- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: let's get to work
by Andrea Glorioso 16 Apr '14

16 Apr '14

[ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times ] Dear all, Concerning the forthcoming Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) which will take place in Sao Paulo (Brazil) on 23-24 April 2014, you might be interested to read the latest blog post of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and member of the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee of NETmundial, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-… reproduced below. +++ NETmundial: let's get to work Published by Neelie KROES<https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/users/neelie-kroes>on Wednesday, 16/04/2014 I will soon be travelling to Sao Paulo to attend NETmundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance<http://netmundial.br/>. The purpose of NETmundial is to develop principles of Internet governance and a roadmap for the future development of this ecosystem. I have already shared<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmu…>with all of you my thoughts on the draft "outcome document" that I and other members of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee of NETmundial<http://netmundial.br/hlmc/>received on 3 April 2014. In the meantime, the organisers of the conference have published a new version of the outcome document<http://document.netmundial.br/>and are inviting everyone to send their views and comments <http://document.netmundial.br/> – I warmly invite all of you to do so. I did so, too; I have sent an email to the members<http://netmundial.br/hlmc/>of the High Level Multi-stakeholder Committee, to the Chair of the Meeting <http://netmundial.br/chair-of-the-meeting/> (Prof. Virgilio Almeida) and to the two co-chairs of the Executive Meeting Committee<http://netmundial.br/emc/>, Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko. Again, in a spirit of transparency, I would like to share the contents of this message with the broader Internet community.... so please read my letter below. *From: KROES Neelie (CAB-KROES)* *Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:26 PM* *To: 'hlmc(a)netmundial.br <hlmc(a)netmundial.br>'* *Subject: Proposals for the NETmundial outcome document* Dear colleagues, I am pleased to see that the draft outcome document for NETmundial has been published and that the broader public has now the possibility to intervene in the discussion, before we all meet in Sao Paulo next week. Again, I would like to thank all the members of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, as well as the Chair and the Co-Chairs of the meeting, for their tireless work. As a follow-up to the comments<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmu…>which I have already shared with you, I would like to make some further observations. In the same spirit of transparency as my previous communication, I am also posting a copy of this e-mail on my blog<http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/blog> . I continue to strongly believe that the outcomes of NETmundial must be concrete and actionable, with clear milestones and with a realistic but ambitious timeline. Several reactions to my comments show that I am not alone in thinking that concreteness is paramount to the success of this important gathering; and even though positions on substance may well differ, I believe that my assessment on the necessity of a "change of pace" in these discussions is shared by a broad range of stakeholders. Read in this light, it is clear me that more work is needed on the latest draft; especially if we consider that a number of public contributions submitted to NETmundial did include concrete and actionable suggestions. Luckily, several passages of the draft outcome document do lend themselves quite well to being turned into more concrete actions – and we should make full use of this opportunity. I will focus on six specific examples: 1. Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model 2. Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum 3. Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building 4. Globalisation of IANA 5. Globalisation of ICANN 6. Jurisdictional issues on the Internet *(1) Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model* The draft outcome document refers several times to the need to *further improve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model*, to enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, to have clear and transparent processes and procedures (including mechanisms for checks and balances and for review). I completely agree – in fact, I have said so for a long time. The keywords here are inclusiveness and openness, which must both be real and meaningful, not just theoretical. NETmundial should be the moment to properly connect the debates on Internet governance with the discussions and concrete activities on citizens' engagement and participatory democracy. Europe has been quite active in this field, ranging from EU-funded projects in the ICT field, such as DEMO-NET <http://participedia.net/en/organizations/demo-net>, Cross Over<http://crossover-project.eu/>and D-CENT <http://dcentproject.eu/>; to legal innovations such as the European Citizens Initiative; to national initiatives such as the use of Liquid Democracy in the Germany and the People's Assembly Rahvakogu<https://www.rahvakogu.ee/pages/what-is-rahvakogu>in Estonia, to name just a few. Brazil, with the inclusive and participatory conception and discussions on the "Marco Civil", is also an inspiration for all of us. And it is purely for reasons of space that I cannot mention all the efforts by many organisations and individuals across the world. In its Communication on Internet Policy and Governance<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072>of 12 February 2014, the European Commission suggested that the *further development of multistakeholder guidelines and the sharing of best practices* would be a good manner to move forward. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include*: - a clear commitment to the *bottom-up and cooperative* development of a "concept paper" to be discussed at the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - this concept paper should identify initial recommendations on how the above mentioned engagement and participatory tools and initiatives could be used in Internet governance debates; it should also propose an initial outline of principles-based guidelines to safeguard accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and independence for multi-stakeholder processes; - the discussions in Istanbul and all other appropriate fora should lead, by the *beginning of 2015*, to a proposal for two "case studies", to examine how we could turn the high-level principles into concrete, operational practices of existing Internet governance organisations and processes; - further discussions and practical experimentation on these cases studies could then result in a *concrete reference paper* to be presented and discussed at the 10th Internet Governance Forum, towards the *end of 2015* – and of course, to be further refined as need be. *(2) Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum* I referred multiple times to the *Internet Governance Forum* or IGF. The draft outcome document of NETmundial clearly mentions the need for strengthening and improving this most important and unique example of global and multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue. I agree that such improvements should include an extension of the IGF mandate beyond its usual 5-years cycle, without prejudice to any possible adaptation of such mandate as the global community will see fit; I also agree that ensuring stable and predictable funding for the IGF is absolutely essential. I reiterate my invitation for everyone, but especially those organisations which have greatly benefited from the Internet, to become a donor to the IGF – like the EU, some of its Member States and others from the public and private sector. I believe that NETmundial should also make a clear reference, and if possible provide some practical examples, on how innovative forms of crowd-funding could contribute to this joint effort. The other improvements mentioned in the draft