- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Cooperation WG co-chairs - proposal
by Maria Häll 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

Dear Colleagues, Firstly, let me apologise for not sending a message of action on this issue. I have not been fully online due to a sad situation in my family where a young family member unexpectedly passed away some days ago. As a current co-Chair of this working group, I have reviewed the messages sent to the Coop WG list and I am very pleased to see that we have four wonderful candidates that have expressed their interest to serve as co-Chair. Each Candidate has sent an introduction mail explaining their reasons for standing as a co-Chair. We have the following candidates confirmed: Alain van Gaever, Ofcom Erika Hersaeus, The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS Meredith Whittaker, Google Niall O'Reilly, IT Services Unit at University College Dublin To date, there is no set procedure to select working group Chairs, this is open to the working group to decide. I would like to have the co-Chairs installed as soon as possible (before the Warsaw meeting) that means that a consensus decision needs to be made on this list. I believe this is possible without the overhead of organising an online voting process. For efficiency reasons I think that this WG should not have more than three co-chairs. That would be sufficient in case one of us would not be able to physically attend a meeting as well as for continuity of this WG in case one of us would step down. Please remember that the bulk of the work needs to be done by the actual working group participants and not only the co-Chairs. And that is also the way things have been working before and still do. Moving forward, I propose that we select two new co-chairs to be a reflection of the broader community in RIPE. As I noted from discussions on the list, I see support for co-chairs coming from a government and industry background that would complement me, with my current affiliation to academia. After considering all the candidates’ backgrounds, sector affiliation, country diversity and experience in the Internet Governance space, I propose to this working group to have Alain van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker to be the co-chairs and ask for your full support in this proposal. In a moment, I will send a separate, more formal, mail to this list asking the WG to formally show their support to approve these candidates. I thank all of you for your enthusiasm and commitment to this WG and hope that we continue the productive discussions and exchange of information and identify areas where this WG and the RIPE community can contribute. Warm Regards, Maria Häll co-chair RIPE Cooperation WG CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

1 0

RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF
by Chris Buckridge 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Dear colleagues, The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this year’s theme of “Building Bridges – Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.” Several members of the RIPE NCC’s staff and Senior Management attended, along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as speakers in a number of the workshops. Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised together with Netnod): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource Organisation): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organisation): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 Anne-Rachel Inné, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis for the secretariat and future meetings. The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC’s participation at the IGF in 2014 via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Chris Thanks for the update Regards Michele On 4 Nov 2013, at 14:02, Chris Buckridge <chrisb(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this year’s theme of “Building Bridges – Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.” > > Several members of the RIPE NCC’s staff and Senior Management attended, along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. > > Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as speakers in a number of the workshops. > > Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: > > Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised together with Netnod): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 > > IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 > > Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 > > Anne-Rachel Inné, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis for the secretariat and future meetings. > > The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC’s participation at the IGF in 2014 via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. > > Best regards > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ♞ Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Nomination of co-chair of Cooperation WG
by Maria Häll 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Dear Coop WG colleagues As you all know Patrik Fältström has stepped down as co-chair of the Cooperation Working Group. As remaining co-chair I would like to nominate Niall O'Reilly as new co-chair of the WG. Niall will present himself on the list shortly. If any of you have any other person to nominate, just get back to me on the mailing list or bring it up on the agenda item on this issue on the WG session at 16.00 today. _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll CEO/Föreståndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
by Wout de Natris 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Dear all, Reading Gordon's comments, observations and the invitation to speak e.g. with Marietje Schaaken, I reiterate my comment made in Athens two weeks ago, that the RIPE community must seriously contemplate whether it can afford to go without an at minimum semi-permanent person aimed at following and lobbying the European Commission and Parliament. Why? Policies, whether national or at EU level, are years in the making. The earlier representatives from interested parties speak with the civil servants appointed to work on a policy, the greater the odds that messages come across and positions are understood. Once the wording is more or less set in stone, like when a text is presented to the European Parliament, the civil servants have done most of their work. Lobbying them is then too late and the rest indirect. The window of opportunity at the drafting stage is closed. Industry lobbies Brussels extensively and at times very successfully. In its own direct interest. The internet related organisations do not. If this is important, and the topics discussed in Athens suggested to me that it is, the conclusion is that an organisation like RIPE can not afford to ignore politics. Only being there from the start gives influence in the drafting and thinking process. Recent actions from e.g. I* show that positions and actions change, but perhaps not rigorously enough. Internet has become a very political topic. For the internet related organisations the consequence is that politics can no longer be ignored. Hence my advice: Be there from the start from now on and match the more selfish lobbying from corporations with and for the common good. Being there means knowing which fights to pick and the right moment to step in and knowing the right people; efficiency. The side effect is positive also. The right people get to know RIPE (NCC) and hence will show up at roundtables and meetings more to discuss and participate and learn. Best, Wout > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by > European Commission > To: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Wouter van Hulten <wouter(a)vanhulten.com> > > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com>, "connect-bof(a)ripe.net" <connect-bof(a)ripe.net>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > > Thanks for this clear summary. > > > > I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. > > > > Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. > > > > Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-packa… > > Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-con… > > > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. > > > > Wouter > > > > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > > 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 <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma…> > > > > > > > > On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> connect-bof mailing list > >> connect-bof(a)ripe.net > >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof > >> > > > >

