- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Possible agenda topic - EU funded research
by Gordon Lennox 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

The Commission like other similar organisations has its “cycles”. Some are fairly clean-cut such as the Commission itself – the College, the 27 Commissioners. Others are overlap to an extent. This coming year is perhaps more interesting than most when it comes to our research funding. We are coming towards the end of Framework Programme 7 - FP7 - and a proposal has been developed for what should happen next - Horizon 2020. For details on FP7: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home And for some information on Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020 A lot of the topics which have been and are being funded and which indeed may be funded are of relevance to this community – work on the “future internet” and on IPv6 to mention but two. It ought to be useful therefore to see if people from the research side of INFSO could come to a RIPE meeting to present what has been achieved and the Commission’s proposal for the future. If there is interest then I am sure the co-chairs can take this forward. In the meantime - happy new year! Gordon

3 4

CSTD Working Group meeting happening now
by Chris Buckridge 12 Jan '12

12 Jan '12

Dear colleagues, At the last meeting of the Cooperation WG, there was an update from Nurani Nimpuno on the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This group is currently meeting, and a number of RIPE community members are tweeting live updates from the meeting. For those that are interested, search for #CSTDWG on Twitter. More information on this group is available at: http://www.unctad.info/en/CstdWG/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] Possible agenda topic - EU funded research
by Michiel Ettema 12 Jan '12

12 Jan '12

Hi Gordon, We are a participant in the FP7 GEN6 (Governements enabled with IPv6) program. If there are any questions of the RIPE community you'd like to ask there I can help to direct them to the appropriate people. Regards, Michiel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:09:07 +0100 From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Possible agenda topic - EU funded research To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Message-ID: <CAP1z8s8gf9vRb0jgBHC2tBHJkCMayLxKXbu1sAxmioR2sGMQkQ(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 The Commission like other similar organisations has its ?cycles?. Some are fairly clean-cut such as the Commission itself ? the College, the 27 Commissioners. Others are overlap to an extent. This coming year is perhaps more interesting than most when it comes to our research funding. We are coming towards the end of Framework Programme 7 - FP7 - and a proposal has been developed for what should happen next - Horizon 2020. For details on FP7: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home And for some information on Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020 A lot of the topics which have been and are being funded and which indeed may be funded are of relevance to this community ? work on the ?future internet? and on IPv6 to mention but two. It ought to be useful therefore to see if people from the research side of INFSO could come to a RIPE meeting to present what has been achieved and the Commission?s proposal for the future. If there is interest then I am sure the co-chairs can take this forward. In the meantime - happy new year! Gordon ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ==================================================================

2 1

Cloud computing / new documents
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Dear all, in the context of the development of the European Cloud Computing strategy, which was briefly referred to in this mailing list, you may be interested to know that the following documents have been recently published on the website of the European Commission: - Final report of the public consultation on Cloud Computing (16 May - 31 August 2011) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/ccco… - Recommendations from the "select industry group" to the European Commission on the orientation of a Cloud Computing strategy for Europe http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/indu… http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/anne… (annexes) Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Information Society and Media Unit A3 (Internet; Network and Information Security) Avenue de Beaulieu 33 (2/84) / 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

"No Disconnect Strategy"
by Gordon Lennox 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

A press release, some aspects of which I presume are of particular interest to this group: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1525&format=H…

3 2

Work Programme 2012 of the European Commission published
by Andrea.GLORIOSO＠ec.europa.eu 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

Dear all, as I mentioned during my presentation at RIPE 63, one of the main tools to know what the European Commission is planning to do / is doing is the so-called Commission Work Programme or CWP. You might be interested to know that on 15 November, the European Commission published its CWP for 2012. You can find all the documents at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm. What you may probably be more interested in is the so-called Annex I, which lists with some more detail the specific "key initiatives" of the CWP (see http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/cwp2012_annex_en.pdf) The Annex is divided by "policy themes". RIPE members may possibly be interested in the actions under the "Digital Agenda" theme (21-25), as well as action 60 (Fighting European Cybercrime), 87 (On-line gambling in the Internal Market), 91 (Initiative on notice and takedown procedures). Or also other initiatives, depending on your tastes. :) Two further points: - Annex I to the CWP includes what you may think of as "major" initiatives, but is not per se a full and exhaustive list of everything the Commission is planning to do. - Further details on (most of) the initiatives in Annex I of the CWP, as well as on other initiatives which are not in Annex I of the CWP but the Commission is nonetheless working on, are available via so-called "roadmaps" at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/roadmaps_2012_en.htm. The list of "roadmaps" (and also, as a matter of fact, the CWP) is updated on a rolling basis. I hope this is, if not useful, at least mildly interesting. Please let me know if I can provide further information, noting however that (a) the management of the CWP is not under the responsibility of DG Information Society and Media, but of the General Secretariat of the Commission; and that (b) I may not be personally involved in all the initiatives I mentioned above, and certainly not in all the initiatives in Annex I. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to help with providing the relevant contacts, should the need arise. Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Information Society and Media Unit A3 (Internet; Network and Information Security) Avenue de Beaulieu 33 (2/84) / 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

5 8

Interaction between Dutch police and RIPE NCC
by Patrik Fältström 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

