free dialing restrictions > https://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > Access code: 706 686 549 > > > > > Call-in toll number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 > Call-in toll-free number (UK) > 0800-051-3810 > Australia toll > +61 29037 1692 > Australia toll free > 1800-658203 > Austria toll > +43 125 302 1542 > Austria toll free > 0800-297252 > Belgium toll > +32 2894 8317 > Belgium toll free > 0800-77651 > Brazil toll free > 0800-892-2411 > Bulgaria toll free > 00800-118-1100 > Canada toll > +1-416-915-9997 > Canada toll free > +1-855-818-5031 > China North toll free > 10800-714-1693 > China South toll free > 10800-140-1727 > Croatia toll free > 0800-223231 > Czech Republic toll > +420 2288 82827 > Czech Republic toll free > 800-701364 > Denmark toll > +45 3272 7723 > Denmark toll free > 8088-7006 > Estonia toll free > 800-0100348 > Finland toll > +358 931 584349 > Finland toll free > 0800-915086 > France toll > +33 17091 8646 > France toll free > 0800-9-19312 > Germany toll > +49-(0)6925511-4400 > Germany toll free > 0800-187-3683 > Greece toll free > 00800-1612-20-35535 > Hong Kong toll > +852 5808 1922 > Hong Kong toll free > 800-966347 > Hungary toll > +36 1700 8735 > Hungary toll free > 06-800-19550 > Iceland toll free > 800-9381 > India toll free > 000-800-100-8171 > Indonesia toll free > 001-803-016-3552 > Ireland toll > +353 152600 58 > Ireland toll free > 1-800-947178 > Israel toll free > 1-80-9453550 > Italy toll > +39 0230410 440 > Italy toll free > 800-870552 > Japan toll > +81 34580 8156 > Japan toll free > 0053-11-61212 > Latvia toll free > 800-04229 > Lithuania toll free > 8800-30854 > Luxembourg toll > +352 208 81750 > Luxembourg toll free > 800-27323 > Malaysia toll free > 1-800-815775 > Mexico toll free > 001-800514-5545 > Morocco toll free (002-11-0011) > 800-708-0263 > Netherlands toll > +31 20794 7996 > Netherlands toll free > 0800-022-3497 > New Zealand toll > +64 9929 1742 > New Zealand toll free > 0800-459104 > Norway toll > +47 2103-5854 > Norway toll free > 800-16930 > Poland toll > +48-22295-3597 > Poland toll free > 00-800-112-4312 > Portugal toll free > 8008-27739 > Romania toll free > 0800-895796 > Russia toll > +7 4952 217144 > Russia toll free > 88-00100-9439 > Senegal toll free > 800-708-0263 > Singapore toll > +65 3158 1415 > Singapore toll free > 800-101-2597 > Slovakia toll free > 0800-606-563 > South Africa Toll > +27 11019 7059 > South Africa toll free > 0800-983983 > South Korea toll free > 00798-14-203-3552 > Spain toll > +34 91791 1283 > Spain toll free > 900-93-7920 > Sweden toll > +46 85051 3563 > Sweden toll free > 020-79-7912 > Switzerland toll > +41 43456 9564 > Switzerland toll free > 0800-894627 > Taiwan toll free > 00-801-127320 > Thailand toll free > 001-800-156203-5535 > USA/Canada toll > +1 631 267 4890 > USA/Canada toll free > 1-855-299-5224 > > > > > -- > Michael R. Abejuela > Associate General Counsel > ARIN > 3635 Concorde Parkway > Suite 200 > Chantilly, VA 20151 > (703) 227-9875 (p) > (703) 263-0111 (f) > mabejuela(a)arin.net > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, copy, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. > _______________________________________________ > CRISP mailing list > CRISP(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp

1 0

Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Dear Colleagues, FYI - Please find below the latest NRO announcement regarding the Fifth version of the draft SLA. https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC ===== UPDATED FIFTH DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv5) AND CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 17 March 2016 Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v2 A third draft of the SLA was published on 30 October 2015 and invited ICANN legal staff to provide comments by November 30th 2015. The third draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v3 A fourth draft of the SLA was published on 25 February and invited ICANN to move forward to signing the SLA. The fourth draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v4 Fifth Draft SLA As a result of ICANN comments on the fourth draft and additional feedback received at meetings during ICANN 55 in Marrakech, a fifth draft of the SLA has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla The SLAv5 is open for public comments. Comments can be sent to IANAXFER mailing list at https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer. The deadline for comments is April 15th 2016. For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv5 against the fourth draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments on SLAv5 and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/slav4-comments In accordance with the transparency commitment to our the community, we share the exchange of a clear track of comments between ICANN and RIR staff working towards a final SLA document. About the Fifth Draft SLA The fifth draft of the SLA has been developed by a team consisting of individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv5 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA,informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA, and ICANN’s written comments regarding the third and fourth draft SLA. It is written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs collective actions and responsibilities in its dealings with ICANN under the SLA. It also includes background and definitions. The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps The RIRs thank the community and ICANN staff for its thoughtful comments and now publish this SLAv5 in the interest of transparency and keeping the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We trust that all comments and concerns have been addressed and that the current draft, SLAv5, represents a mutually acceptable SLA that is consistent with the principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal. We invite public comments as we approach the final version, which will be signed with ICANN/IANA as part of the IANA Transition planning process and will take effect upon release of their existing agreement with NTIA. _______________________________________________