1 0

Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
by Erika.Hersaeus＠pts.se 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear all, I would like to introduce myself regarding the nomination as co-chair of the Cooperation WG. For those of you who don´t know me, I´m Erika Hersaeus and I work at the Swedish NRA - The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS, since several years. I´m interested in enhancing the cooperation and dialogue between the EU Commission, governments, authorities, and the technical community! I would be taking on the role as a representative of my employer. PTS recognize the importance of taking part of the existing processes on Internet Governance, for instance the RIPE meetings and the PDP, and to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community. I´ve experience from e.g. regulation, cooperation and promoting Network and Information Security in Sweden. I´ve been attending RIPE meetings since 2008 in order to follow and take part in the development and discussions within the community´s area since PTS is the Swedish sector authority for electronic communications and we need to be updated on what´s going on. For instance I´ve been working with promoting the deployment of IPv6 and DNSSEC in public bodies in Sweden - also in enhanced cooperation. We also have experience from when there has been a lack of dialogue, which did not result in successful regulation, wherefore I´m an advocate of enhanced dialogue between governments and the technical community. I´ve also experience from arranging Swedish Cooperation fora since 2007. PTS is the host for RGIG, Reference Group on Internet Governance, where representatives from different ministries, authorities, the private sector and the Internet community, meet three times per year. We use an email list between the meetings in order to distribute information about accurate issues, for instance EU directives, ITU resolutions, information from RIPE, articles etc. I would be glad to make an effort in having more representatives from the regulation side, governments, NRA, etc. taking part of the RIPE Community and enhancing the dialogue! If you have any questions, please don´t hesitate to contact me. Regards, Erika

1 0

Candidates
by Gordon Lennox 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

If I understand well we now have four (possible) candidates for co-chair: Alain van Gaever Erika Hersaeus Meredith Whittaker Niall O'Reilly This is great! Four good people - yet with quite different backgrounds and skills. It really shows the interest if the WG. And there is a lot of important work to be done. Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. Not on a people level and not on a work level. Among other things we in the EU will be beginning the transition to a new Parliament and a new Commission around then. So what should be the plan? Best, Gordon

4 3

Re: [cooperation-wg] Candidates
by Malcolm Hutty 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

If we have two positions vacant,it strikes me we should strive to get the best of both worlds: someone with a background in government crossing over into the tech community, and someone with a background in the tech community crossing over into the world of policy. Malcolm.

2 1

Barroso on ICTs
by Gordon Lennox 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

http://ec.europa.eu/news/pdf/131024_en.pdf

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
by Wout de Natris 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

Jim´s suggestions make a lot of sense. +1 from me. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:00:03 +0200 > > 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. Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG > (Alain Van Gaever) > 2. Candidates (Gordon Lennox) > 3. appointing a new co-chair (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:16:39 +0100 > From: Alain Van Gaever <avangaev(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE > Cooperation WG > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CANeNdNK2bqDfSEU_YTRFJi5ueWgMv+FBy=8Vpij640jWs-V6Dg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dear all, > > > During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the > RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European > Institutions and other governmental organisations. > > > Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I > could lend a hand. > > > I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on > the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO > office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more > background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: > uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ > > > Therefore ? if the RIPE community approves ? I would like to introduce my > candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. > > > With kind regards, > > > Alain Van Gaever >

1 0

Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
by Alain Van Gaever 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

Dear all, During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European Institutions and other governmental organisations. Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I could lend a hand. I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ Therefore – if the RIPE community approves – I would like to introduce my candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. With kind regards, Alain Van Gaever

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: How “National” is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure?
by Mirjam Kuehne 23 Oct '13

23 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Razvan C. Oprea's presentation during the MAT-WG at the recent RIPE Meeting in Athens, we put a summary report on RIPE Labs: How “National” is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/benno_overeinder/dutch-critical-ip-infrastruc… This is a contribution by Benno Overeinder, Fahimeh Alizadeh and Razvan C. Oprea. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Neelie Kroes calls for a serious global debate on Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Worth an attentive listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzB8gyq43k

1 0

European Parliament
by Gordon Lennox 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a clear interest in Internet matters. https://www.eifonline.org/members.html There are others of course! Gordon

6 5

Cooperation WG co-shair self nomination
by Meredith Whittaker 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Hello all, I'm interested in working with you to continue to the growth and development of an empirical, technically-founded, data-based voice in policy and governance. I would be taking on this role in my personal capacity, not as a representative of my employer. Bio/soapbox: I'm a Program Manager at Google Research, focusing on Open Source and Open Data (net: how do we provide verifiable data in place of rhetoric and assurances of trustworthiness?). I know many of you (hello!), and those I know have likely heard me monologue about the need for the technical community's input in policymaking. This is my wheelhouse -- in the quest not to totally mess up the Internet, I can think of few things more important. Both because naive political mandates could seriously harm the utility and viability of the most revolutionary engine for human communication since Gutenberg, and because (listen up) these same careless mandates almost certainly take no account of the way networks *actually work,* hampering Operators (your) agency to make sensible decisions and innovations. All that to say, I'd be honored and happy to work with the formidable intellects at RIPE to help develop this technical voice. With some deference to brevity, I'll leave it there. Please ask me any questions. Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