Hi, I presume many of you have seen this original story on the RIPE website from Nov 9: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe… > RIPE NCC Blocks Registration in RIPE Registry Following Order from Dutch Police > 09 Nov 2011 > The RIPE NCC received a temporary order from the Dutch police to prevent any changes from being made to a registration of four specific blocks of IPv4 address space in the RIPE Registry. > > The order is effective from 8 November 2011 until 22 March 2012. This has been updated with new information on Nov 16: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe… > The RIPE NCC is receiving independent legal advice and is in discussion with the appropriate authorities. It is the intention of the RIPE NCC to pursue this matter further in Dutch court to establish a precedent so that it is certain of its rights regarding such orders. > > In the interest of transparency, the RIPE NCC is working on full disclosure of the background documents. The RIPE NCC will update the community if and when any other publishable materials become available. > > The RIPE NCC is committed to acting in the best interest of its membership and will continue to inform the Internet community on this matter as it progresses. > > The RIPE NCC has not withdrawn, removed or reclaimed the address blocks in question; it has temporarily locked a registration of address blocks. On this last page there is also a link to the police order itself: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-2011 Patrik Fältström Co-chair, Cooperation Working Group

2 1

Filtering and Blocking
by Gordon Lennox 22 Nov '11

22 Nov '11

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/11/20/filtering-and-blocking-closer-to-… An interesting article from Monika that mentions/quotes a number of knowledgeable people. Gordon

1 0

Big step forward at discussions of WTO
by Patrik Fältström 21 Nov '11

21 Nov '11

Might also be interesting... Patrik Russia to cancel licensing of imported IT product, zero out duties - WTO GENEVA. (Interfax) - In the context of its accession to the World Trade Organization, Russia will remove restrictions on imported digital (cryptographic) equipment, and will also zero out import duties on high-tech goods. Licensing will not be need for dozens more products with cryptography, including wireless communications devices, electronic digital signatures, and smart cards, a WTO statement says. There will be no new restrictions, including expert evaluation, approval and licensing, the statement says. For devices for which the licensing of their import is retained, the procedures will be done only once. The rules for bringing digital devices into the Customs Union were integrated at the beginning of last year. Since then, importers have been obligated to obtain licensing or do notification of each model (cellphone, laptop computers, and so on) that supports cryptography. The notifica-tion is done by the producer of certain devices at Russia's Center for Licensing, and certification and the protection of state secrets by the FSB. Receiving licensing is not to take more than ninety days.

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Interaction between Dutch police and RIPE NCC
by Peter Koch 20 Nov '11

20 Nov '11

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 09:35:30AM +0100, Patrik Fältström wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-2011 the IP address ranges in this copy are concealed. Coincidentally, looking up addresses published in <http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/malware_110911/DNS-changer-ma…> as referred to by <http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/malware_110911/malware_110911> will provide some detail. -Peter

2 1

Material from the European Commission
by Andrea Glorioso 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Dear all, thanks for the opportunity to (start to) discuss cooperation opportunities between the European Commission and RIPE NCC, as well as for your flexibility in listening to me via phone. I do hope there will a chance to meet in person soon. As promised during my presentation, please find below the additional information on the activities of the European Commission: - Commission Work Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm - Commission at work: material that explains how the Commission discusses and takes decision: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/index_en.htm - Public consultations by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm As well as my contact details: Email (work): andrea.glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Email (home): andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://facebook.com/andreaglorioso Linkedin: https://linkedin.com/pub/andrea-glorioso/1/56a/178 Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/andreaglorioso Tel: +32-2-299-7682 GSM: +32-460-79-7682 I understand this information will be included in the "slides pack" you will receive at the end of the RIPE meeting. Please, do not hesitate get in touch with me whenever you need. Best regards, Andrea Glorioso

2 1

Material from the European Commission
by Andrea Glorioso 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Dear all, thanks for the opportunity to (start to) discuss cooperation opportunities between the European Commission and RIPE NCC, as well as for your flexibility in listening to me via phone. I do hope there will a chance to meet in person soon. As promised during my presentation, please find below the additional information on the activities of the European Commission: - Commission Work Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm - Commission at work: material that explains how the Commission discusses and takes decision: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/index_en.htm - Public consultations by the Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm As well as my contact details: Email (work): andrea.glorioso(a)ec.europa.eu Email (home): andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://facebook.com/andreaglorioso Linkedin: https://linkedin.com/pub/andrea-glorioso/1/56a/178 Diaspora: https://joindiaspora.com/u/andreaglorioso Tel: +32-2-299-7682 GSM: +32-460-79-7682 I understand this information will be included in the "slides pack" you will receive at the end of the RIPE meeting. Please, do not hesitate get in touch with me whenever you need. Best regards, Andrea Glorioso

1 0

Presentation at RIPE meeting
by Patrik Fältström 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Gordon, If I understand things correctly, you will be on site in Vienna. I have talked with you, and you have been cc:ed, on various communication and tries we have made from RIPE community on getting people from COM and specifically INFSO participating at the RIPE meeting. You can see one summary I have of this here: http://stupid.domain.name/node/1459 Now, the question to you is whether you are interested in presenting at the cooperation wg? There seems to be some confusion from COM side what RIPE is, and we do not understand COM. You are one of the few that understand both sides. Maybe you can talk and present, and do whatever you think is needed to maybe bridge the gap that might exist. Or let me phrase it differently: You are a man with opinion. If we give you 20-30 minutes of time including discussions, are you interested in using it for something interesting for whoever will come to the meeting? Patrik

2 1

Agenda item, CSTD wg in Vienna?
by Patrik Fältström 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Nurani, On the Thursday of the RIPE week is the cooperation wg. One of the agenda items we would like to have a description of the CSTD wg (non) process. Are you interested in, willing to, etc do it? 5 min, i.e. short... Patrik

3 7

IPv6 Deployment in European Public Authorities
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 16 Oct '11