1 0

IANA Stewardship Transition Moves to Final Phase
by Nick Hyrka 15 Mar '16

15 Mar '16

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). —————————————————————————————————— IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION MOVES TO FINAL PHASE 11 March 2016, Marrakech, Morocco – An historic proposal for the global community to assume stewardship of the IANA functions, produced after nearly two years of work by the global Internet community, has been delivered to the U.S. Government for its consideration. The proposal would remove U.S. Government oversight over a set of fundamental Internet administrative functions, including management of the global pool of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and Autonomous System Numbers), and replace it with a set of arrangements for community-based oversight. The proposal, developed by the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), is based on input from three operational communities, including the Internet Number Community (those with an interest in the global management of Internet number resources). The contributions of the Internet Number Community were coordinated via a Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team made up of community members drawn from each of the five RIR regions. CRISP Team Chair Izumi Okutani said: “The discussions that have taken place over the last two years have been a showcase for the kind of bottom-up, community-driven processes that are a central feature of the Internet Number Community. This approach has been fundamental in making the Internet a truly global resource. It is very satisfying to see the input of so many stakeholders explicitly reflected in the ICG’s proposal, and I believe that the solution presented here successfully meets the needs of the Internet Number Community, and of all IANA stakeholders.” The ICG proposal includes mechanisms for stewardship of the number-related IANA functions, as developed by the Internet Number Community. These mechanisms include a contractual Service Level Agreement signed by the RIRs (as stewards of these functions) and ICANN (as the entity responsible for management of the functions). More information on this aspect of the proposal is available here: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/about-the-pr… While the ICG published the final draft of its proposal in October 2015, elements of the proposal relied upon the adoption of a set of recommendations regarding the accountability of ICANN to its community. These recommendations were developed separately by a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) and were adopted by the ICANN Board at its meeting this week in Marrakech, Morocco. The Board was at that point able to pass on both the ICG and CCWG documents to the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Government. “The events of this week, here at ICANN 55 in Marrakech, represent another significant step in the long process to better operationalize the global community’s shared stewardship of the IANA functions,” said Number Resource Organization Chair and LACNIC CEO Oscar Robles. “We have not reached the end of this process yet, and we respect the attention that the U.S. Government must give to this proposal before making what will be a historic decision. At this point though, we recognize the achievement that this proposal represents: a huge, global community of people from different sectors and stakeholder groups has achieved agreement on a complex plan to achieve something of huge importance. It is something about which we, as a community, should feel justifiably proud, and it is a testament to the effectiveness of the multistakeholder model. The Regional Internet Registries have publicly supported the progressive steps taken by the U.S. Government over the years to reduce its oversight of global Internet administrative functions. Since the NTIA’s announcement in 2014, we have been pleased to help facilitate our communities’ contributions to this important IANA stewardship transition process. We now stand ready to work with ICANN and all of the IANA stakeholders towards full implementation of the ICG and CCWG proposals.” The U.S. Government will now review the proposal to ensure that it meets the criteria set out by the NTIA when they first announced their intention, in March 2014, to pass stewardship of the IANA functions to the global community. If approved, the RIRs and ICANN will continue their work towards implementation of the proposal, which will be completed prior to the expiration of ICANN’s current contract with NTIA in September 2016.

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: The Regulatory Conditions of IP Interconnection
by Mirjam Kuehne 14 Mar '16

14 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, Please find a new RIPE Labs article submitted by Uta Meier-Hahn: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/uta_meier_hahn/the-regulatory-conditions-of-i… This is a follow-up of her earlier work on "Internet Interconnection: Networking in Uncertain Terrain". Abstract: Internet interconnection has often been described as an unregulated field. However, local public regulation is starting to emerge – be it through disclosure regulations, mandatory peering or licensing terms. Due to the networked nature of the internet, local rules may acquire a global scope. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Survey on Internet governance in South East Europe
by Chris Buckridge 07 Mar '16