1 0

Draft RIPE NCC submission on EU NIS Directive
by Chris Buckridge 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, As noted in the recent RIPE Labs article on European Union (EU) engagement, the RIPE NCC has been working with representatives of the RIPE community to address the European Commission's proposed EU Directive on network and information security (NIS). This proposed Directive is currently under consideration by the European Parliament and is available online at: http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_directive_en.pdf The aim of this Directive is "to ensure a high common level of network and information security (NIS) across the EU", specifically through the establishment of national Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), improved information sharing between national authorities and required reporting on risk levels and security incidents by providers of "information society services". RIPE community members and RIPE NCC staff have identified several areas of concern with the current draft of the Directive, and these concerns form the basis of the draft response below. We would like to invite feedback from this working group on whether there is support for the position(s) taken in the statement, whether there is support for the RIPE NCC engaging Members of the European Parliament on this issue, and any other thoughts. There will also be a discussion of this issue in the RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session, which takes place on Thursday, 17 October, 16:00-17:30 local time (UTC+3). You can follow and contribute to this session either on-site in Athens or remotely at: https://ripe67.ripe.net/live/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC -------------------------- The RIPE NCC welcomes the European Commission's efforts in the area of network and information security (NIS), premised on the need for closer international cooperation to meet the global nature of network security issues. We also welcome the Directive's acknowledgement of the need for all stakeholder groups to participate in developing solutions to NIS challenges. Drawing on discussions with members of the RIPE community and internally, the RIPE NCC would like to raise a general concern with the current draft. While the proposed Directive recognises the importance of "informal cooperation mechanisms", we believe that there is an important and formal role for multi-stakeholder mechanisms and processes in refining the implementation details of the Directive. Recognition of such a role would be particularly useful in relation to the following specific aspects of the Directive: 1. Scope The RIPE NCC believes that there is a need to clarify the scope of the Directive, particularly with regard to the following terms: - "information society services which enable the provision of other information society services" - "significant impact" (in relation to security incidents) In line with the purpose and the legal basis of the Directive (i.e. ensuring the functioning of the Internal Market according to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), we believe that the Directive should be clearly limited to organisations or security incidents that directly impact the Internal Market. Clear criteria should be developed via transparent, multi-stakeholder processes to identify those incidents or organisations covered by the Directive. 2. Establishment of security requirements The Directive aims to establish security requirements for market operators and public administrations, and to this end it empowers the Commission to: - Draw up a list of standards by means of implementing acts [1] - Adopt delegated acts concerning the definition of circumstances in which public administrations and market operators are required to notify incidents The Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union notes the role of multi-stakeholder, bottom-up procedures in developing and maintaining security standards. We believe it would be appropriate that the specification of such standards and definitions in the context of this Directive should also be the outcome of such formal, multi-stakeholder processes. This would help to ensure the inclusion of input from all relevant stakeholders and the flexibility and responsiveness that is required in an online environment. [1] Definitions of "implementing acts" and "delegated acts": http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/lisbo…

1 0

RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU
by Chris Buckridge 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European Union. It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals regarding electronic identification (eID) and network and information security (NIS): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We also look forward to further discussion of these issues at the upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

7 6

Agenda - Cooperation WG at RIPE 67 in Athens
by Maria Häll 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

Dear all, See agenda below. RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group DRAFT AGENDA A. Panel: IXPs, Internet Traffic and Public Policy (Moderated by Patrik Fältström, Netnod) B. Update on Proposed EU Electronic Identification (eID) and Trust Services Regulation (Athina Fragkouli, RIPE NCC) C. ICANN European Strategy Development (Nigel Hickson, ICANN) D. RIPE NCC External Relations Update: The Year Ahead (Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC) E. Planning for RIPE Cooperation WG Co-Chair Z. AOB See you in Athens! / Maria Häll, co-chair RIPE Cooperation WG

1 0

[news] RIPE NCC Commits Additional Support to the Internet Governance Forum
by Axel Pawlik 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has announced that it will provide 50,000 USD in financial support for the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) event in Bali, Indonesia. This one-time contribution is provided in response to an urgent appeal from the IGF 2013 Secretariat Committee, and is in addition to the 100,000 USD already provided by the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) via the Number Resource Organization (NRO). Both ARIN and APNIC have made the same commitment to additional funding for the eighth IGF event, and others in the multi-stakeholder community have also committed to increasing their contributions. The IGF is a major annual venue for Internet governance-related discussions, bringing together a diverse range of Internet stakeholders from around the world to consider a wide range of subjects. It has also served as an important platform for the RIPE NCC to defend the open and bottom-up processes of the RIR system. The ongoing health and stability of this forum is key to the realisation of true multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet. The RIRs have repeatedly argued the need for significant, ongoing financial commitments from all stakeholder groups. Concerns about whether the 2013 event would be able to proceed have served to highlight the fragility of the IGF with its current funding base. In making this additional contribution, the RIPE NCC again calls on all Internet stakeholders to contribute financially to the IGF. Only through a broad, multi-stakeholder base of support can we ensure that the IGF will continue to serve its very important role in Internet governance. Kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

[news] RIPE NCC Responds to UN CSTD Questionnaire on Enhanced Cooperation
by Chris Buckridge 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has submitted responded to a public questionnaire posted by the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on enhanced Cooperation. Our response reflects the many efforts of the RIPE NCC and RIPE community to build productive relationships across traditional stakeholder divisions, in the spirit of enhanced cooperation. The full text of our submission is available at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/cstd-… Best regards Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Enabling CDN-ISP Collaboration
by Georgios Smaragdakis 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

Dear all, - In T-Labs/TU Berlin we maintain a website with all our research activities on CDN-ISP collaboration that are very related to RIPE Cooperation working group objectives: http://www.smaragdakis.net/research/Collaboration - For the most recent document on CDN-ISP collaboration and Network Functions Virtualization please see our paper that appears in ACM SIGCOMM CCR July 2013 issue: "Pushing CDN-ISP Collaboration to the Limit" http://www.smaragdakis.net/publications/CCR-NetPaaS best regards, --George ---------------------------------- Georgios Smaragdakis, Senior Researcher Deutsche Telekom Laboratories Technical University of Berlin http://www.smaragdakis.net

1 0

Redirecționat: new draft CAs Redirecționat: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 3rd shadows' meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss)
by ANDERSDOTTER Amelia 01 Jul '13