outcome document, namely the need to implement creative ways of providing outcomes / recommendations and the analysis of policy options, and to promote inter-sessional dialogues between the yearly gatherings of the IGF, are also essential and, in my view, closely linked to the need to better connect to existing experiences, expertise and practical tools for inclusive engagement, that I highlighted above. On this basis, *I propose that the NETmundial outcome document should ask the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to present to the global community a clear and realistic assessment of how and when, in their view, these recommendations could be concretely implemented*, at the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*. Members of the MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; I am therefore certain that such assessment would be well informed and inclusive of all opinions. But to be even more concrete: let us not forget that, as the draft outcome document mentions, we already have a very clear set of recommendations to refer to, i.e. the *Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum*<http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/504/04/PDF/G1250404.pdf?Open…>(WGIGF) of 2012. Some of these recommendations have been acted upon; some are still lingering; but more in general, I sense that we are missing a sense of the "global picture". Therefore, I would strongly *recommend that one of the concrete outputs of NETmundial should be an assessment – even if an initial one – of where we stand in terms of implementation for each recommendation of the WGIGF*, or at the very least a clear commitment that such assessment will be presented at the latest at 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; and that this "state of play" will be duly updated and be open to public input, possibly using participatory tools as I highlighted above. *(3) Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building* As you can certainly see, I strongly believe in the *use of appropriate ICT tools* for better and more inclusive dialogues. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly mentions the need for communication and coordination within the Internet governance ecosystem, including via tools to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing function. I have already highlighted in my previous comments how the European Commission is investing in the *Global Internet Policy Observatory initiative*<http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-g…>(GIPO) as a way to experiment with the automated collection, analysis, organisation and visualisation of information on Internet governance discussions and decisions. The European Commission is currently finalising a feasibility assessment of the technological and organisational options for the GIPO, and we will share our conclusions by *mid-2014*, with a view to launch the technological development of GIPO by the *end of 2014*. In the meantime many other organisations, public and private, are either already working or are planning to invest in Internet policy observatories and similar initiatives. We should strive to avoid duplication of efforts. Let me be crystal clear: I do not see any need for a winner-takes-all beauty contest between observatories. Quite the contrary. But we should strive to learn from each other's understanding of the problems and proposed solutions. Ideally, we should also move towards a federation of Internet policy observatories. I therefore suggest that the draft outcome document of NETmundial should *include a clear commitment to have a broad, inclusive and operational roundtable among all "observatory initiatives"* during the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; ideally, this roundtable should lead to the development of an initial "*collaboration roadmap*" by *mid-2015* and identify mechanisms, including via existing meetings and dialogues, to foster cooperation and communication among these various initiatives. *(4) Globalisation of IANA* You already know how important I believe it is to keep the momentum towards a real and effective globalisation of core Internet functions and decisions, including IANA. ICANN has recently shared a draft "scoping paper" and a roadmap that will certainly be helpful in the discussions on the globalisation of IANA. *I believe that the NETmundial outcome document should explicitly recognise this draft proposal by ICANN as an important contribution and explicitly call all stakeholders to express their views on it*. *I also believe that in order for this discussion to be truly meaningful, the NETmundial outcome document should clearly flag that*: - the engagement of the broader public should make full use of *all** existing meetings and fora*, including the global Internet Governance Forum and the regional ones, as appropriate; ICANN should also reach out to organisations across the world which are willing and capable to foster dialogue among citizens, besides and beyond those who are able to attend the meetings of ICANN or other Internet technical organisations; - with due consideration to the criteria which the US Government has presented in its announcement of 14 March 2014<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition…>, *there should be no artificial limitation in the scope of the discussion*. For example, a consideration of *various organisational options*, as well as of the *opportunity* and the *most appropriate ways to separate policy, operational and oversight activities* should not be "off-limits", if we want the debate on the future of IANA to be seen as truly legitimate at the global level. *(5) Globalisation of ICANN* The CEO of ICANN has recently declared<https://blog.icann.org/2014/04/training-wheels-off/>that a public dialogue on how to strengthen ICANN’s accountability will soon be launched. In my view, this dialogue cannot be separated from the broader issue of how to make ICANN a truly global organization serving the public interest, as the draft outcome document mentions. I understand that this dialogue will look at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments, and ICANN’s redress mechanisms, as well as exploring new accountability mechanisms where necessary. I am looking forward to further information and details and I expect that ICANN will also provide a clear timeline on the concrete implementation of its globalisation efforts. Accordingly, I *recommend that the NETmundial outcome document clearly invites ICANN to share its concrete proposals* at the 50th ICANN meeting (London, UK, *22-26 June 2014*). *(6) Jurisdictional issues on the Internet* It is natural, when talking about globalisation, to reflect not only on the amazing opportunities brought about by the Internet, but also on the challenges which this inherently cross-border medium raises with respect to the application of laws. The European Commission committed<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0072&f…>to launching an in-depth review of the risks, at international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and to assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary to solve such conflicts. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly identifies jurisdictional issues and how they relate to Internet governance as "material for further discussion". While I understand and agree that a full debate on this broad topic during NETmundial would be neither desirable nor productive, *we should have a stronger commitment to a phase-by-phase examination of this issue*, with a view to produce "good practice" guidelines as appropriate. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include *an invitation to interested parties to: - develop a "scoping paper" by *July 2014*; - facilitate on-line and off-line engagement opportunities, as appropriate, in the run-up to the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - following these discussions, aim to produce a first draft of "problem statements" and possible recommendations by the *first half of 2015*. Dear colleagues, I thank you for your patience in reading my observations and proposals, which I trust will be useful in further refining the outcome document of NETmundial. Kind regards, Neelie Kroes +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 0

NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing
by Andrea Glorioso 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

[ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts.* ] In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders. The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions. Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below: - Date: 8 April 201 - Time: 11:00 - 13:00 (CET) - Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document) - Conference room number: 1327846 - Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please note that you do *NOT* need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference - it's offered as an option) As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/17… http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-e volution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177. Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

1 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

Nick Do you have any idea when the case will be back in the High Court? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:10 PM To: Innocenzo Genna Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful On 08/04/2014 12:47, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. > > There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data > retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: Yes, but it creates an immediate long term problem for all of the national legislation and leaves it all open to be contested in the courts. In the case of Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the High Court to dismiss the opinions of the ECJ, particularly as they believed there was sufficient grounds to refer the original Digital Rights Ireland complaint to the ECJ in the first place. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. Nick

2 1

Data Retention Directive considered harmful
by Nick Hilliard 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.… enjoy. Nick

6 10

The new EU telecoms regulation
by Gordon Lennox 12 Apr '14

12 Apr '14

The mood in Brussels today seemed to be that amendments in favour of network neutrality will be adopted. The text as agreed in the ITRE Committee can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2014… On the same page, near the top you will see links to pdf files containing amendments 234-246. Those are the plenary amendments tabled by the political groups. Amendments 234-236 are those tabled by Ms Schaake on behalf of the ALDE Group. So tomorrow, Wednesday, we have the debate and then on Thursday the vote. That though is just the first reading. Then we have to see what the Council delivers. There seems to be less clarity there. Then institutional negotiations and then second reading. Gordon

4 11

eIDAS Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

On Thursday, the EP also apparently voted positively on the eIDAS Regulation. The Commission's proposal for this was presented at the RIPE meeting in Dublin. Following community discussion a letter, detailing concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, was sent to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. Gordon

1 1

RIPE NCC Report on ITU WTDC 2014
by Chris Buckridge 10 Apr '14

10 Apr '14

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has just published a report on the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference 2014, which concluded today in Dubai: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/ipv6-… Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

ICANN proposal released
by Gordon Lennox 09 Apr '14

09 Apr '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jordan Carter" <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: Apr 9, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: [IANAxfer] ICANN proposal released To: "ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org" <ianaxfer(a)elists.isoc.org>, <isoc-advisory-council(a)elists.isoc.org> Cc: Dear ISOC colleagues, ICANN has released its proposal for the transition dialogue re NTIA DNS functions. The page and material is at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08a…. This page includes the principles and mechanisms and seeks comment on these, as well as a process that involves an ICANN community steering group with an ICANN secretariat to help the discussion along. Scope is set out in a paper linked from this page at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr… On a very cursory and initial read, the scope appears to not account properly for the broad oversight or stewardship functions of the NTIA in respect of the DNS, and rules out discussion of IANA being operated by ICANN as part of the conversation. best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer(a)elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

IANA Globalization Progress
by Alain Van Gaever 08 Apr '14

08 Apr '14

For those of you who want some more analysis regarding the change in oversight arrangements for the IANA functions, I found the following article a very interesting read: http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37494/ICANN-policy-final.p… a short summary on: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37494/en/icann-reform:-reco… Alain Van Gaever Co-chair RIPE Coop WG On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Chris Buckridge <chrisb(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were > made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet > technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight > arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. > > I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments > will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: nick <nick(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA > Globalization Progress > > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > > To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net, ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for > coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, > ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the > suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > > > Their complete statement can be found here: > > > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizati… > > > > > > Regards, > > Nick Hyrka > > Communications Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

DNS-based filtering
by Niall O'Reilly 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Hello. Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the wider French Internet community. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Begin forwarded message: > From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie> > Date: 30 October 2013 10:16:26 GMT > To: bind-check(a)telenet.be > Cc: bind-users(a)lists.isc.org > Subject: Re: use bind 9.8 as caching server and authoritative nameserver > message-id: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9(a)ucd.ie> > > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 13:10, bind-check(a)telenet.be wrote: > >> Recently our government obligated all ISP's to block access to child-porn, illegal betting sites, illegal file share sites etc... >> I have been asked now to implement this on our caching DNS servers (serve a custom zone to all of our customers that points to an IP from the government that hosts a block-page) > > You probably understand that this approach is of limited effectiveness, > and has arguably significant disadvantages. > > It may be of interest for you to read the report mentioned at either of > the following URIs (in French, English respectively). > > http://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/6573… > http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/6584/show/the-afnic-sc… > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > Member of AFNIC's Conseil Scientifique > > PS. I wan't a significant contributor to this report. > Credit for that belongs to the colleagues who did the work. /Niall >