16 Oct '11

Hi all, On 28th of October, the 6DEPLOY-2 project, in cooperation with the European Commission, during the Future Internet Week, in Poznan (Poland), is organizing a workshop under the topic "IPv6 Deployment in European Public Authorities". Please register at http://www.week.fi-poznan.eu/6deploy/page/1518/Agenda_details.html to join us. If you are interested in getting a slot in the agenda, please, let me know in private email. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

1 0

NRO IGF Workshop Starting Shortly
by Chris Buckridge 28 Sep '11

28 Sep '11

Dear colleagues, The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) workshop entitled "Enhancing Understanding: Facilitating Internet Governance Through Openness and Transparency" will start in one hour, at 08:00 UTC (11:00 in Nairobi). If you would like to take part remotely, you can join the WebEx session from the following URL: http://j.mp/IGF11D2R4 More information on this workshop is available at: http://www.nro.net/news/internet-governance-forum-2011-in-nairobi-kenya Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Internet Governance Forum next week
by Chris Buckridge 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Dear colleagues, The sixth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) takes place in Nairobi, Kenya, next week, running from 27-30 September. The RIPE NCC, participating with the other Regional Internet Registries as the Number Resource Organization (NRO), will be organising two workshops in the IGF schedule. Workshop 166. Enhancing Understanding: Facilitating Internet Governance Through Openness and Transparency Wednesday, 28 September, 11:00 -12:30 (UTC+3) Following on from an NRO workshop at last year's IGF entitled "Enhancing Transparency", this workshop will consider some of the issues raised in that discussion and look at strategies for improving understanding between different Internet stakeholder groups. Workshop 165. Understanding IPv6 Deployment and Transition Thursday, 29 September, 9:00-10:30 (UTC+3) This workshop will focus on IPv6 capacity building, remaining obstacles to IPv6 adoption and strategies that have proved successful in encouraging IPv6 adoption. For those not attending the IGF in person, remote participation is available in both of these workshops (and all other IGF sessions). Increased opportunities for remote participation is something that the NRO has argued for in discussions about the future of the IGF, and we would very much welcome remote contributions to the discussion. More information on how to access the remote participation can be found at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation-2011 More information on the two NRO-organised workshops is available at: http://www.nro.net/news/internet-governance-forum-2011-in-nairobi-kenya Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

'European Commission calls for greater government control over Internet'
by Bastiaan Goslings 08 Sep '11

08 Sep '11

Hi Cooperation WG, I came across http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-greater-government-control and decided it was a good enough reason for a first post to the list. 'Among a long series of measures promoted in no less than six papers by the EC’s Information Society and Media Directorate-General are: • A government veto over any new Internet extensions • The creation of a list of names, drawn up by governments, that would be banned from registration • Significant structural changes at overseeing organization ICANN, including at Board level and in the crucial IANA contract • An obligation for ICANN to follow governments’ advice unless deemed illegal or damaging to the Internet’s stability • Two new bodies to oversee ICANN decision-making and finances Combined together, the measures would provide governments with de facto control over the Internet’s naming systems and bring an end to the independent and autonomous approach that has defined the Internet’s domain name system since its inception.' The papers 'are billed as “informal background papers” and have not yet been published.' (For an 'analysis' see http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/31/ec-papers-analysis: 'Together the papers represent a wholesale effort to put governments in charge of the Internet.') I am not an ICANN-watcher myself, nor am I aware of the nitty-gritty details of DNS-related discussions that go on in different (EU) fora. So it is hard for me to judge the merits of these .nxt articles. And maybe it is indeed just 'informal background' stuff. But this does sound quite serious though and, if it is, it comes as a surprise that I haven't seen it being mentioned elsewhere a lot... Any thoughts? Cheers, -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 12 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net

7 9

Minutes Cooperation WG 4 May 2011
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 30 Jun '11