01 Jul '13

Dear all, I was given the advice to send this e-mail to the cooperation group of RIPE. I know that you have had concerns with the system proposed by the European Commission for trust service providers in it's eIDAS regulation, and that you held a special hearing on this topic on Thursday May 17th (https://ripe66.ripe.net/archives/steno/21/) I have also understood that you were largely unsatisfied with the Commission's insurances. The issue in the European Parliament is as follows: You can find the complete set of amendments on the regulation as proposed by the industry committee here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html?linkedD… You can also find a systematic of the amendments that I personally tabled here: http://ameliaandersdotter.eu/dossiers/eid And so you may notice that many of the amendments actually go sort of the right direction. Now we are in "compromise proceedings". This means that representatives from the various political groups (I represent the Greens/EFA) meet to discuss how to politically proceed with the file. On the topic of QTSPs I have proposed deleting all mentioning of qualified X in favour of a model that promotes transparency (responsible vulnerability disclosure, audit reports, transparent instruction sets from supervisory bodies, etc). Basically a self-regulatory model where, if something goes wrong, the idea is that it is known and can be fixed. However, qualified X and advanced X are legacies from the e-signatures directive in 1999. The Commission has not proposed to remedy this system even though it has turned out not to work in any member state and mostly not been conducive to any particular development. I have argued with my colleagues that security-by-transparency is much more supported and promoted in the community that actually develops secure solutions for whatever, and that security-by-policy is a legacy system which has proven mostly to fail. Further it means unnecessary red-tape with no benefit, as well as a risk of lock-in for crucial society functions. Unfortunately, member in the European Parliament have been given a very poor base of making decisions on this issue from the European Commission, and now we need for the Conservative group (EPP) to either agree or not that red-tape and lock-in are bad things, with little additional value for society, or not. If not, it may well be that a grand coalition of S&D and EPP keeps all the qualified stuff in, thereby destroying, I fear, many of the functioning self-regulatory models already in existance. I am not really able to carry this argument on my own though - the problem for me is that I am up against a 13 year old legislation (e-sig directive 1999) that the Commission in its wisdom has chosen not to change much, other than making it into a regulation, despite having investigated it for a long time. It would be very helpful if RIPE were to support my case before, say, Tuesday July 2nd so that we can have the EPP not flat out reject my approach of not creating stupid paper work for no good reason. Should anyone have any specific questions about my proposed transparency requirements they are free to contact me at any time, you can also check the above provided links. best regards, Amelia Piratpartiet ________________________________________ De la: Patrik Fältström [paf(a)frobbit.se] Trimis: 29 iunie 2013 16:21 Către: ANDERSDOTTER Amelia Cc: maria(a)sunet.se; gordon.lennox(a)gmail.com; fredrik(a)kirei.se; athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net; leifj(a)sunet.se Subiect: Re: new draft CAs Redirecționat: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 3rd shadows' meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss) Amelia, I think you directly could send mail to cooperation wg of RIPE... ;-) <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> As well as other activities. Patrik On 29 jun 2013, at 14:45, ANDERSDOTTER Amelia <amelia.andersdotter(a)europarl.europa.eu> wrote: > dear all, > > in thse compromise amendments we could have had responsible vulnerability disclosure and a removal of the qualified stuff that i believe many of you are in agreement with me should not be there. > > however, the EPP needs to be convinced that red tape is not good. > > if the EpP could be convinced of this then the S&D will cave. > > however, at present we are lacking lobbies that are backing me up in these claism, and so we are likely to go for security-by-policy rather than security-by-transparency. and then we will also have trustmarks in article 18a(new) since ITRE will not over-ride IMCO unless ITRE chooses a different approach from IMCO whcih we do not if we go for security-by-policy and trustmarks. > > and so, i in no way wish to stress you unduly in your important activities, but i anyway have done so now, because the compromises are important. > > /a > > ________________________________________ > De la: KAARTINEN Elina > Trimis: 28 iunie 2013 17:10 > Către: KAARTINEN Elina; ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; RUDOLF Michael; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subiect: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 3rd shadows' meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss) > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > the rapporteur Ms Ulvskog would like to invite you to a shadows' meeting that will take place on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss). > > Please, find enclosed the revised CA proposal for the e-ID part. Furthermore the rapporteur would like to support the idea of the replacement of the word identification with the word authentication in articles 3(2) and 3(3) and all other articles which do not obviously relate to the definition of "electronic identification". The CA text to this effect will be proposed by the rapporteur later. > > Please, find attached also the very first draft CAs concerning the trust services part. These CAs are still very preliminary and still subject to changes. The rapporteur would like to however already discuss these proposals with you next week. Further CAs will follow on the trust services part to cover all related articles. > > The scope of the shadows' meeting would be: > - to reach a political agreement on the first set of CAs (e-ID part of Regulation) > - discuss further the enclosed CAs on the trust services and define the framework for the remaining part of the Regulation > > Kind regards, > Elina > > Elina Kaartinen > Administrator > European Parliament > Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) - Secretariat > Rue Wiertz 60 > B-1047 Brussels > Office (BRU): ATR 00 K 065 > Tel (BRU): +32 2 283 2388 > Email: elina.kaartinen(a)europarl.europa.eu<mailto:elina.kaartinen@europarl.europa.eu> > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/> > > > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 18 June 2013 12:05 > To: KAARTINEN Elina; ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subject: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - invitation to the 2nd shadows' meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 15h30-16h30 > Importance: High > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > the rapporteur Ms Ulvskog would like to invite you to a shadows' meeting that will take place in in Brussels on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 15h30-16h30. The meeting will concentrate on the trust services part of the eIDAS Regulation. > > As discussed in Strasbourg last week, there will be also a third shadows' meeting before the summer break. It is planned for Tuesday, 2 July 2013 in Strasbourg at 9h00-10h00 (meeting room S4.5 - Louise Weiss). Could you kindly take already also note on this meeting and put it in your calendar. > > In the meanwhile and as agreed the draft compromises (e-ID part) will be circulated by email. > > Kind regards, > Elina > > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 10 June 2013 15:19 > To: KAARTINEN Elina; ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subject: REMINDER - ITRE draft report on eIDAS - shadows' meeting in Strasbourg on 12 June 2013 at 9h00-10h30 meeting room M04096 (Winston Churchill) + AMs now available in all languages > Importance: High > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > Further to the shadows' meeting on Wednesday, 12 June at 9h00-10h30 (meeting room M04096/Winston Churchill), the amendments translated in all languages can be found from here: > > http://www.itrenet.ep.parl.union.eu/itrenet/cms/cache/offonce/welcome/work_… > > Kind regards, > Elina > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 29 May 2013 09:35 > To: ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; YU Wan Tung Perlie; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib > Subject: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - shadows' meeting in Strasbourg on 12 June 2013 at 9h00-10h30 meeting room M04096 (Winston Churchill) > Importance: High > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > Further to the amendments (XM file) circulated last week, the rapporteur Ms Ulvskog would like to invite you to a shadows' meeting that will take place in Strasbourg on 12 June 2013 at 9h00-10h30 meeting room M04096 (Winston Churchill). > > If possible, could you inform the ITRE Secretariat (Elina Kaartinen) in advance on your availability. > > Kind regards, > Elina Kaartinen > ITRE Secretariat > > ________________________________ > From: KAARTINEN Elina > Sent: 24 May 2013 14:08 > To: ULVSKOG Marita; DEL CASTILLO Pilar; CREUTZMANN Jürgen; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia; KARIM Sajjad > Cc: ULVSKOG Marita OFFICE; DEL CASTILLO Pilar OFFICE; CREUTZMANN Jürgen OFFICE; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE; STROMGREN Kristoffer; GARCIA JONES Miguel José; SANCHEZ MUNOZ Carmen; GISSLER Constantin; HUFNAGEL Sebastian; BENCZE Julien; TRAUNG Peter; GUCCIONE Stefano; YU Wan Tung Perlie; DE WIT Catharina; CECIRE Alessandra; BAIER Klaus; ALEXANIAN Patrick; BALAZ Zlatko; BALLOT-DU FAYET DE LA TOUR Heloise; BRACHOWICZ Maciej Jan; BURSI Camilla; CHALENCON Delphine; DELGINIESSE Christine; FRISOVA Jolana; GIL DE MURO ARENAS Jose Antonio; GOLDSMITH Gareth Jon; GOUNAUD Pauline; GULBE Ance; JANKEVICIUS Edmundas; JOSE Michael John; KROPAITE Egle; LEBERLE Heike; LEVOYANNIS Constantine; LINNEMANN Tobias; MASSEI Manlio; MERGULHAO Teresa; MONTANO Elisabetta; MURRAY Grace; PETRE Nicholas; POLES Christopher; QUERTON Isabelle; RAQUET Michel; RAYM Maxim; REIJNEN Jeroen; 'RUDOLF Michael'; SALAGNAC Catherine; SANTAMARIA Veronica; SERVELLON Sergio; SOEIRO Renato; SOUSA DE JESUS Alfredo; TELEJKO Bartlomiej; TOENNIS Melanie; TOTH Edina; VANDEWALLE Laurence; WYLIE Daniel; ZIOBRO Witold Wladyslaw; KONKEL Agnieszka; KONSTANTOPOULOS Panos; DE FRUTOS GOMEZ Jose Manuel; KNÖFEL Susanne; ANDERSDOTTER Amelia OFFICE2; DEL MONTE Micaela; RODRIGUES Joao; PUPPAN Daniel; ELEFTERIE Kristina; TANG Kaisa; PORRINO Fabrizio; SILVEIRA DA CUNHA Patricia; RODRIGUES Joao; ANAGNOSTOPOULOU Ioanna; PUPPAN Daniel; PORRINO Fabrizio; DE FRUTOS GOMEZ Jose Manuel; AHNBORG Sara; TANG Kaisa; KNÖFEL Susanne; DEL MONTE Micaela; KONKEL Agnieszka; VASILE-TOVORNIK Alina Gabriela; KARIM Sajjad OFFICE; ERSHAD Sakib; KAARTINEN Elina > Subject: ITRE draft report on eIDAS - amendments (2 XM files) - consideration of the amendments ITRE meeting of 19-20 June 2013 > > Dear Members, > dear colleagues, > > please, find enclosed already for your information the amendments tabled to the ITRE draft report on eIDAS (XM files). > > A shadows' meeting in Strasbourg in June has been planned (exact time and place tbc). > > The consideration of the amendments will take place in the ITRE meeting of 19-20 June 2013 > > > Timetable as reminder: > > Indicative Timetable ITRE Report > > Exchange of views > > 18 December 2012 > > > > > Consideration of draft report > > 24 April 2013 > > Deadline for tabling amendments > > 15 May 2013 at 12h00 > > > > > Consideration of amendments > > > 19-20 June 2013 > > Vote ITRE (mandate) > > > 18-19 September 2013 > > Vote Plenary > > tbc > > > > > Kind regards, > Elina > > Elina Kaartinen > Administrator > European Parliament > Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) - Secretariat > Rue Wiertz 60 > B-1047 Brussels > Office (BRU): ATR 00 K 065 > Tel (BRU): +32 2 283 2388 > Email: elina.kaartinen(a)europarl.europa.eu<mailto:elina.kaartinen@europarl.europa.eu> > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/> > > > <draft CAs- 1st version- Art 1-8+ Recitals- version 26 June.doc><CA on trust services article 11-14 Eidas 280613.doc>