13 24

The new EU telecoms regulation - some comments
by Gordon Lennox 25 Mar '14

25 Mar '14

"After she won the vote in ITRE yesterday Pilar del Castillo published this FAQ on the controversial Open Internet provisions of the Telecom Single Market Regulation. We (EDRI) took the liberty of commenting on her answers." http://edri.org/faq-open-internet-provisions-telecoms-single-market-regulat…

1 0

"How the Internet works and ..."
by Gordon Lennox 23 Mar '14

23 Mar '14

An NN primer? "For most of us, the internet is what you’re looking at right now—what you see on your web browser. But the internet itself is comprised of the fiber optic cables, the servers, the proverbial series of tubes, all owned by the companies that built it. The content we access online is stored on servers and transmitted through networks owned by lots of different groups, but the magic of the internet protocol lets it all function as the integrated experience we know and, from time to time, love." http://qz.com/187034/how-the-internet-works-and-why-its-impossible-to-know-… Well maybe sort of... Gordon

2 1

cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?)
by Innocenzo Genna 22 Mar '14

22 Mar '14

Hello everybody, regarding the "fast lane provision” and the ITRE voting of yesterday (18 March). The real problem is not really with the “specialized service” provision, because the current definition: 15) “specialized service” means an electronic communications service optimized for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control from end to end. It is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and applications available over the public internet access service;] If this is the text approved by ITRE, it is is sufficiently precise, although it would have been better if the Trautman amendment (the one in brackets) had been approved too (but it was not). The real problem for me derives from the ability of ISPs to discriminate online service by charging different kind of connectivity prices. This could create a 2-tier Internet scenario. I mentioned this risk in my blog: http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/lights-and-darkness-of… Marjete Schaake is right in being worried, because this reform (if approved in this form) would make the Dutch NN legislation to be contrast with EU law. In fact, the Dutch rules prohibit price connectivity differentiation when aimed at discriminating online services. Kind regards, Innocenzo (Board member Euroispa) ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno(a)innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 19/mar/2014, alle ore 17:51, cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net ha scritto: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? > (Meredith Whittaker) > 2. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Meredith Whittaker) > 3. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Gordon Lennox) > 4. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:23:40 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast > Lane provisions? > To: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: > <CAHx-7OwcCEc_JMJobjC37v_hMrWHt2_CJgE0kynSSn+AJtQVHQ(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected > Continent legislation. > > The press release<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140318IPR39210/ht…>states > that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of > higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical > data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere > with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how > it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC >

6 13

Re: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?
by Wouter van Hulten 21 Mar '14

21 Mar '14

Hi Meredith, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-inter… http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-a… If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--100… and http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-do…. regards, Wouter Colocation Research www.coloresearch.com<http://www.coloresearch.com> ________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel(a)google.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? Hi all, Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. The press release<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140318IPR39210/ht…> states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. Thoughts? Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

6 7

European Commission: EP committee vote...
by Gordon Lennox 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ep-committee-vote-takes-us-one-s…

1 0

Commission: Towards further Globalisation of the Internet
by Gordon Lennox 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.htm?locale=en

1 0

European Commission: Tomorrow's Internet starts now: get ready!
by Gordon Lennox 20 Mar '14

20 Mar '14

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-197_en.htm

1 0

EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?
by Meredith Whittaker 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

Hi all, Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. The press release<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140318IPR39210/ht…>states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. Thoughts? Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

4 4

FW: [rtldo] the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper
by Wim Degezelle 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

Hi All, We've just published a background paper on IANA - IG debate. Best Wim From: Wim Degezelle [mailto:wim@centr.org] Sent: woensdag 19 maart 2014 10:41 To: ga(a)centr.org Cc: rtldo(a)aptld.org; igf(a)centr.org Subject: [rtldo] the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper Hi All The announcement of the United States Government of its intent to transition key Internet domain function has created a lot of commotion in the Internet Governance ecosystem. It is probably one of the most important events that will determine the current and future Internet Governance debates. CENTR has put together a concise background paper to help all interested to take a step back and get some background and basic insight to better understand the ongoing discussion and why it is relevant for ccTLD registries. You can download the paper on the CENTR website: the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper https://centr.org/Future_of_IANA-CENTR_background_paper-March-2014 Kind regards Wim signature2 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtldo+unsubscribe(a)aptld.org.