07 Mar '16

Dear colleagues, I’m forwarding a request for people in South East Europe to participate in an online survey on Internet governance. The data collected will be compiled and reflected in a report to the SEEDIG meeting on 22 April 2016 in Belgrade: http://www.seedig.net/seedig-survey/ From the call for participation: > We are trying, through this survey, to get a better understanding of how Internet governance, in general, and Internet governance issues and processes, in particular, are perceived by the Internet community in South Eastern Europe and the neighbouring area (SEE). It covers aspects such as: interest and participation in IG processes and organizations (motivation, challenges, opportunities), Internet-related issues considered as most pressing at national level and in SEE, degree of satisfaction with national, regional and global IG mechanisms, etc. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Nurani Nimpuno 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Team review of the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > Date: 4 mars 2016 14:37:53 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > The CRISP Team has reviewed the Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services. > > Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services > https://www.nro.net/news/updated-4th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… > > Firstly, we would like to thank both ICANN and RIRs for sharing all comments and updates on the SLA from its Third Draft in a continued transparent manner with Internet number community. It is our expectation that the completion of this SLA will continue to take place in such a transparent and open manner. > > We observe that the 4th Draft SLA is consistent with the number community proposal and we support the comments made by RIR staff in working towards a final SLA document, addressing the feedback received from ICANN. > We have primarily reviewed whether the SLA sufficiently covers the following four key elements of the number community proposal. > > * Service level requirements of the IANA Numbering Services are clearly defined to meet the expectations of the RIRs and the Internet numbers community > * The RIRs, and the Internet number Community through the Review Committee are able to conduct review of the service level, to ensure the service level is met in accordance with the SLA > * The RIRs have the ability to terminate the SLA, while at the same time ensuring the stability of the IANA Numbering Services, in accordance with the number community proposal > * The IPR and rights over data are transferred, in accordance with the number community proposal > > In particular, we support the NRO revisions numbered below, which are required to ensure consistency with the CRISP proposal. The previously proposed text, without the NRO revisions addressing ICANN's feedback, would be inconsistent with the number community proposal as well as the final ICG proposal, and therefore not acceptable to the Internet number community. > > https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/Draft-SLA_v3-comments-ICANN-20160223… > > Source 15: 8.1- Periodic Review > Source 16: 8.2- Cooperation with review > Source 17: 9- Failure to Perform > Source 20: 10.3 Right not to renew > Source 24: 11.1 - Submission of a plan (* The RIR Lawyer Comment says 11.2.1 - could it be a typo?) > Source 35: 11.2 - Transition to Successor Operator > Source 26: 12.1 - Assignment of IPR and rights to Data > > In addition, we wish to remind the community that the SLA provides the Internet number community with its required accountability measures, which are clearly represented within the number community proposal; and it is therefore essential to the CRISP support for the IANA transition plan. > > The SLA will have no effect until the transition actually takes place on 30 September 2016, however it must be considered as an essential commitment along with other improvements to ICANN’s accountability. In particular the SLA should be executed or otherwise guaranteed, no later than the execution of changes to the ICANN Bylaws which have been specified by CCWG-accountability. > > The CRISP team wishes to express our concern about the lateness of the comments on the SLA made by ICANN, close to four months after the latest published version of the SLA by the RIRs. > > We would like to strongly request both ICANN and RIRs to work swiftly on providing additional inputs if any, so that the accountability measures needed for the Internet number community, can be put into place according to the schedule as described above. We trust that ICANN and RIRs continue to work constructively and transparently to finalise an SLA that respects the wishes of the number community. > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > on behalf of the CRISPT Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

ICANN Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal - Number Community-Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 26 Feb '16

26 Feb '16

Dear colleagues, I would like to inform you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published its Supplemental Final Proposal, available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58723723 ---------------------------------------- Amendments from the third Draft Proposal ---------------------------------------- The ASO representatives to the CCWG communicated an analysis of the third Draft Proposal on 16 December 2015: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-December/000817… The following analysis relates to numbering-related amendments introduced in the Supplemental Final Proposal since that earlier draft: 1) Mission statement ICANN’s Mission with respect to numbers has been further clarified. It now reads: “The Mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems as described below. Specifically, ICANN […] Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the top-most level of Internet Protocol (“IP”) and Autonomous System (“AS”) numbers. In this role, ICANN provides registration services and open access for global number registries as requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Regional Internet Registries and facilitates the development of related global number registry policies by the affected community as agreed with the RIRs”. See Annex 05 - Recommendation #5: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723723/Annex%2005%20-%20… 2) Reconsideration process The scope of the Reconsideration process explicitly does not include disputes related to Internet number resources. Please see Annex 08 - Recommendation #8: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58723723/Annex%2008%20-%20… 3) Minority statement The ASO submitted the following minority statement into the CCWG process, and it has been included in the Supplemental Final Proposal: “The ASO notes that the Internet Numbering Community is not relying on the CCWG-ACCT WS1 proposal to fulfill our expectations of ICANN accountability. Instead we will rely primarily on a contractual agreement (or “SLA”) between the RIRs and ICANN, as defined within the CRISP and ICG proposals, to provide the required accountability mechanisms. In order to serve this purpose, the proposed SLA must be in place at the time of the IANA Transition. However, the agreement contains “condition precedent” language such that, even if it is signed immediately, it will only come into effect when ICANN is actually released from its related duties under the NTIA contract. Negotiation of the Numbers Community SLA is nearly complete, and we expect to reach agreement in the near future. We propose to then promptly sign the agreed SLA with ICANN, in the same timeframe as implementation of the CCWG recommendations. By having both components in place at that time, we will be satisfied that all ICANN accountability matters are properly resolved.” ----------- Next steps ----------- The CCWG has sent the Supplemental Final Proposal to the working group’s six Chartering Organizations, including the ASO, and asked them to consider and approve the document by 9 March 2016 in order to meet the overall timing requirements, and allow the IANA Stewardship Transition (as a whole) to proceed. In parallel, the CWG-Stewardship is expected to deliver its confirmation that its dependencies have been met, in order to allow the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to move forward. The ASO representatives to the CCWG will soon send a recommendation to the NRO EC regarding approval of the Supplemental Final Proposal. If you object to approval, please respond giving reasons. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG

1 0

Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

Dear Colleagues Please find below the NRO announcement on the 4th draft Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services. The announcement is available at: https://www.nro.net/news/updated-4th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC ----------- UPDATED FOURTH DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv4) AND CALL TO ICANN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SIGNING THE SLA 25 February 2016 Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and the five RIRs. A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v1 A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v2 A third draft of the SLA was published on 30 October 2015 and invited ICANN legal staff to provide comments by November 30th 2015. The third draft of the SLA is available at https://www.nro.net/sla-v3 Fourth Draft SLA As a result of ICANN comments on the third draft of the SLA and a clarification call on Tuesday January 26th (https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2016-February/000725.html) a fourth draft of the SLA has been produced and available at https://www.nro.net/sla For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv4 against the third draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments on SLAv3 and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/slav3-comments In accordance with the transparency commitment with the community, we share the exchange of a clear track of comments between ICANN and RIR staff working towards a final SLA document. About the Fourth Draft SLA The fourth draft of the SLA has been developed by a team consisting of individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv4 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA as well as informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA and ICANN’s written comments regarding the third draft SLA. It remains written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before, without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal. The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible collectively in its dealings with ICANN under the SLA. It includes background and definitions. The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal principles or the NTIA IANA agreement. Next Steps The RIRs thank the community and ICANN staff for its thoughtful comments and now publish this SLAv4 in the interest of transparency and keeping the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We trust that all comments and concerns have been addressed and that the current draft, SLAv4, represents a mutually acceptable SLA that is consistent with the principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal. We invite ICANN staff to take the appropriate steps so that we can move forward with signing of this SLA as soon as possible, preferably during the ICANN 55 Meeting in Marrakech Morocco.