30 Jun '11

Cooperation WG Wednesday, 4 May 2011 ? 14:00 Co-Chair Maria Häll introduced the agenda. The minutes of the previous Cooperation WG session were approved. B. Internet Intermediaries ? Moderators: Paul Rendek, Patrik Fältström - Introduction: Patrik Fältström - Internet Intermediaries - The human rights perspective - Striking a balance between integrity/neutrality, law enforcement, business Niall O?Reilly noted the importance of understanding how these three factors (neutrality, law enforcement and business) affect each other, and that the ?best? balance between them may favour two out of three. Patrik agreed that this was an important calculation, but one that is not widely enough discussed. Benedikt Stokkeland noted that there is a need for regulation in some areas that is going unmet. He cited the example of ADSL providers providing telephone services over ADSL, the reliability of which means it cannot be a replacement for a standard telephone in an emergency situation. He noted that ?Responsibility? is another axis that conflicts with the money-making axis - there is a need to ensure people can?t be sold something dangerous to them. Olaf Kolkman suggested that ?Public benefit? is a plane that cuts through this multi-plane structure in Patrik?s presentation. He also noted that in the non-Internet space, much experience has already been gained in balancing law enforcement and freedom/openness. In terms of regulation, there is a need to make available technology that is of public benefit in the long-term, and this should contribute to decision-making. Jim Reid argued that ?Public benefit? can mean many things ? RIPE may differ with the Chinese Government on what is constitutes ?public benefit?. He also noted that there are additional dimensions added to the calculation by ?alliances? between those different positions, and cited the UK, where ISPs challenged a law to make ISPs enforce laws, a decision based on their own business case, rather than in the interests of ?freedom?. Patrik added that different definitions of ?lawful? around the world also pose a problem. Wout de Natris suggested that this discussion demonstrates that all stakeholders are still learning how to work together, but that this cooperation will be vital in ensuring that when there is a crisis, governments do not ?panic? in responding. Constanze Bürger emphasised the need for awareness, and suggested that governments have a responsibility to ensure that the freedom of the Internet is not abused, but that regulation may not be the best tool for this. Patrik Fältström noted the lack of harmonization of positions even within governments, and that often, within a government, there is one group talking about opennesss and another group talking about cybercrime issues, each coming to different conclusions for Internet policy. Maria Häll asked whether it is actually desirable to have a different legal framework for the online world. Edmund Juskevicius, of Industry Canada, noted that the Internet tends to work pretty well most of the time, and asked how has this sort of cooperation been done up to this point. Patrik noted that there has been work done in some areas from an EU regulatory perspective, but there has been a more general lack of focus, and this is now starting to change. Paul Rendek also noted the greater interest being taken by international organisations like the OECD, with whom the RIPE NCC is working as part of the Internet Technical Advisory Committee. Malcolm Hutty highlighted the importance of government participation in developing cooperative relationships, and noted that this has often been lacking. In terms of the larger question of liability, he noted that there are people who break laws, through content or activity, and people want that stopped, and that this situation raises certain questions: what is the mechanism for doing this? If it is through intermediaries, what are the checks? Can private sector intermediaries act as law enforcement agencies, that is call in evidence, witnesses etc.? While such a solution may look attractive to stakeholders dealing with a large number of complaints, it would mean a very different system of justice for the online world. It is government?s role to create these definitions and balance the needs of law enforcement agencies against citizens? rights. Malcolm suggested that at this point, governments are only hearing from the complainants, and they need to take a more balanced view on such issues. Niall O?Reilly emphasised that it is governments that must face this responsibility and that there must be some kind of evidence-based review. He noted that in terms of the Internet, it will be impossible to predict the results of new policies without some kind of evidence-based review and discussion. Aleksi Suhonen highlighted the case of Finland?s child porn filter and the unforeseen consequences of this policy, which can serve as a warning case. He also noted that many operators are multi-national and therefore need to navigate different, often competing legislations, which can be very difficult. Toomas Lepik noted that the Palestinian government would like to turn off some Autonomous Systems from the routing path. Constanze Bürger argued that it is necessary to discuss these issues, and that the Internet poses real challenges in terms of borders, self-regulation and democracy. She noted that laws are not the only solution, and that government needs to look to other sectors for solutions as well. C. Update on European Union Activities: Data Retention Directive ? Patrik Fältström Jochem de Ruig of the RIPE NCC asked about law enforcement and data retention, and noted that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) have concerns regarding IPv6 and the logs that ISPs keep regarding assignments and allocations. Patrik noted that the first issue knowing which ISP is using which IP address, which comes back to the quality of the RIPE Database. He pointed out that some parties have argued we need something other than RIR databases, and for this reason he is wary of making changes to policy that will affect data quality in the RIR databases. If you find the ISP, the issue is then what is the responsibility of the ISP? At the moment, most existing regulation says that the ISP must know who had which IP address at a given time. It was noted that there are often different rules for IP, cell and fixed-line telephony, and this is problematic. Maria Häll and Patrik Fältström noted that Sweden has made a proposal (not implemented) that is technology neutral, but this is not reflected in the Directive. Patrik believes, though, that the people working on this in the Commission would like the revised Directive to be technology neutral. European Critical Infrastructure Directive ? Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Chris Buckridge Kurt Erik (Kurtis) Lindqvist and Chris Buckridge presented a brief summary of the discussions currently going on around the revision of the European Critical Infrastructure Directive, and the possibility that it will be expanded to cover the ICT sector. Leo Vegoda asked if the Directive intended to apply to organisations based in EU. Kurtis responded that it was his understanding that the Directive targets physical assets rather than organisations. Maria asked, given the closed nature of the EC discussions to date, whether there is a problem in terms of lack of information flowing between the different stakeholder groups. Kurtis acknowledged that an open discussion such as would happen at a RIPE Meeting would be preferable, but that it is a positive step that the Commission has reached out and invited a wide range of industry and technical community representatives to contribute to the discussion. Kurtis also gave a brief account of the recent critical infrastructure discussions held in Hungary, and the joint EU-US work that is being done. Jaap Akkerhuis noted that while the Directive talks about cross-border issues, there is a feeling that national telco industries don't talk to each other and are isolated. He also noted that for most telcos, borders don't really exist apart from regulation. Kurtis noted that the point of the work in this area is that physical assets clearly affect more than one country. While the industry can route around many borders and obstacles, however, the cable infrastructure demonstrates that there are limits to this. He noted that the Directive talks about infrastructure that affects more than 2 member states D. Update on Council of Europe Activities ? Wolfgang Kleinwächter Chris Buckridge gave a quick update on the work being done by in the Council of Europe on a set of Principles for Internet Governance, particularly the conference held in April that brought together a wide range of stakeholders to discuss the issue. This work is ongoing. Maria Häll commended the important work being done by the Council of Europe. E. CSTD WG Update ? Nurani Nimpuno Nurani Nimpuno provided an overview of the work being done in the Working Group convened by the UN?s Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to examine ways to improve the IGF. While initially composed only of government representatives, there was a concerted push for greater multistakeholder involvement, and Nurani was selected as one of the five technical community representatives. Nurani noted that the initial meeting turned out to not be very substantive, though it was clear that there are very diverging views on the issues. A second meeting in Geneva also failed to produce a report, and the WG?s report will now be written by the Chair. The technical community representatives have stated their objection to this outcome, as it places this back in the hands of Member States alone. Nurani noted that the technical and business communities have failed to some extent in reaching out to the civil society stakeholders, and that better coordination between these groups will be important moving forward. Maria Häll noted that this whole process is an attempt to make the multistakeholder model work on a global level. Constanze Bürger noted that it was difficult to convince some in government of the value of participating in the IGF, but noted that the regional and national IGFs can be very useful in this regard. Nurani agree on the need to more effectively demonstrate the value of the IGF to all stakeholders. F. ICANN GAC Update - Maria Häll Maria Häll gave an update on the activities of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), noting that has grown to 109 members. The issue of new gTLDs has been the major area of activity for the GAC over recent months, and the GAC has been working with the Board and community to resolve a range of issues identified in a ?Scorecard?. Z. AOB Steve Nash noted that while there has clearly a lot of work going on in this area, the working group?s mailing list has been virtually silent, and it would be great to see more discussion on the list. Maria agreed, and noted the Working Group Co-Chairs will be working to improve this over the coming weeks and months. Wout de Natris pointed out that few government people were in attendance, and that the technical community members need to take these specific topics to their relevant government people and challenge them to take part. He also noted, in response to an earlier point from Malcolm Hutty, that the Internet poses one significant difference for law enforcement to their usual work: when you track someone down on the Internet, you may have to go to addresses where the actual perpetrator isn?t there, only a hosting provider with a command-and-control centre for that network. This has major implications for obtaining evidence, and establishing a framework for how this works is a role for government and law enforcement. Jim Reid noted that it is clear that government representatives are not taking part in RIPE Meetings in great numbers, and it might be necessary to change tack. He suggested that it might be useful for more community members to take part in the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings. Paul Rendek thanked Jim for the suggestion. He noted that while the Roundtable Meetings are deliberately closed, to facilitate government participation, it may be useful to invite more community members to contribute, and the RIPE NCC will look into this option. Maria Häll closed the meeting. Best, Patrik and Maria För miljöns skull ? skriv inte ut detta meddelande i onödan