1 0

IANA Globalization Progress
by Alain Van Gaever 18 Mar '14

18 Mar '14

Thanks Chris for keeping us in the loop! While I will not put forward an opinion of my own on these announcements (I am not sufficiently informed to do so). I did find two articles that ask some relevant questions regarding these developments . http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140316_if_the_stakeholders_already_control_… http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140317_is_ntias_transition_decision_right_d… Alain Van Gaever Co-chair Coop WG On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Chris Buckridge <chrisb(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were > made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet > technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight > arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. > > I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments > will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: nick <nick(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA > Globalization Progress > > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > > To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net, ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for > coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, > ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the > suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > > > Their complete statement can be found here: > > > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizati… > > > > > > Regards, > > Nick Hyrka > > Communications Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

The NTIA - ICANN thing
by Gordon Lennox 15 Mar '14

15 Mar '14

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition… http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/intern… Just in case somebody had not heard or anybody here wants to share a comment... Gordon

2 1

Fwd: Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress
by Chris Buckridge 15 Mar '14

15 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > From: nick <nick(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net, ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > Their complete statement can be found here: > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalizati… > > > Regards, > Nick Hyrka > Communications Manager > RIPE NCC > > > >

1 0

NRO Contribution to the NETmundial
by Chris Buckridge 11 Mar '14

11 Mar '14

Dear colleagues, The Number Resource Organization (NRO), on behalf of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC, has submitted a contribution to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, also known as NETmundial. This contribution addresses each of the two NETmundial submission topics: “Internet Governance Principles” and “Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem”. You can read the full submission here: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NetMundial-NRO.pdf In total, 189 contributions to NETmundial were received by the 8 March deadline. These contributions can be read at: http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Formation of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group of the Persian Internet Governance Forum (PersianIGF)
by IGF Secretariat 11 Mar '14

11 Mar '14

Greetings from Persian IGF Secretariat, We are delighted to announce that the call for applications for membership of the new Persian Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (Persian MAG) for the year 2014-2015 has been issued, with application window open until 21 March 2014. Applicants from Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan and other Persian speaking individuals and entities are welcome to submit their application. Kindly find attached the Full announcement and application form, or follow the link: http://goo.gl/6tjanR با سلام و درود ضمن تبریک پیشاپیش برای فرا رسیدن نوروز، بدین وسیله از شما دعوت میگردد در فراخوان عضویت در شورای مشاوران انجمن راهبری اینترنت پارسی زبانان برای سال ۱۳۹۳ شرکت نمایید. تمامی فارسی زبانان از سراسر جهان میتوانند در این فراخوان شرکت نمایند. اطلاعات کامل این فراخوان از طریق آدرس زیر قابل دسترسی است http://goo.gl/yjzcpy لطفا توجه فرمایید که حداکثر مهلت ارسال فرم درخواست اول فروردین ماه ۱۳۹۳ می باشد. Best Regards, Persian IGF Secretariat | PersianIGF | secretariat(a)persianigf.org <mailto:secretariat@persianigf.org> | www.PersianIGF.org <http://www.persianigf.org/>

1 0

Contributions of the European Commission to the NETmundial meeting
by Andrea Glorioso 10 Mar '14

10 Mar '14

Dear all, of possible interest to the members of this list, the European Commission has submitted two contributions to the NETmundial meeting, which will take place on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. They are available at: · Principles: http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176 · Roadmap: http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution… Best regards, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

1 0

Invitation of speakers to the Warsaw meeting
by Alain Van Gaever 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

Hi Chris, We just finished our bi-weekly conf call with the co-chairs. We were wondering on how to invite speakers to the Warsaw meeting. As a practical example we would need to send an invite out for Anna Buchta from the European Data Protection Supervisor. I am willing to write the e-mail, but I assume that for practical reasons the official request should come from RIPE NCC? Thanks Alain ________________________________ ****************************************************************************************************************** For more information visit www.ofcom.org.uk This email (and any attachments) is confidential and intended for the use of the addressee only. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message and delete it from your system. This email has been scanned for viruses. However, you open any attachments at your own risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not represent the views or opinions of Ofcom unless expressly stated otherwise. ******************************************************************************************************************

1 0

NETmundial Expressions of Interest
by Chris Buckridge 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

Dear colleagues, Today is the final day to register your interest in attending NETmundial, a one-off global Internet governance event to be held in São Paulo, Brazil, on 23 & 24 April 2014. As the number of on-site participants will be limited, and demand is expected to exceed supply, the organisers are asking that anyone with an interest in attending complete the following web form: http://content.netmundial.br/interests/expression Acceptance of registrations will be made public by March 15. It is also expected that organisers will offer some form of remote participation for those unable to attend the event in person. There is a further deadline on Monday, 8 March, to submit contributions relating to the meeting’s two planned outcomes, a set of Internet governance principles and a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem. Contributions may be submitted via a web form at: http://content.netmundial.br/ The RIPE NCC plans to participate in the NETmundial meeting, and will report back to the RIPE community on any relevant issues or developments during the Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 68. In the meantime, more discussion regarding the NETmundial event is taking place on the 1Net mailing list and discussion forum: http://1net.org/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

1 0

On the Communication from the European Commission - eager to hear your views
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

[ I sent an almost identical message to the IAB InternetGovTech mailing list, so apologies for duplications ] Dear all, a few words to introduce myself: I'm Andrea Glorioso (Mr - I'm Italian). I work at the European Commission, in the Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology (sorry for the mouthful - we call it DG CONNECT). I have been one of the persons working on the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance which our former colleague, Gordon Lennox, has kindly shared on this and other lists (they were on my list but Gordon spared me some typing :). I just wanted to say that I'm delighted - honestly - that the Communication seems to have already sparked some discussions on this and other lists. We are very much in listening mode and to the extent possible I'll be glad to react to your points, questions, comments and criticisms. There might be cases in which I will want to double check the position of the European Commission on any particular matter, and this might produce some delay in the exchanges; but I'll do my best to be as quick, open and transparent as possible. Thanks, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