1 0

Fwd: Call for Nominations for Internet Technical & Academic Community Representatives in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
by Chris Buckridge 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

Dear colleagues, This is FYI for anyone with an interest in contributing to the UN’s work on “enhanced cooperation”. Cheers Chris > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Carl Gahnberg <gahnberg(a)isoc.org> > Subject: [Internetcollaboration] Call for Nominations for Internet Technical & Academic Community Representatives in the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > Date: 22 Feb 2016 17:39:10 CET > To: Elist internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration(a)elists.isoc.org> > > Dear all, > > Please find below the Call for Nominations to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > > Best regards, > > Carl Gahnberg > Policy Advisor > Internet Society > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Call for Nominations for Internet Technical & Academic Community Representatives in the United Nations CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > (Deadline: 29th February 23.59 UTC) > > The outcome document of the United Nations General Assembly’s ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2015 included a direction for the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to "establish a working group to develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda” (Resolution A/RES/70/125 <http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN95735.pdf>, Section 4.1, paragraph 65). This will continue work done by an earlier CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, that was active from 2013-2014. and current CSTD Chair, Peter Major of Hungary, has indicated <http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=1193&Sitemap_…> that he will establish the new working group in a similar fashion, with 20 UN Member States and 5 representatives from each of the four identified stakeholder groups (business, civil society, intergovernmental organizations, the technical & academic community). > > The technical & academic community representatives in the 2013-2014 working group were: > > Andres Piazza (LACNIC, Argentina) > Baher Esmat (ICANN, Egypt) > Alex Corenthin (ccTLD.sn, Senegal) > Chris Disspain (auDA, Australia) > Constance Bommelaer (ISOC, France) > > The CSTD Chair has identified the Internet Technical Collaboration Group <http://www.internetcollaboration.org/> as a focal point for nominating stakeholder representatives from the technical & academic community. A Nominating Committee (NOMCOM) made up of senior members of the Internet technical community has been formed to decide upon these nominations. The NOMCOM members are: > > Scott Mansfield (USA) - Chair > Adiel Akplogan (Canada) > Jane Coffin (USA) > John Klensin (USA) > Nurani Nimpuno (Sweden) > Chris Buckridge (Netherlands) > Akinori Maemura (Japan) > > Individuals with active involvement with the Internet technical community and the closely-related academic computer network research community who would like to be put forward by the NOMCOM are invited to complete the Nomination Form, which includes a set of questions regarding experience and suitability for the role. You may also use the Nomination Form to nominate another person for consideration by the NOMCOM - in such a case, the Nominator should advise their Nominee to complete and submit their answers to the questions in Part 2 of the Nomination Form. > > The Nomination Form is available here <http://www.internetcollaboration.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/02/20…> > > Both parts of the form should be completed and returned to information.itcg(a)gmail.com <mailto:information.itcg@gmail.com> by 23.59 UTC on Monday, 29 February 2016. This deadline will be strictly adhered to, and only respondents who have fully completed both parts of the form will be considered by the NOMCOM. > > While responses to the questions should not be lengthy, they must include sufficient information to allow the NOMCOM to judge the nominee's suitability for the role. If the nominee believes that an existing CV or biographical sketch would contribute to the NOMCOM's understanding of the candidacy, such a document may be included as part of the submission (any additional documents should be attached to the email in PDF format). > > Nominees should be aware that specific nominations may or may not be accepted by the CSTD. > > Nominees should also be aware that funding for participating in the working group’s meetings (which will take place in Geneva) will be the nominees’ own responsibility. It is expected that the working group’s first meeting will take place in Q4 2016, with further meetings to be scheduled by the working group itself. > > While there is no expectation that technical & academic community representatives from the 2013-2014 working group would automatically continue in the role, the NOMCOM would welcome applications from those who have previously served on CSTD committees, as well as new nominations. > > Please feel free to forward this message to relevant fora. > > Privacy Statement > The nominating committee is required to forward information provided by nominees on the Nomination Form to the CSTD Chair and CSTD administrative personnel for purposes of the nomination. With the exception of nominees naming themselves, information provided to the NOMCOM for its consideration shall be treated in the strictest confidence. > _______________________________________________ > Internetcollaboration mailing list > Internetcollaboration(a)elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetcollaboration

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] The future of the CRISP Team role
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Feb '16