2 1

RIPE NCC Response to Proposed EC Regulation on Electronic ID and Trust Services
by Axel Pawlik 28 Jun '13

28 Jun '13

Dear colleagues, At the recent RIPE 66 Meeting, Andrea Servida of the European Commission delivered a presentation on the proposed EU Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. Video, transcript and minutes of the session are available at: https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ Text of this proposed Regulation is available on the European Commission website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0238:EN:… [available in various languages and formats] Based on the RIPE 66 presentation and the discussions that it provoked, the RIPE NCC has identified a number of serious concerns with the proposal, and we believe that the current proposal text may be interpreted in ways that conflict with the basic intent of the Regulation. Specifically, we believe that the proposal could be interpreted as applying to technologies and services beyond electronic identification (eID) and eID-related trust services, perhaps extending to cover unrelated technologies to eID such as Domain Name Security Extensions (DNSSEC) and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). An analysis about the scope of the proposed Regulation and possible implications can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… Such a broad scope for the Regulation could serve to inhibit efforts by the Internet technical community in the EU (often in collaboration with colleagues and counterparts around the world) to secure the infrastructure of the Internet. We also believe that such a broad scope is not the intention of the Regulation. The RIPE NCC plans to send a letter, detailing our concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. A draft of this letter can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… It is important to send this letter quickly to ensure that officials have a chance to reflect on our concerns before committing to a position on the Regulation. With that in mind, we would appreciate any feedback from the RIPE community on the language of the letter, the positions and the strategy. Such feedback may be provided on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list or directly to the RIPE NCC at <ncc(a)ripe.net>. We would also welcome any information that community members can provide on MEPs that might have an interest in this issue. We encourage RIPE community members to contact their national MEPs regarding this Regulation, and please feel free to use any or all of the language found in the draft RIPE NCC letter. Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director, RIPE NCC