1 0

Re: [enum-wg] market potential/future for public ENUM
by Patrik Fältström 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

On 1 jun 2011, at 19.14, Richard Shockey wrote: > Well as your former ENUM WG chair (yea!! NO BLUE DOT!!!) .. Yes public ENUM is essentially dead. That just because the holders of E.164 does not allow end users that use the E.164 in question have the ENUM record in DNS refer to whatever they want. Only regulation can unlock this situation. That forces E.164 holders to either have a DNS that people can enter whatever they want, or let third parties run DNS for the E.164 numbers in question. This has nothing directly to do with ENUM, but rather whether the E.164 number should be tied to one and only one specific provider of services or not. I also copy cooperation wg in RIPE as that wg is one that could discuss this lock-in situation that exists. Patrik

1 0

IPv6 at EuroDIG
by chrisb＠ripe.net 31 May '11

31 May '11

Dear colleagues, The EuroDIG conference (European Dialogue on Internet Governance) is taking place today and tomorrow (30-31 May) in Belgrade, Serbia. While the Critical Internet Resources section of the conference is being devoted to new gTLD issues, the RIPE NCC is working with a number of other groups to hold a side event on IPv6 adoption and the issues it raises for Internet governance. If you are attending the event, the discussion will take place at 11:30 (CET) on Tuesday morning. More information is available here: http://www.eurodig.org/eurodig-2011/programme/plenary/side-events Unfortunately, as a side event, remote participation will not be provided. However, other plenary and workshop sessions at the conference feature remote participation, inlcluding webcast, live stenography and Webex participation. Ypou can access these services from: http://www.eurodig.org/webcast Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

2 2

SMTP forwarding in the face of Data Protection Directive
by Alessandro Vesely 23 May '11

23 May '11

Hi all, can a tool for lawfully acquiring a user's consent via the Internet motivate SMTP operators to modify their procedures in such a way that spam can be countered more effectively? Let me please expand slightly on this question, I'll try and be concise. It is well known that the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol provides for replacing the envelope recipient with one or more other email addresses. This server forwarding is not to be confused with manually forwarding a message from a client. Mailing lists and newsletters are operated that way, as well as redirection configured by means of "dot forward" static files. Since email addresses are personal data, their processing is covered by Directive 95/46/EC. How is the data subject's consent acquired? In response to the Data Protection Directive, operators should have defined a protocol for obtaining and keeping proof of the consent. It never happened. In facts, it is very difficult to introduce new protocols for email --new protocols for web operations come about much more frequently. Evidence that consent has been granted can be provided by the data subject's mail exchanger (MX, a.k.a. the user's incoming mail server). It can digitally sign a notification from the data processor. That way, the user's server becomes aware of a new wanted stream of messages, and can whitelist it. That is, it can skip anti-spam checking for those messages. As bulk messages account for a significant part of legitimate mail, anti-spam measures could then be significantly strengthened. The users' advantage is to have an automatically maintained list of subscriptions, and a uniform interface to manage them. Currently, users have to interact with what can be called a "time-distributed database", in the sense that monthly or yearly they may receive subscription reminders... The obvious shortcoming of this idea is that mail server operators simply won't install any new software if their systems can work acceptably well without it. However, acquiring written consent is such a pain to many businesses that, perhaps, they will install that software if it helps complying with privacy issues. What do you think? TIA for any comment

5 11

Participate Now: RIPE NCC Membership and Stakeholder Survey
by Axel Pawlik 19 May '11