09 Feb '16

FYI. Nurani Vice chair, CRISP Team > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] The future of the CRISP Team role > Date: 9 februari 2016 08:29:48 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > We are pleased to inform you that the CRISP Team has handed over the responsibility to the RIRs, on preparing implementation for IPR related to the provision of the IANA services. > > The three operational communities are now at the phase of preparing implementation, based on the consensus the IETF Trust to be the entity to hold the ownership of "the IANA trademark" and "the IANA.ORG domain". Further, the three operational communities are undertaking coordination towards the implementation work between now and September, through the IPR coordination group with leaders from each operational communities. > > The CRISP team takes on an observer role in this group, to ensure consistency with the proposal, and continue to make itself available to answer questions or provide clarifications as needed. > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno will represent the CRISP team in this group. > > The public read-only archives of its mailing list are available at: https://www.nro.net/pipermail/iana-ipr/ > > With this formal handover in the implementation of IPR to the RIRs, we no longer have specific actions as the CRISP Team, and our role now transitions into ensuring consistency with the number community proposal, until implementation of the IANA stewardship transition is completed. The CRISP Team continues to remain available to provide answers, advice and clarifications about the proposal as needed in the IANA stewardship transition process, and to help ensure that the implementation of the number resources component of the transition, such as the SLA on IANA Numbering Services, Review Committee and IPR related to the provision of the IANA services, is consistent with the number community's proposal. > > This transition of our role is based on the CRISP Team Charter, which describes our role as :"The CRISP team will have completed its work upon the ICG transmission of the combined IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to ICANN, but will continue to be available to answer any relevant questions about the number community’s proposal from any interested party, until the completion of the IANA Stewardship transition." > > Until the end of our work based on the CRISP Team Charter, we continue conducting calls on needs basis with schedule published on the NRO's CRISP Team website. > > CRISP Team Charter > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… > > CRISP Team teleconferences > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/crisp-team-p… > > We thank the number resources community for the inputs you have given us throughout the process, and we are open to questions you may have on this transition in our role. > > > > Best Regards, > > Izumi Okutani and Nurani Nimpuno > The Chair and the Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

The EU, ICANN and maybe the Internet
by Gordon Lennox 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

There seems to be an interesting slew of meetings in Brussels next week. But the one that really caught my eye was: << On Thursday 28 January, the Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission will host a meeting of the recently created Public Safety Working Group of the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN. This whole-day meeting will bring together law enforcement and public safety organisations as well as private sector representatives to advance cooperation on the expanding number of matters related to ICANN's policies that have an impact on public safety. Topics include the security of the Domain Name System, accuracy and privacy rules for the WHOIS registry and consumers' safeguards for new Top Level Domain Names in regulated sectors (like .doctor or .bank). Representatives of Europol, the UK National Crime Agency and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation will be among the panellists. >> So a European Commission Directorate General which has “migration” as its first topic is hosting an ICANN-related meeting? But the "so-called Internet 'technical community' will also gather in Brussels” for a RIPE NCC Roundtable with Governments and Regulators. And of course there is also preparatory work for EuroDIG in Brussels in June and a dinner-debate organised by the EIF (European Internet Forum) and a meeting of the High Level Group on Internet Governance. More details can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/blog/internet-governance-week-brusse… Meanwhile EDRi - https://edri.org - is behind the 2016 PrivacyCamp - http://privacycamp.eu/ By the way I hope most folk have seen the latest ruling of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the surveillance by employers of the network activities (Bărbulescu v Romania). Details on the EDRi web-site. And then we have the CPDP 2016 - Computers, Privacy and Data Protection - http://www.cpdpconferences.org Some of these events are of course much more open than others. Or to put it another way we will have to count on those who have actually been invited to those which are closed for any news. Happy 2016 everybody! Gordon

2 2

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Scheduled Teleconference Thursday January 14th 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

fyi. Nurani on behalf of the RIPE CRISP members > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] CRISP Scheduled Teleconference Thursday January 14th 13:00 UTC > Date: 12 januari 2016 15:38:51 CET > To: <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > > > Hi > > The next scheduled CRISP teleconference will be on Thursday January 14th at 13:00 UTC. > > The agenda will be and update on the IPR discussions among the OCs. > > Webex details below. > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > JOIN WEBEX MEETING > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m31c9ec30fcbe5ab39d62d984dfbf2… > Meeting number: 709 316 083 > Meeting password: crisp > > > JOIN BY PHONE > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 709 316 083 > > Global call-in numbers: > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389533… > > Toll-free dialing restrictions: > http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Report on WSIS+10
by Chris Buckridge 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Hi all, As a follow-up on my updates to past meetings of the Cooperation Working Group on the WSIS+10 process, we have just published a report on RIPE Labs regarding the High-Level Meeting that took place in the UN General Assembly last month and the Outcome Document that it produced: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/wsis-10-what-was-all-the-fuss-about All comments and discussion are welcome on the RIPE Labs forum or here on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 21 Dec '15