3 2

RIPE NCC Launches New Initiatives at EuroDIG 2013
by Chris Buckridge 27 Jun '13

27 Jun '13

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has posted a report on our participation at last week's EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Internet Governance) meeting in Lisbon, including two new initiatives launched by the RIPE NCC at the event: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/rip… Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

eID and Trust Services
by Gordon Lennox 21 Jun '13

21 Jun '13

Here is a video of an exchange in the Parliament on the topic presented and discussed in Dublin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPqbqjisF6Y Regards, Gordon

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Response to Proposed EC Regulation on Electronic ID and Trust Services
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 17 Jun '13

17 Jun '13

Axel Thanks to you and RIPE for taking the lead on this. I've forwarded it to a couple of other interested parties. With respect to the current draft I'm supportive of the proposed text Regards Michele On 17 Jun 2013, at 03:49, Axel Pawlik <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > At the recent RIPE 66 Meeting, Andrea Servida of the European Commission delivered a presentation on the proposed EU Regulation on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market. Video, transcript and minutes of the session are available at: > https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ > > Text of this proposed Regulation is available on the European Commission website: > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012PC0238:EN:… > [available in various languages and formats] > > Based on the RIPE 66 presentation and the discussions that it provoked, the RIPE NCC has identified a number of serious concerns with the proposal, and we believe that the current proposal text may be interpreted in ways that conflict with the basic intent of the Regulation. > > Specifically, we believe that the proposal could be interpreted as applying to technologies and services beyond electronic identification (eID) and eID-related trust services, perhaps extending to cover unrelated technologies to eID such as Domain Name Security Extensions (DNSSEC) and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). An analysis > about the scope of the proposed Regulation and possible implications can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… > > Such a broad scope for the Regulation could serve to inhibit efforts by the Internet technical community in the EU (often in collaboration with colleagues and counterparts around the world) to secure the infrastructure of the Internet. We also believe that such a broad scope is not the intention of the Regulation. > > The RIPE NCC plans to send a letter, detailing our concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. A draft of this letter can be found at: > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeh… > > It is important to send this letter quickly to ensure that officials have a chance to reflect on our concerns before committing to a position on the Regulation. With that in mind, we would appreciate any feedback from the RIPE community on the language of the letter, the positions and the strategy. Such feedback may be provided on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list or directly to the RIPE NCC at <ncc(a)ripe.net>. > > We would also welcome any information that community members can provide on MEPs that might have an interest in this issue. We encourage RIPE community members to contact their national MEPs regarding this Regulation, and please feel free to use any or all of the language found in the draft RIPE NCC letter. > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director, RIPE NCC > -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Minutes Cooperation WG - RIPE66 Dublin
by Maria Häll 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Dear Coop WG friends, Here are the minutes from the meeting: Cooperation Working Group Agenda Thursday, 16 May 11:00 – 12:30 The Co-Chairs introduced the agenda. Maria Häll noted her new role as CEO for SUNET, the Swedish university network. A. RIPE NCC External Relations Update Paul Rendek, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC Paul Rendek spoke about the RIPE NCC's External Relations work, focusing on developments in the law enforcement area and some of the issues that have been raised by Internet stakeholders in the Middle East (including suggestions of the need for an "Arab RIR"). Chris Buckridge presented updates on two International Telecommunication Union (ITU) events, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) and the World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-13). He also discussed the Internet-related work going on in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which the RIPE NCC and industry partners are contributing to via the Internet Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC) to the OECD. Jim Reid noted the challenges faced in engaging a complex organisation like the ITU, and asked about the broader strategy of RIPE NCC to handle this. Chris noted that goal was to address the government concerns at the heart of the complex discussions, and that coordination and resource-sharing between technical organisations (including the other RIRs and I* organisations) was vital to achieving this in the ITU context. Paul Rendek also noted that the complexity and specificity of the ITU forums can be a strength, providing an outlet for ITU stakeholders to consider or study issues without affecting policy-making in other forums. Tahar Schaa noted a defensive tone in some of the RIRs' submissions in the WTPF process, and argued that the RIRs should be more confident in pressing the case that the current governance systems have been responsible for the Internet's emergence and growth. He also suggested that many of the issues identified by governments, such as multilingual TLDs, are not pressing issues for Internet users. Chris noted that this kind of feedback is one reason that the RIPE NCC reports on its engagement in such detail. He also noted that there is a need to engage governments without aggravating their concerns - how to achieve this is an ongoing discussion. Constanze Bürger commended the RIPE NCC's engagement, and encouraged other governments to bring their concerns to open forums such as the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. B. eID and Trust Services Regulation in the EU Andrea Servida, European Commission DG CONNECT Andrea Servida presented on the European Commission's draft European Regulation regarding electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the EU market. He described the scope of the proposed Regulation, its intended purpose, and how the Commission sees it being implemented by Member States. Jim Reid questioned how the electronic data gathered by eID services would be stored, used or potentially misused. Andrea noted that the set-up of such systems (including safeguards for user data) would generally be handled at a national level, but that at the cross-border level, the European Commission will work to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure that only the information necessary for a specific purpose can be accessed. Patrick Tarpey asked about the intended use of secondary national legislation and whether this might result in security and operational practices differing from state to state, including the strength of cryptographic controls. He noted that such differences could means gaps in security. Andrea noted that the proposal is intended to improve on the current situation, and that while there may be differences across states, the Commission is working with Member States to ensure that there will be common levels of security assured. Patrick sought clarification on whether this might result in different approaches to revocation of cryptographic material; Andrea noted that the goal of the Regulation would be to help harmonise such differences across Member States. Tahar Schaa questioned whether the Regulation was intended to cover (or create competition for) existing electronic identification mechanisms from the private sector, such as Google or Amazon IDs. Andrea noted that the intention is that Member States could decide to bring any existing identification mechanisms, whether public or private, under legislation within the framework of the Regulation. He clarified though that the intent is only for the Regulation to cover identification schemes used to access public services. Patrik Fältström noted that Article 5 of the Regulation notes that the Commission will maintain a list of electronic ID schemes to be accepted by EU Member States, and expressed surprise that the Commission had not been involved in the discussions surrounding development and deployment of DNSSEC and RPKI schemes. He identified a clash between such schemes, developed through bottom-up processes in the technical community, and this Regulation. Andrea argued that the Commission had conducted extensive public consultation, and that the Regulation leaves the choice to Member State which eID schemes to use; the list maintained by the Commission will help facilitate the use of eIDs across different countries which will require building trust. D. Public/Private Cooperation on Internet Issues: The Irish Experience Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd Michele Neylon presented on the Irish Internet industry and its relationship to the Irish government, particularly regarding Internet governance issues. He also noted that the Irish industry has been relatively slow in IPv6 adoption. Donal Cunningham noted that his company had been asked, when tendering for a government project, to include IPv6 compatibility, and that the government then followed up by actually asking for their IPv6 allocation. Brian Nisbet noted that one area of positive activity from the Irish government was that the Department of Communications and Department of Education had been investing heavily in broadband for schools. Michele suggested that while there was good work being done, it was being done in isolation, and that better coordination between the public and private sectors would be welcome. C. Building Cooperation with the Academic Networks Community Maria Häll, SUNET Maria delivered a very brief presentation, noting her new role with the Swedish university network, and highlighting the importance of cooperation between all stakeholder groups, including academia. She emphasised her hope to see national research and education networks (NRENs) take a greater interest in Internet governance issues. Paul Rendek noted that the RIPE NCC is focused on building relationships with NRENs, and this includes helping them get involved in Internet governance discussions. Maria closed the meeting. _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll Co-Chair RIPE Cooperation WG