4 7

Slides of RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting
by Alain Van Gaever 20 Feb '14

20 Feb '14

For your information Chris has just made the slides of yesterday's Brussels Roundtable meeting available on the RIPE website: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 *Alain Van Gaever* *RIPE Cooperation Working Group Co-Chair* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: roundtable(a)ripe.net <roundtable(a)ripe.net> Date: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM Subject: RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting: Thanks and Feedback To: "avangaev(a)gmail.com" <avangaev(a)gmail.com> Dear colleagues, Thank you for your participation in the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting yesterday in Brussels. As noted during the meeting, this was one of the largest Roundtable Meetings that the RIPE NCC has hosted, and I hope that you found the presentations and discussions useful and relevant to your work. Slides from each of the presentations are now available to download at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 We welcome any feedback that you might have, including suggestions for agenda items at future Roundtable Meetings, questions about any of the subjects discussed during the meeting, or comments regarding the organisation of the meeting. Any feedback can be sent via email to < roundtable(a)ripe.net>. I would also like to reiterate the invitation to participate in RIPE 68, which will take place in Warsaw, Poland, from 12-16 May. More information on that meeting, including details on how to participate remotely, can be found at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

2 1

European Commission - Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

Commission Européenne - IP/14/142 12/02/2014 Commission to pursue role as honest broker in future global negotiations on Internet Governance In the wake of large-scale Internet surveillance and reduced trust in the internet, the European Commission today proposes a key reform to the way the Internet is managed and run. The proposal calls for more transparent, accountable and inclusive governance. Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes said: "The next two years will be critical in redrawing the global map of Internet governance. Europe must contribute to a credible way forward for global internet governance. Europe must play a strong role in defining what the net of the future looks like.” The Commission is committed to an internet that continues to serve fundamental freedoms and human rights, Kroes noted: “Our fundamental freedoms and human rights are not negotiable. They must be protected online.” .... http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm

1 0

New "Internet Governance" list
by Gordon Lennox 07 Feb '14

07 Feb '14

The new Internetgovtech mailing list may be of interest to people here. https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech There will also be a bof at the IETF in London. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/89/agenda/igovupdate/ Regards, Gordon

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 04 Feb '14

04 Feb '14

Jim Yes, but from what I've seen most people who want geographically diverse DNS these days use a service which offers it eg. Dyn or one of the other big DNS providers. I know you're doing it for your personal domain, but that's hardly surprising :) Registry operators - particularly ccTLDs - do this all the time, but I don't see many registrants of domains doing it anymore. And I thought this paper was about domains more than domain registries? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:42 AM To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering On 25 Jan 2014, at 02:10, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Can you please provide examples of domains where the situation you described could exist? > > Eg: > "target domain name. In fact, for the sake of redundancy, a domain > name may have many authoritative servers, spread around the world and also operated by different companies." > > I can't see how that could work technically, but maybe I'm missing > something - an example would be helpful Ever heard of zone transfer Michele? :-) Many organisations spread DNS service for their domains across multiple providers: avoiding single points of failure and all that. For instance many TLDs rely on a mixture of name servers they operate themselves, some provided by other TLD registries -- I'll slave your zone if you slave mine -- and others from commercial anycast providers. It might be true that the majority of registrants just stick with whatever DNS is offered by their registrar but not all of them do that. Clueful ones certainly don't.

9 19

Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

Pier Carlo I'm a bit confused by your assertions with respect to authoritative DNS. Can you please provide examples of domains where the situation you described could exist? Eg: "target domain name. In fact, for the sake of redundancy, a domain name may have many authoritative servers, spread around the world and also operated by different companies." I can't see how that could work technically, but maybe I'm missing something - an example would be helpful Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pier Carlo Chiodi Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 6:23 PM To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering Dear Cooperation working group members, Il 07/11/2013 21:53, Meredith Whittaker ha scritto: > With that, I would be happy to help whoever leads pull together a > draft, but I don't have the expertise to lead drafting. as I have already anticipated in another thread, I finally completed a document about web blocking measures for law enforcement purposes. I tried to put together suggestions and hints taken from this mailing list and from documents herein reported. If you believe it's appropriate, it could be reviewed and maybe used as a starting point to eventually produce a RIPE NCC guide, in order to support legislators and stakeholders decisions; otherwise, it will be just another document about the topic! :) I share the document on Google Drive (replace FILE_ID with 0B2tYFe9mK9YfcGFUWkxEaldMdDg): https://drive.google.com/file/d/FILE_ID/edit?usp=sharing In case, just let me know how we can proceed with revisions. My two cents. Best regards, -- Pier Carlo Chiodi http://pierky.com/aboutme The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of any organization, entity or committee to which I may hold a position.