21 Dec '15

Dear Richard, Thank you for your reply. Regarding your comment on the Sole Designator Model, I would like to highlight that the NTIA requirement you mention refers to the oversight of the IANA function. The replacement of the oversight of the IANA function is described in the ICG proposal. The CCWG draft report, however, refers to the oversight of ICANN. Therefore, the NTIA requirement would not be applicable in this case. With regards to the topic of U.S. Headquarters as part of ICANN's fundamental bylaws, thank you for expressing your agreement to the ASO representatives' position. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 10:40:37 +0100 > From: "Richard Hill" <rhill(a)hill-a.ch> > To: "'Athina Fragkouli'" <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net>, > <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers > Related Analysis > > Thank you for this. > > Please see embedded comments below. > > Best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf >> Of Athina Fragkouli >> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 16:46 >> To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related >> Analysis >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on >> Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft >> Report, available here: >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-work-stream-1-recs-30nov15-en.pdf >> >> Comments can be sent via this webpage: >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-2015-11-30-en >> >> The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. > > SNIP > >> >> 2. Sole Designator Model >> >> The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised >> by changing ICANN?s structure, and introduced a structure called the >> Sole Membership Model. >> >> During and following the public consultation, objections to this model >> were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, >> the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole >> Designator Model. >> >> The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-1-30nov15-en.pdf). >> >> The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: >> >> - To implement the ?Sole Designator? model, ICANN?s Supporting >> Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to >> enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to >> as the ?Empowered Community?. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal >> personhood. >> - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint >> and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire >> Board. >> Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a >> decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely >> implement their decisions. >> - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered >> Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned >> in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply >> with that decision. >> - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to >> start the process and to exercise community power) are described in >> ANNEX 04 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-4-30nov15-en.pdf) >> >> Do you have any comments with regard to this model? > > Paragraph 58 of that proposal shows that the "empowered community" would consist of 5 organizations: ALAC, ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, and GAC. Each of these organizations is an organic component of ICANN, and the majority of them represent the domain name and addressing industries. > > Thus, the proposal does not provide for any external accountability or supervision of ICANN: ICANN would be accountable only to entities that are part of ICANN. > > In March 2014, NTIA announced that it intended "to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community", see: > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transitio… > > An entity (the "empowered community") that consists of organizations that are organic components of ICANN is obviously not "the global multistakeholdercommunity", nor can it be construed to be representative of that community when 3 out of 5 of the cited organizations represent the domain name and addressing industries. > > Consequently, the proposal manifestly fails to meet the main objective enunciated by NTIA, namely that ICANNshould be accountable to a the broad global multistakeholder community. Therefore, I do not agree with recommendations contained in the proposal. > > It still seems to me that it would be better to turn ICANN into a proper membership organization, see: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/pdfXXrCnTxCwW.pdf > > SNIP > > >> >> 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws >> >> In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the >> CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related >> provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in >> particular regarding ICANN?s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG >> suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The >> concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 >> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability- >> proposal-annex-3-30nov15-en.pdf) >> of the third Draft Report. >> >> The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the >> Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting >> Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could >> block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change >> to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting >> rights (75% vote). >> >> One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments requires that >> ICANN ?remains headquartered in the United States of America?. The CCWG >> noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at >> Article XVIII Section 1: >> >> ?OFFICES. >> The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall >> be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of >> America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or >> outside the United States of America as it may from time to time >> establish.? >> >> The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a >> Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of >> Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the >> Fundamental Bylaws. >> >> The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: >> >> ?There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. >> Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, >> most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR >> community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in >> the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an >> administrative issue.? > > I agree. It is not appropriate to case into stone that ICANN must reside in the USA. > > SNIP >

3 4

CCWG Third Draft Report - Numbers Related Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, I would like to remind you that the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a third Draft Report, available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo… Comments can be sent via this webpage: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-20… The comment period closes on 21 December 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the Number Community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the second Draft Report. At the same time we would like to to highlight the principle amendments introduced in the third Draft Report and provide you with an update on the numbering-related matters highlighted in our analysis of the second Draft Report (see communication from 9 September 2015: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/2015-September/00078…). 1. Community powers In the third Draft Report there are no changes in the community powers suggested by the CCWG. The powers are as follows (see ANNEX 01 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): - Reject ICANN Budgets, Operating Plans or Strategic Plans [We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG-Stewardship] - Reject changes to ICANN’s Bylaws - Approve changes to new Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation - Remove an individual ICANN Director from the Board. - Recall the entire ICANN Board - Initiate a binding Independent Review Process (where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results) - Reject ICANN Board decisions relating to reviews of IANA functions, including the triggering of Post-Transition IANA separation [We would like to note that this power refers to the CWG-Stewardship transition proposal] 2. Sole Designator Model The second Draft Report suggested that these powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure, and introduced a structure called the Sole Membership Model. During and following the public consultation, objections to this model were expressed. As a result of further discussions and consultations, the third Draft Report introduces a new structure called the Sole Designator Model. The details of the Sole Designator Model can be found in ANNEX 01 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). The following aspects of the model are important to highlight: - To implement the “Sole Designator” model, ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees would create a unified entity to enforce their Community Powers. This unified entity will be referred to as the “Empowered Community”. SO/ACs are not required to have a legal personhood. - Under California law, the Sole Designator has the right to appoint and remove ICANN Board directors, whether individually or the entire Board. Please note that Directors appointed by an SO may only be removed by a decision of that specific SO. The Sole Designator would merely implement their decisions. - If the ICANN Board refused to comply with a decision by the Empowered Community to use the statutory rights, the refusal could be petitioned in a court that has jurisdiction to force the ICANN Board to comply with that decision. - Details of the Community Process defined (including thresholds to start the process and to exercise community power) are described in ANNEX 04 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) Do you have any comments with regard to this model? 3. Revised Mission The third Draft Report suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in ANNEX 05 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). ICANN's mission with regards to Internet number resources, is described as follows: “ Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” (ANNEX 5 p8, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…). The description is in line with the feedback provided by the ASO representatives during the drafting process for the first Draft Report and the ASO representatives requested that the Number Community confirm its accuracy during the first public consultation. Support was expressed for this definition. 4. U.S. Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws In the third Draft Report (as in the first and second Draft Report) the CCWG proposes the incorporation of some ICANN accountability-related provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in ANNEX 03 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) of the third Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) with voting rights could block the proposed change (by a 66% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs with voting rights (75% vote). One of the provisions of the AFfirmation of Commitments requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” The CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw, since it has been suggested that the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws. The ASO representatives communicated to the CCWG the following comment: “There is general support the introduction of Fundamental Bylaws. Regarding, the list of Bylaws that should become Fundamental Bylaws, most of them indeed contain fundamental principles. However, the RIR community does not believe that the requirement for ICANN to remain in the United States of America is fundamental, but rather is an administrative issue.” The third Draft Report provides that two considerations suggest that the CCWG-Accountability should not propose that Article XVIII be designated as a Fundamental Bylaw: - Public comment on the first and second draft was evenly split on the question of whether to designate Article XVIII a Fundamental Bylaw. Supporting this designation were several commenters from the Commercial Stakeholders Group of GNSO. Governments were among those expressing strong opposition. - Second, the Empowered Community could block any proposed change to ICANN Bylaws Article XVIII, which states, “The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.” (ANNEX 3, p 6, para 25 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…) 5. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives have communicated the following to the CCWG: “…the RIR community stresses that there are separate, well-established appeal mechanisms for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. An arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the global policy development process 2. An arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Imposing different appeal procedures than the ones agreed upon and used by the numbers community would be contradictory to the bottom-up principle. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that disputes relating to Internet number resources be excluded from the scope of the proposed appeal mechanisms. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources.” Accordingly, in the third Draft Report (as well as in the second Draft Report) there is a clear exclusion of the disputes related to Internet number resources with regards to the Independent Review Process (IRP) (ANNEX 07, para 22 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): “Exclusions; Numbering Resources: The Address Supporting Organization has likewise indicated that disputes related to Internet number resources should be out of scope for the IRP. As requested by the ASO, decisions regarding numbering resources would be excluded from standing.” However, in the annex describing the amendments with regards to the Reconsideration Process the relevant paragraph reads as follows (ANNEX 08, para 8 - https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-ccwg-accountability-propo…): “Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.” It is our understanding that the intention is to exclude disputes related to Internet number resources from the scope of the Reconsideration Process, as this section is about the Reconsideration Process and not about the IRP. A correction to clarify this would be appropriate. The ASO representatives will comment appropriately to the CCWG. Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