1 0

CoE -"Network Neutrality and Human Rights"
by Gordon Lennox 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Last week the Council of Europe had a "multi-stakeholder dialogue on network neutrality and human rights". See: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/ http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/NN%20Conf%202013/default_en.asp It was a good meeting. Some of the flavour can be had from Chris Marsden's opening presentation. http://www.slideshare.net/EXCCELessex/pre-history-of-european-network-neutr… A short outcomes paper of the major points of discussion is now being prepared which will, after participants comments, be communicated to the 47 member state representatives of the CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) to consider and propose further action. Regards, Gordon

1 0

CoE -"Network Neutrality and Human Rights"
by Gordon Lennox 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Last week the Council of Europe had a "multi-stakeholder dialogue on network neutrality and human rights". See: http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/ http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/NN%20Conf%202013/default_en.asp It was a good meeting. Some of the flavour can be had from Chris Marsden's opening presentation. http://www.slideshare.net/EXCCELessex/pre-history-of-european-network-neutr… A short outcomes paper of the major points of discussion is now being prepared which will, after participants comments, be communicated to the 47 member state representatives of the CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) to consider and propose further action. Regards, Gordon

1 0

Change of representative of the European Commission
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 03 Jun '13

03 Jun '13

Dear all, I would like to let you know that following an internal restructuring within the "International relations" unit of DG CONNECT, the official "liaison" of the European Commission with the RIPE Cooperation Working Group will be - as of today - Mr Achilleas Kemos (in copy). A request to subscribe Mr Kemos to this mailing list has already been submitted this morning. Until the subscription becomes effective, thanks for keeping Mr Kemos in copy to further exchanges. 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 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 29 May '13

29 May '13

Well it would be helpful to know who is actually in this group to start with Also I'd be wary of setting restrictions on who should / shouldn't be chair / co-chair, as participation levels in general are usually pretty low .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland(a)perry.co.uk] Sent: 29 May 2013 15:18 To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg In message <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F(a)frobbit.se>, at 09:42:59 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Patrik Fältström <patrik(a)frobbit.se> remarked: >As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod And Maria also moved jobs, so now's the time for the RIPE community to decide if this government/industry WG should be recruiting new talent. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a criticism of Maria's move, nor her personal capabilities, but I think the WG should have a co-chair who is still on the government (ministry/regulator) side of the fence. People move jobs, they change their responsibilities; we should recognise that. -- Roland Perry

3 2

Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg
by Patrik Fältström 29 May '13

29 May '13

All, As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod started to work much more operationally with Internet related issues. This includes many things covered by the cooperation wg, like immediate proposed legislative things. But this change have had impact on the amount of time I have on administrative issues, and the time I have I must primarily spend on my position as chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN. This does not imply any kind of decrease in Netnod support of, and my participation in, RIPE processes, and I do notice explicitly you did like the coffee in the breaks in Dublin :-) I have mentioned this upcoming decision of mine to my co-chair Maria Häll, and also to the contact persons at RIPE NCC, so I hope they are not (too) surprised. So, you will still see me around, first with a report from me and Athina related to the proposed regulation that was presented and discussed in Dublin. I hope we will be ready early next week. Regards, Patrik