19 May '11

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, You still have time to take part in the RIPE NCC Membership and Stakeholder Survey 2011. The survey can be taken at: https://www.ripe.net/survey2011 ================== Important Feedback ================== This survey comes at a critical point as it will influence the strategy of the RIPE NCC following the depletion of the IPv4 address pool. The analysis of the survey results will be conducted by the Oxford Internet Institute, and all identifying information will be removed before the data is given to the RIPE NCC. For the first time, the survey is open to all stakeholders in the RIPE community in addition to RIPE NCC members. So far, over 300 people have responded to the survey. We aim to receive 1,000 responses by the survey closing date of 10 June. The survey should take only 10-15 minutes to complete. =========== Win an iPad =========== To encourage participation in the survey, the RIPE NCC is giving away five iPads to respondents chosen at random by the OII. Next week, we will announce the "early bird" winner of the first iPad, who will be drawn from those who responded to the survey by 16 May. The other four iPads will be drawn at random from all respondents. We look forward to receiving your input. Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

What governments don't get (feedback on data retention)
by Alessandro Vesely 05 May '11

05 May '11

Hi all! After applauding Malcom yesterday, I've recognized a parallel between VAT and wiretapping: They both don't work well with layers. Traditionally, telephony is conceived as the service of a single operator. Suppose that the telecom splits among various intermediaries. Actually, several large industries define such kind of split internally, for administrative purposes. However, if the split is real each provider of a service layer has to pay VAT, while departments don't. By a similar logic, if cryptography is deployed at some layers, then wiretapping has to be coordinated with those layers as well --possibly not the network provider or cable operator roles that the directive targets. Can someone suggest a solution that would solve both issues :-)

1 0

Re: cooperation-wg digest, Vol 1 #28 - 1 msg
by Malcolm Hutty 03 May '11

03 May '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/05/2011 11:00, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > This has now moved on, with the publication of the Evaluation Report on > the Data Retention Directive. > > A copy of the report, and a little commentary I wrote are at the URLs > that follow No sooner do I report that relatively happy news, than I receive news of the response from the Council of Ministers. The Presidency has circulated to Member States a questionnaire that reads rather like a rebuttal. In particular the questionnaire invites Member States to say * that even though Data Retention is said to be justified for the purpose of dealing with "serious crime", once data has been retained it can be used for other purposes; and * that when assess the Directive Member States can ignore the evidence and proceed simply on the basis of the expressed wishes of law enforcement. Statewatch obtained a leaked copy, which you can find here: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/apr/eu-council-mand-ret-discussion-pape… - -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Maya House, 134-138 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LB Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2/6W8ACgkQJiK3ugcyKhQc5QCghbm+/oeBKFCwXz/l1KJXITyh PYkAn1HJorlUln930dpb7Z5aucS0kyMx =gBV2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: cooperation-wg digest, Vol 1 #25 - 1 msg
by Malcolm Hutty 02 May '11

02 May '11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24/02/2011 11:00, cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: >> EU Directive 2006/24/EC on Data Retention was a very poor document . >> I hear that the EU is working on such things again. > > Yes, and no. There is a review going on, and a meeting was held in late > November in Brussels. > > Rumours say that COM will not open up the directive, but instead clarify > what is intended. Which to me is another reason for the coop wg to bring > this up. [...] > Patrik This has now moved on, with the publication of the Evaluation Report on the Data Retention Directive. A copy of the report, and a little commentary I wrote are at the URLs that follow http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/archive/20110418_data_re… https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=3930 - -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Maya House, 134-138 Borough High Street, London SE1 1LB Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2+hrcACgkQJiK3ugcyKhRSxACgzlsD09TA/44qnCQVptWSXwD3 G2UAn1aShHUEhp54D2lQaOEXluNXy7QZ =4+Cs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

"Virtual Schengen border"
by Richard L. Barnes 29 Apr '11

29 Apr '11

Dear Cooperation WG friends, Does anyone know more about the work that the EU Law Enforcement Working Party is doing in Internet security? I just heard about their recent meeting, whose minutes [1] include the following: " The Presidency of the LEWP presented its intention to propose concrete measures towards creating a single secure European cyberspace with a certain "virtual Schengen border" and "virtual access points" whereby the Internet Service Providers (ISP) would block illicit contents on the basis of the EU "black-list". " This seems like an issue where feedback from the RIPE community could be important! Best, --Richard [1] <http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st07/st07181.en11.pdf>

3 2

RE: EU Directives on Data Retention etc
by Steve Nash 23 Feb '11

23 Feb '11

This WG seems to be completely silent. Is there any cooperation going on? I intend to be at RIPE62 in Amsterdam. I would like to have on the agenda: - a review of RIPE's cooperation with the EU (including RIPE NCC), with a discussion of how RIPE will contribute to any forthcoming directives relating to the Internet. - a list of all other 'cooperation' activities that have taken place since RIPE61. - a summary of current activities. Please. Regards Steve Nash -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:patrik@frobbit.se] Sent: 22 December 2010 16:58 To: Nash, Steve Cc: cooperationwg-chairs(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: EU Directives on Data Retention etc On 22 dec 2010, at 17.49, Nash, Steve wrote: > EU Directive 2006/24/EC on Data Retention was a very poor document . > I hear that the EU is working on such things again. Yes, and no. There is a review going on, and a meeting was held in late November in Brussels. Rumours say that COM will not open up the directive, but instead clarify what is intended. Which to me is another reason for the coop wg to bring this up. > Since the reasons for such Directives include the detection or Abuse I made an enquiry of the Abuse WG, but Brian Nisbet has pointed me in the direction of the Cooperation WG. > I note that the EU did not feature on the agenda at Ripe61, and I needed to attend the parallel Routing WG session. > Do you think that providing advice to the EU on matters of technical feasibility and effectiveness falls within the scope of this WG? I think it would be a good idea to discuss this at the next wg meeting, possibly under a meta-discussion on "who has the responsibility to do what". Specifically looking at what an ISP can do, what they do not want to do etc. Any other takers, ideas? Patrik