2 1

IGF 2015 output document: "Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption"
by Marco Hogewoning 09 Dec '15

09 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, In earlier emails we asked you to review the draft outcome document for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Best Practice Forum on IPv6. This is to let you know the 2015 IGF inter-sessional work has now concluded and the final output document has been published on the IGF website. It is available for download at: http://goo.gl/BXBzTn Acknowledging the need for a increased rate of IPv6 adoption, the documents highlights numerous examples and best practices that can help businesses and governments with their IPv6 deployment projects. A large section of the document is dedicated to role and function of IPv6 task forces, which can be instrumental to a successful IPv6 deployment in a particular country or region. In addition it provides an overview of various capacity building programs that are available, which includes the RIPE NCC Training Courses and IPv6 Roadshows. We hope this document provides useful guidance for our community members and stakeholders that face the important step of enabling IPv6 in their networks and services. We would like to thank everybody who contributed to this document and in particular Susan Chalmers, Izumi Okutani and Wim Degezelle who jointly coordinated and supported the work on behalf of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC
by Nurani Nimpuno 25 Nov '15

25 Nov '15

My sincere apologies for the late sharing of this. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: German Valdez <german(a)apnic.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC > Date: 25 november 2015 09:53:26 CET > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > Hi > > Please find agenda and webex details for today crisp team scheduled teleconference > > Regards > > German Valdez > NRO > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp <mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp>> >> Date: 25 November 2015 at 2:53:42 PM AEST >> To: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>>, <crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>> >> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC >> >> Hi German, >> >> >> Thanks for the reminder and below is the suggested agenda for the CRISP Team call today. >> >> --- >> AGENDA >> >> 1. Agenda review >> >> 2. Action items >> a. Minutes >> b. The CRISP review of SLA ver.3 >> >> 3. Update >> a. IGF 2015 >> b. RIPE71 >> >> 4. Implementation Status >> a. Review Committee >> b. SLA: CRISP Review >> c. IPR: Update from the call with other OC leaders >> >> 5. AOB >> --- >> >> Thanks, >> Izumi >> >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: German Valdez <german(a)nro.net <mailto:german@nro.net>> >>>> Date: 6 November 2015 at 10:48:09 AM AEST >>>> To: <crisp(a)nro.net <mailto:crisp@nro.net>> >>>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] CRISP Meeting Wed 25th 2015 13:00 UTC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> CRISP Meeting 4th Wednesday each month >>>> Scheduled: 25 Nov 2015, 11:00 PM to 26 Nov 2015, 12:00 AM >>>> Location: https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc> >>>> Invitees: German Valdez, German Valdez >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JOIN WEBEX MEETING >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m88bfef1da7f02edbd7f2550e0883d…> >>>> Meeting number: 707 107 621 >>>> Meeting password: crisp >>>> >>>> >>>> JOIN BY PHONE >>>> 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) >>>> +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) >>>> Access code: 707 107 621 >>>> >>>> Global call-in numbers: >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532… <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=389532…> >>>> >>>> Toll-free dialing restrictions: >>>> http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can't join the meeting? Contact support here: >>>> https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc <https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/mc> >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CRISP mailing list >>>>> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> CRISP mailing list >>>> CRISP(a)nro.net <mailto:CRISP@nro.net> >>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp <https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp> >> > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Reminder and Preparation for Tomorrow's RIPE Cooperation Working Group Session
by Meredith Whittaker 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Adding the coop-wg list so everyone has the latest info and incentive to show up for the session. I'd also like to give a big thank you to Collin for helping organize this session, and for chairing and coordinating in my absence! Thank you, Collin! Cheers and sorry to miss it, Meredith On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Collin Anderson <collin(a)measurementlab.net > wrote: > Hello all, > > Just a reminder that the Cooperation Working Group session for RIPE71 > <https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/> will take place > tomorrow, Thursday, 19 November 09:00 - 10:30, at the JW Marriott in the > Main Room. > > We have a packed (and interesting) set of sessions, so if you could upload > your slides <https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/upload-presentation/> beforehand, > this will ensure smooth succession across the presentations. If we could > plan for ten minutes average per presentation, that will provide time for a > few questions after each speaker ends. I will try to be short to make sure > that others have more time to engage the audience, and I believe a few > others have short presentations as well. > > Currently, the order of speakers is the following: > > - Digital Privacy in the EU, Valentina Pavel > - Export controls, human rights, and networked technologies, Collin > Anderson > - Access and poverty in the United States, Oana Niculaescu > - RIR accountability, Farzaneh Badii > - Experiences in Cooperation Between Governments and Community > Stakeholders, Tahar Schaa > - RIPE NCC report on the WSIS+10 process, Chris Buckridge > > If there is anything that I can do to assist or questions, please let me > know. I will make sure to be there a bit early to setup and coordinate any > last minute needs. > > Look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow and hearing the excellent > presentations. > > Cordially, > Collin Anderson > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Source Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on IGF 2015
by Chris Buckridge 18 Nov '15