5 9

'Net neutrality just got a boost in Europe, thanks to a consumer rights committee'
by Bastiaan Goslings 24 Jan '14

24 Jan '14

Hi all, FYI, maybe interesting: the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee of the European Parliament released its amendments to the EC's proposed 'Connected continent' regulation. I have not read them myself yet, but according to http://gigaom.com/2014/01/23/net-neutrality-just-got-a-boost-in-europe-than… , which includes a link to the amendments: 'As the text now stands (...), it looks very much like ISPs and content providers have lost the explicit right — included in the original proposals — to strike deals between one another for “specialized services”. This doesn’t mean they can’t strike deals, but it does mean that ability is not entrenched in Europe-wide law. The amendments also place stricter conditions on the deals that can be struck.' Sounds like good news? Obviously: 'Another parliamentary committee, that for Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), will still need to vote on Kroes’s proposals on 24 February, and its members will no doubt have their own amendments. After that, it’s over to the full Parliament for a plenary vote, probably in April.' -Bastiaan

1 0

RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings - Some Background
by Chris Buckridge 02 Jan '14

02 Jan '14

Dear colleagues, Based on recent discussions, it would perhaps be useful to provide some background information on the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings for Governments and Regulators (to use their full title). The RIPE NCC has been holding these events since 2005, generally on a twice-yearly basis, as an opportunity for representatives of governments and public sector authorities to engage directly with RIPE NCC staff and key members of the RIPE community. Over the years, agenda items have included issues such as IPv6 adoption, Internet governance developments, network security, and Internet measurements and analysis. Presentations are generally delivered by RIPE NCC staff, though there have been occasions when representatives from other organisations have presented on issues relevant to the RIPE NCC or RIPE community (e.g. Olaf Kolkman delivered a presentation at the last Roundtable Meeting on the IETF and its role in Internet security). The Roundtable Meetings are held as invitation-only events. This is to allow government representatives, who are often constrained in what they can say in open forums, to speak and exchange information freely. This is vital to ensuring that all participants get the most out of the meetings. The trade-off is that Roundtable Meetings are purely informational - no formal policy discussion or decision-making occurs. As noted on this list, recent Roundtable Meetings have been held alternately in Amsterdam and Brussels - this has been a conscious move to engage more effectively with European Commission and Parliament staff, as well as EU member state representatives who may otherwise be in Brussels at the time. We have coordinated with contacts in the European Commission to organise our Brussels Roundtable Meetings adjacent to relevant meetings or events held by the Commission. Our plan is to continue this pattern, but we are always open to adjusting our Roundtable Meeting organisation to more effectively reach new participants. The Roundtable Meetings have a great success in helping the RIPE NCC to build relationships with the public sector and inform public sector representatives on issues relating to the RIPE community. While the Roundtable Meetings are invitation-only, the RIPE NCC is very happy to hear input or suggestions from the community (particularly this working group) on issues that might usefully be included on the agenda (we are currently developing the agenda for our next Roundtable Meeting in February, and have noted the discussion that has taken place here regarding IP interconnection). We also strongly you to connect us with public sector representatives from your country who may be interested in attending. I hope this is helpful for discussions going forward, and I am happy to answer questions either on or off the mailing list. Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

4 4

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5
by Wout de Natris 13 Dec '13

13 Dec '13

The discussion seems extremely EU focussed, which is not surprising as the EU Commission is a central force to be reckoned with in Internet Governance and a body that makes regulations that touch upon the internet, regulations that often influence other parts of the world be it directly or indirectly as well. It is an important player for RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to reckon with. However, there are at least three regional meetings within the RIPE region. Is there anything to stop those regions to have its own regional Cooperation Working Groups as well? It probably takes some initiative and topics to identify. If the need is there, it is your choice to start one. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:42:25 +0100 > > > 1. Re: IP Interconnection ? expertise wanted - providing > information to the European Institutions (Dmitry Burkov) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:12:21 +0400 > From: Dmitry Burkov <dburk(a)burkov.aha.ru> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] IP Interconnection ? expertise wanted - > providing information to the European Institutions > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>, Roland Perry > <roland(a)internetpolicyagency.com> > Message-ID: <C6FD09BB-9228-431C-9E2F-CD4455D6BD8D(a)burkov.aha.ru> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Gordon, > > just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all. > > And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. > I think it should be also special point on our agenda. > > An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all. > Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips. > > It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region. > > regards, > Dmitry > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > *********************************************

1 0

IP Interconnection – expertise wanted - providing information to the European Institutions
by Alain Van Gaever 12 Dec '13

12 Dec '13

I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of “assured service quality” on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. *Background:* The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)). Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND mentions *“Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the entire framework. “ * Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent regulation. Alain

7 23

The proposed EU Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

Following on from Alain's: "Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of “assured service quality” on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing." Here is an interesting take by Monica Horten: http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/923-eu-t… Gordon

1 0

European Commission and Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

This is worth a read and probably some reflection: << EUROPE AT A TIPPING POINT: LEAKED EC DOCUMENT STIRS INTERNET GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY The European Commission is preparing a policy statement on Internet governance that elevates state power and multi-lateralism over the civil society-based open and participatory governance that has characterized the native Internet governance institutions. An early version of the policy document, obtained from sources in a national government, addresses “Internet Governance and Policy: Europe’s role in shaping the future of the Internet.”[1] The document “lays out Europe’s vision for the future global governance framework, based on a small number of key principles.” The draft is believed to have been written by Andrea Glorioso, a Policy Officer and formerly the EC’s representative on the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee, and may have support from Nellie Kroes, the EC Vice President. ... >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/12/06/europe-at-a-tipping-point-leak…