2 1

RIPE NCC Report on the ITU WTPF-13
by Chris Buckridge 27 May '13

27 May '13

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the recent ITU World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-13): https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-report-on-the-itu-… Any comments or questions are welcome on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Call for expressions of interest - Network and Information Security
by Gordon Lennox 21 May '13

21 May '13

The Commission will launch the Network and Information Security (NIS) Public-Private Platform on 17 June 2013. The output of the platform will feed into the Commission recommendations on cybersecurity across the value chain to be adopted in 2014. Interested stakeholders are invited to express their interest in participating in the platform before 24 May 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-–-ca…

3 3

My summary of discussion on COM(2012) 238/2
by Patrik Fältström 19 May '13

19 May '13

My summary of the discussion is positive, although when you read the below it sounds negative. Yes, I am worried personally about the proposed regulation, but that has been the case for months -- and increased worried I am after the meeting Thursday. I am though optimistic the question whether I should be worried, or no longer, can be resolved as many people said they will now help looking at the proposal. So yes, concerned, very concerned, but also happy finally discussion starts. So, discussions related to the proposed regulation COM(2012) 238/2 has started also in the organisations and areas which develop protocol and operational practices for the Internet. This happened previous week at the RIPE meeting that took place in Dublin. After some discussions with the EU Commission it was clear they could not participate on site, but on video. Quite irritating I must say that Commission that do issue (basis for) legislation that is quite specific without participating directly in the multi stakeholder discussions that exists on these topics. Last time I had this kind of discussion with COM it was related to the future of E.164 numbers in Europe. You can see a summary of the discussion including exchange of letters here: <http://stupid.domain.name/node/1459> Last time I find COM did participate actively on technical matters was when Per Blixt did come to a RIPE meeting and not only participated but also listened. Andrea Glorioso, Linda Corugedo Steneberg and others have participated in discussions related to Internet Governance of course, although as much in the RIPE community as elsewhere (ICANN, EuroDIG for example). So COM did not send a person this time either, but Andrea Servida that is one of the main persons related to the proposed regulation participated via a video conference. He presented and also responded to questions. Which of course was better than nothing. My view of the situation *before* the meeting you can find here <http://stupid.domain.name/node/1674>. You can find slides used for the cooperation working group here <https://ripe66.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/>. The ones interesting are the ones from Andrea Servida and the one from Patrik Fältström named "Article 5". At <https://ripe66.ripe.net/archives/#Thursday> you can see video, transcripts and more. In short, Andrea in my eyes confirmed the proposed regulation is not only about e-ID but much more general and related to all different kind of validation of who one communicate with. Not only e-ID but also "what web site one communicate with". This in turn to many in the room have impact on the models built for Internet at the moment using technologies like RPKI and DNSSEC which are directions there is broad consensus about. Due to the discussions RIPE NCC has decided to investigate whether it is true that the regulation MIGHT have impact on DNSSEC, RPKI or federated identity systems. The review will be done in a number of steps, all so that incremental results can be delivered as there is a lack of time regarding sending feedback to the European Parliament and Council where the proposal is currently discussed. Several country representatives (in a broad meaning), including SE, UK, DE and USA has contacted me and asked what my position is, and as a non-lawyer of course I can not say definitely. The good thing is that finally people do connect this proposed regulation with Internet. Something I claim COM has not done. Because the largest problem is once again that COM has developed a text without participating in the processes that exists for technical development. This implies people do not disagree with the over all problem statement, but to the proposed solution of the problem. When then objecting, it is as if one disagree with the problem existing. A summary of the situation is that the solution that is proposed is that in a combination of Brussels and Member States it is explicitly decided who are to be trust providers, and further that those trust providers must be trusted for various services that require among other things age, citizenship, residency and more (once again, according to Brussels/Member States). A different solution, which is more "modern" and also deployed, is that different systems do require different levels and kind of security. In some areas those are called "federations". Then for each such federation there is a combined certification and accreditation process by which the providers can be approved. Parties can then trust whoever they want as long as they have passed this audit. Decision of trust stays with whoever takes the risk. And here we have not started looking at the questions on the sovereignty member states of EU has in relationship with each other, and the built in contradiction between this and the interest in free movement of goods and services. Or the fact the proposed regulation define for example the following terms (as found by Gordon -- thanks): electronic identification; electronic identification means; electronic identification scheme; signatory; electronic signature; advanced electronic signature; qualified electronic signature; electronic signature creation data; certificate; qualified certificate for electronic signature; trust service; qualified trust service; trust service provider; qualified trust service provider; product; electronic signature creation device; qualified electronic signature creation device; creator of a seal; electronic seal; advanced electronic seal; qualified electronic seal; electronic seal creation data; qualified certificate for electronic seal; electronic time stamp; qualified electronic time stamp; electronic document; electronic delivery service (including proof of sending or receiving the data); qualified electronic deliver service; qualified certificate for website authentication; validation data. I have no idea whether anyone have checked the definition of these terms to see how they match or not match the general view in the world, and for example matches the definitions used in for example trade discussions between EU and USA, within OECD and/or WTO. Anyway, at last the discussion has started, and the first answers on the landscape should come from RIPE NCC that time should have read the document with a lawyers eyes. And we can know whether we should continue to be worried, or whether this is something that indeed is not impacting what is happening on the Internet. Patrik

1 0

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

09 May '13

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

1 0

WTPF in Geneva
by Patrik Fältström 06 May '13

06 May '13

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

3 12

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

03 May '13

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

1 0

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

01 May '13

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

1 0

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

01 May '13

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

2 1

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

26 Apr '13

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

8 8

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

26 Apr '13

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

2 2

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

23 Apr '13

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

1 0

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

22 Apr '13

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

2 1

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

17 Apr '13

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

2 5

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

16 Apr '13

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

1 0

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

26 Mar '13

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

1 0

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

21 Feb '13

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

1 0

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

20 Feb '13

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

1 0

New EU Cybersecurity Plan
by Gordon Lennox 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

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

1 0