18 Nov '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the tenth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which took place last week in Brazil: https://www.ripe.net/reports/igf-2015 Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

May it be still possible to present a short 3 slider about cooperation?
by Schaa, Tahar 12 Nov '15

12 Nov '15

Hello all, hello Meredith and Alain, sorry for being so late to for applying for a short slot. The team around the German government LIR de.government supported the PDP of ripe-655 in many discussions with and contributions for Andrew from UK MoD and by involving our colleagues from the Swiss government. In the end the PDP was successful. Therefore a good example for a great working cooperation with governments as equal community stakeholders is given by this. This is worth to point out from my perspective and on behalf of Constanze from German Federal Ministry of Interior, I would appreciate to receive 5 min. to focus on this new role of government LIRs in the cooperation WG session on Thursday. I look forward to RIPE71! Best wishes from the IGF2015 in Brazil at sunny 35 degrees J Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen <https://www.google.com/search?q=Tahar+Schaa> Tahar Schaa Management Consultant Cassini Consulting GmbH Bennigsen-Platz 1 40474 Düsseldorf T +49 (0) 151 11 44 38 75 F +49 (0) 211 65 85 41 34 mail <mailto:tahar.schaa@cassini.de> tahar.schaa(a)cassini.de visit <http://www.cassini.de/> www.cassini.de Think green - keep it on the screen! Cassini Consulting GmbH | Bennigsen-Platz 1 | 40474 Düsseldorf Geschäftsführer: Sven Wiedenhöfer | Michael Schmitz | Jörg Zängerling Sitz der Gesellschaft: Düsseldorf | Registergericht Düsseldorf HRB 53235 Guiding ahead - Cassini ist Management- und Technologieberatung

1 0

Fwd: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement
by Nick Hilliard 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

Of relevance to RIPE Community members: NIck -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:19:45 +0000 From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>, ianaxfer(a)nro.net <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> here are some links to the relevant correspondence: 2015-06-03: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… 2015-09-07: https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2015-2/iab-c… Nick On 09/11/2015 14:03, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hi, > > I have no idea why this was not shared on this list as i think its an > important piece (which should have been said a long time ago) > > Regards > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Athina Fragkouli* <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net > <mailto:athina.fragkouli@ripe.net>> > Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] The NRO Position on Revision of ICANN Mission Statement > To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" > <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > > Dear all, > > For the record, in case you haven't seen it, the NRO issued a statement > on the revision of ICANN Mission Statement: > > https://www.nro.net/news/the-nro-ec-recognises-that-the-icann-mission-state… > > I share this for information purposes only. No further actions are required. > > Thank you, > Athina > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng/ > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 5313339 52 Lower Sandwith St | INEX - Internet Neutral | Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick(a)inex.ie

1 0

Final Version of the Internet Number Community - IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter
by Nick Hyrka 06 Nov '15

06 Nov '15

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL VERSION OF THE INTERNET NUMBER COMMUNITY – IANA NUMBERING SERVICES REVIEW COMMITTEE CHARTER Background On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG). One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community Proposal, described in section III.A.4, is the establishment of a Review Committee to ensure that the service level defined in the proposed SLA for the IANA Numbering Services is maintained by the IANA Numbering Services Operator. Further description of the Review of IANA Numbering Services is provided in Article 8 of the draft SLA. On 23 June 2015, the NRO EC invited all interested parties to review and comment on the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter. This draft is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-v1 The Final Internet Number Community – IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter As a result of the public consultation of the draft Internet Number Community Review Committee Charter, the final Internet Community – IANA Numbering Services Review Committee Charter has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-final For the sake of clarity, you can find a tracked changes version of the first draft against the final version at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-charter-redline Additionally, a document with the comments received during the consultation period and the responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/review-committee-comments Next Steps The RIRs thank the community for its thoughtful comments. Each RIR community may now appoint their representatives to the IANA Numbering Services Review Committee in accordance with the Charter.

2 1

Co-op WG agenda
by Meredith Whittaker 05 Nov '15

05 Nov '15

Hi all, Collin Anderson (CCed) and I now have an agenda online for the RIPE71 CoopWG. https://ripe71.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ Please let us know if you have questions. We're looking forward to it! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Open Source Research Lead Google NYC

1 0