1 0

Proposed Workplan Coop-WG
by Maria Häll 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

Dear Coop-WG colleagues It's great to see the active discussions and debates on mailing list! :-) Facilitating this kind of open and inclusive dialogue between different stakeholders, both on mailing list and at the Coop-WG meetings etc, is one of the key roles of our WG! Without changing this approach for Coop-WG we think it could be fruitful to agree on a work plan and also have have a list of topics we can focus on. See the proposed work plan below. Please get back to us with comments and feedback! Have a nice weekend! Best, Alain, Meredith and Maria co-chairs Coop-WG Proposed Workplan for the Cooperation Working Group (Coop-WG) The description of the Coop-WG can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/coop In line with this description and mission of the Coop-WG we suggest the following process forward. The co-chairs discussed, and agreed that the mission of the Coop-WG could be briefly summarized as follows. We believe that this short-form mission is useful in focusing our work to achieve the greatest impact. Mission: To improve decision-making and mutual understanding by providing technical expertise to policy makers and the non-technical public. To inform the RIPE community on relevant public policy-related developments and governance processes. Topics for engagement, and modes of engagement To make the best use of limited time and resources, we suggest focusing on a select number of technical topics that are currently important within a number of policy debates. Note that this suggestion is not meant as a limitation: the focus topics will shift, and change, and any RIPE community member eager to engage another topic is invited to do so. The Coop-WG mailing list will will, of course, remain open and welcoming of lively debate. As a starting point, we have provided a list of topics that we recognize to be important and within the scope of RIPE community expertise. We would like your feedback. Some of the topics are already discussed in other working groups, but we believe it useful to have these discussions brought to the Coop-WG as well. We ask you to consider the following questions while reviewing the proposed topic list: 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed topics? 2. Where are you seeing these (or other proposed topics) discussed? 3. Per topic, what are your ideas on specific modes of engagement to have maximum impact? Suggested topics: 1. IP Interconnection (soon to have an established RIPE WG) This topic is of increasing political interest and therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with the proposed Interconnection-WG. Defining and explaining its technical functioning and underlying business logic. a. What is sending/calling party pays? What is the difference and how do they relate to current standards and practices? b. What are IXPs and why are they important for the functioning of the Internet? c. What is an ideal peering ecosystem, and why? What are the ways this can go wrong? 2. Security and Privacy of Networks (is this discussed in some other WG?) This topic is of an increasing political interest therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with other relevant WG:s. a. How and why does infrastructure and network policy impact security and privacy? b. What would a secure network look like? What are the gaps between a secure network and what we have now? c. How can security and privacy be enhanced in the short-term (practical steps)? What are the long term efforts underway to enhance security and privacy? 3. Characteristics of the global Internet a. How does routing, addressing, etc. work? b. What are the dangers of attempting to create bounded (in many cases national) “Internets”? 4. Interrelationships of physical infrastructure a. What are the different physical-layer technologies that make up “the Internet” as we know it? For example, what is the difference between fiber, coax, et al.? What is the impact of e.g. deploying fiber if last mile networks still have only copper, or cable (etc.)? 5. IPv6 (already discussed in the IPv6 WG) a. Why does it really matter that it gets deployed? What are the technical issues related to IPv6? What impact does it make on e-government and e-society development? b. What is the risk of deploying CGNs 6. Roles and responsibilities for intermediaries Proposed guidelines for engagement to best fulfil this mission: Concrete steps the Coop-WG can engage in to move forward: ● Assemble technical experts on a variety of important topics, upon request. These would be volunteers from the community, and they would be asked to engage with governments, regulatory bodies, policy-making bodies, international organisations, NGOs and others that request or could benefit from a better understanding of the technical details of a given topic. The Coop-WG would provide a bridge between these experts and those who can benefit from their counsel. Coop-WG should also offer expertise in the policy-making field to other WGs in RIPE as well as the RIPE NCC. ● Explain technology, but avoid taking positions on specific policies/regulation (or other politicized topics). The Coop-WG is not a lobbying organization. The focus should be on illuminating how the technology works and highlight discussions and fact-based concerns raised in the Coop-WG. This approach allows the Coop-WG to engage a large community hailing from separate sectors, some of whom disagree with each other. It also allows the Coop-WG to remain credible, and provide clear factual information to those who can use it to improve the content of policy and regulation. ● Develop an understanding of areas where RIPE’s expertise can add value. ○ What are the policy areas that governments, policy makers, and others doing advocacy work are currently working on, and on which of those areas could we assist to improve their technical understanding? With the RIPE community, we should continually work to gather questions and topics of interest to which we can contribute. ○ Work with the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to understand the policy areas relevant to the RIPE community. The Coop-WG can be a useful forum for the RIPE community to share information on trends and developments in government policy – especially those that affect the operational community. ○ The Coop-WG can support RIPE NCC to prepare position statements or papers for public consultations and general white papers that increase knowledge on technologies/operational procedures relevant to the RIPE community.

5 4

London
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

5 4

Internet governance
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

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

7 22

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

24 Nov '13

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

3 2

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

24 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

22 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

20 Nov '13

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

1 1

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

19 Nov '13

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

5 10

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

19 Nov '13

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

1 1

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

12 Nov '13

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

1 0

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

11 Nov '13

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

1 0