1 0

Meeting at RIPE-61
by Patrik Fältström 28 Sep '10

28 Sep '10

Dear colleagues, The RIPE Cooperation Working Group will meet at RIPE 61 in Rome, Italy, on Wednesday, 17 November, 2010. If there is anything you would like to see included on the agenda for this meeting, please post to this list, or email the working group chairs at <cooperationwg-chairs(a)ripe.net>. A draft agenda will be posted to the mailing list closer to the event. Regards, Patrik Fältström and Maria Häll RIPE Cooperation Working Group Co-chairs

1 0

Draft minutes from wg meeting last week
by Patrik Fältström 12 May '10

12 May '10

Please let us know whether there are any issues with these... Patrik & Maria RIPE 60 Cooperation Working Group Minutes Wednesday, 5 May, 14:00-15:30 Prague, Czech Republic A. Administrative Matters Co-Chair Patrik Fältström passed on the apologies of Co-Chair Maria Häll, and introduced the agenda, including the addition of a presentation from Constanze Bürger of the German government in the A.O.B. section of the agenda. B. Review/Outcome of RIPE NCC Roundtable Meeting - Feb 2010 Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC Paul Rendek discussed the recent RIPE NCC Roundtable meeting in Amsterdam, which included 38 participants from 12 countries. Industry partners and governments presented at the meeting for the first time, including the European Commission (EC), the German government and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). IPv6 was not included as a specific agenda item, with the discussion focused on the RIPE NCC's role in Internet governance. These Roundtable meetings will continue in Amsterdam, but will also expand to region-specific events in the Middle East. Paul also outlined the range of outreach activities undertaken by the RIPE NCC over the past six months. He noted the statement issued by the NRO on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), issued at the IGF 2009 and delivered to the UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Sha Zukang. He noted some of the preparations underway for NRO participation in the IGF 2010. There were no questions. C. IGF 2010 (Vilnius, Lithuania) - What can we expect / How are the themes shaping up Patrik Fältström, Cooperation WG Co-Chair Patrik Fältström noted the preparations underway for the IGF 2010, emphasising that most details remain to be finalised and outlining the schedule for preparatory meetings over the coming months. He noted that there is a parallel process going on that will produce a statement to be delivered to the UN General Assembly on the future of the IGF. The decision on the IGF's future will be taken in the second half of 2010. He noted that while there are approximately 100 workshop proposals for the IGF 2010 event, there will be only 50 workshops in the final schedule. Proposals will be evaluated on their uniqueness, on the number of organising parties, on whether they are simply reporting back from completed projects. The evaluation process will begin at the preparatory meeting scheduled for 11 May in Geneva. Patrik noted that there are two new main themes that have been added to the IGF mandate: Internet Governance For Development (IG4D) and cloud computing. He also outlined some of the various sub-themes. He concluded with a report on the IGF 2009, including the messages delivered to the IGF from the European Union (EU), including the recommendation to extend the IGF for another five years. There were no questions. D. ITU IPv6 Group Report, What's Next Roland Perry, RIPE NCC Roland Perry gave an introduction to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and their current activities in relation to the Internet address management system. The ITU has been interested in IP addressing for a while now, but especially in its most recent four-year cycle (which ends in October 2010). He outlined the history of the ITU's interest in IP addressing, which resulted most recently in the formation of the IPv6 Group that met for the first time in March 2010. The report from the meeting was submitted two weeks ago, and the Council has said that for future meetings, the Chairman and Directors of ITU-T and ITU-D should decide who qualify as "relevant experts" (what this means is still unclear). He noted that the RIPE NCC has recently become a Sector Member of both the ITU-T and ITU-D, and will be attending future meetings of the IPv6 Group as such. The IPv6 Group meeting also established two Correspondence Groups (or mailing lists), looking at raising IPv6 awareness and discussing problems with the current system. The final reports from these Correspondence Groups will be created in August, so there is work for the RIPE NCC to do in the coming months to influence these reports. Richard Barnes asked for some clarification on the Correspondence Groups and who was invited to participate. Roland noted that it is all Member States (and their representatives), all Sector Members, and invited experts from the first meeting. It may not include experts who wish to be involved in future meetings of the IPv6 Group. Jim Reid asked if the archives of the Correspondence Groups would be public. Roland replied that they would not, and noted that the Correspondence Groups have so far been very quiet. Paul Rendek noted that certain countries, including the Czech Republic and Egypt, provided some very good input into the first meeting of the IPv6 Group, supporting the existing address management system. He also noted the input of Jane Coffin of the US, Cisco, Juniper and the Internet Society. Roland noted that there has been a lot of informal correspondence since the end of the meeting regarding the report and its contents. John Curran asked why the results of the meeting and the contents of the report should be important to the RIPE community. Roland noted that the meeting was successful in that the issues of "how would a Country Internet Registry (CIR) work?" were put to one side, while the issue of whether there are in fact problems with the current system was moved to the center of the discussion. The plan being put forward by ITU proponents is to reserve significant blocks of IPv6, which will then be distributed to developing countries (CIRs) by the ITU. Rob Blokzijl noted that the ITU document regarding the global telephone number system refers to a telephone numbering system similar to A, B and C class blocks in the IP addressing context, and commented that if the Internet community has made mistakes in the past, so too has the ITU. Roland noted that there is also a possibility that the ITU has underestimated the work involved in being an Internet registry. Fahad AlShiwari noted other arguments being made in the ITU discussion, referring not to how numbers are distributed, but what role national governments have in policy making and number distribution – many developing nations do not want the Internet community managing address distribution. He suggested that the RIPE community does not want countries making IP addressing policy decisions. Jim Reid advised taking care in talking about the "ITU", and noted that there is no cohesive opinion of the ITU, Rather, there are strong views within the ITU membership on all sides of the argument. The RIPE community needs to make representations to Member States (governments) who can make our arguments within ITU forums. Jim also noted that it is unclear whether it is the ITU bureaucracy that is pushing this, and that while Internet addressing resources are not under the control of ITU Member States, they are currently under the control of ICANN, which is under the control of the US government. Roland noted that the ITU is a very "input- and output-driven" organization, and that if things do not appear on pre- and post-issued documents, then they do no exist. For this reason, a great deal of time is spent on discussing specific wordings. Leslie Daigle noted that the experience of Taiwan in trying to obtain space in the ENUM directory under the ITU regulations, and suggested that the RIPE community should endeavour to keep discussions in the IPv6 Group on topics strictly relevant to the ITU. E. RIPE Community Consultation on IPv6 and ITU Roland Perry presented a draft statement from the RIPE community on IPv6 and the concerns raised within the ITU. Jim Reid noted that the text is good, but suggested that the second sentence finish with "is inadequate". Jonne Soininen asked whether it is the RIPE NCC or the RIPE community that should be engaging in the ITU discussions. Roland noted that the only way to work with the ITU IPv6 Group is through the Correspondence Group, and the RIPE community cannot be subscribed to this list. The RIPE NCC can, however, act as a channel between the ITU and the RIPE community. Rob Blokzijl agreed that the statement should go forward, and agreed that this cannot be done as a community, but must be done through the RIPE NCC (who will of course work in close coordination with the community). Sander Steffan suggested that the title be adjusted to avoid confusion with the earlier RIPE community statement on IPv6. Hans Petter Holen supported the statement. He also noted that in the past telcos sought to prevent ISPs from getting IP addresses and moving into this territory – this is not a new issue. Kurt Lindqvist suggested that the statement might be a bit short, and may need some context. He noted that not all concerns raised within the ITU are to do with operators. Alain Bidron suggested that the phrase, "to clearly identify concerns" be supplemented with "if needed". Geoff Huston noted that the APNIC community had also issued a similar (though longer) statement, and suggested that the authors read that statement and identify areas of commonality. Roland noted that since that APNIC Meeting a charter for the Correspondence Group has been issued, and the text presented has been refined to respond more specifically to that charter. Jim Reid noted that a link has been posted to the APNIC statement. He also noted that the APNIC statement was submitted to the Study Group, while this statement will not. The main goal of this statement is to mandate the RIPE NCC to engage with the ITU and report back to the community. Rob Blokzijl explained the process for approving such statements: the statement will be introduced during the Closing Plenary and if there is a community consensus in the room then it will be published as widely as possible, along with some explanatory information. Z. A.O.B. Constanze Bürger gave an update on the status of IPv6 in Germany. She also noted that there had been a statement from ZDNet recently regarding the "nationalization of IP address assignment on the Internet" – she emphasized that this is not true, and that the Minister's statements were misunderstood. She delivered an update on the German government's plans to deploy an IPv6 national network, which are now well advanced. Constanze also noted the German government's position supporting the continuation of the IGF, and supporting the current model of Internet address management. There were no questions. John Curran noted that dealing with the ITU is not straightforward. There are many different study groups, meetings and conferences within the ITU, any of which could create an Action Item that would be presented to the Plenipotentiary meeting later in the year, which could result in IP address issues being added to the ITU's agenda for the next four years. There are a lot of ITU groups that the RIR communities are not currently engaging with. ARIN has asked its members who are also ITU Sector Members to help ensure that such issues are identified. Patrik Fältström agreed. Jim Reid, referring to John Curran's statement, noted that there is a meeting of Study Group 3 coming up shortly, the agenda of which includes an item on the ITU's role in Internet Exchanges. There is a suggestion coming from China to do with changes and extensions to BGP, including the incorporation of tariff models into BGP exchanges of routes. This is something of concern to people in the RIPE community, so this is another matter to speak with your government representatives about, however the deadline for contributions is 5 May 2010. Brian Nisbet noted that the Anti-Abuse WG will be discussing the RIPE NCC's engagement with Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs). Alain Bidron asked a question regarding the ICANN Affirmation of Commitments. This was signed with the support of the NRO, and there are review teams for this, however he noted that the first review team from the ASO seemed to act in a slightly unusual way. Paul Rendek suggested that this might be taken up with ASO AC members. Wilfried Woeber, of the ASO AC, responded to Alain, noting that the AC members, specifically from the RIPE NCC service region, have only a limited amount of time in which to engage with the ICANN process. If the community feels strongly that it is important that the ASO AC do more in this area, it would be good if this could be discussed more prominently. He also noted that he would speak with Alain privately. The Chair declared the meeting closed at 15:30, and encouraged people to contact the Chairs or the RIPE NCC if they have any topics they would like to see discussed in the Working Group.

1 0

Proposed text on RIPE NCC activities related to IPv6
by Patrik Fältström 04 May '10

04 May '10

Dear working group participants, On Wednesday, 5 May, 14:00-15:30, in room Bohemia, the working group will have a normal meeting. Normal also from the point of how packed the agenda is. You can yourself see the agenda etc on this web page: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/agendas.php?wg=cooperation> Remote participation is possible. One of the Agenda Points is "E. RIPE Community Consultation on IPv6 and ITU". As you might be aware of, ITU-T is working on IPv6 issues, just like everyone else. You can find the ITU-T IPv6 webpage at this URL: <http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/> There have been some discussions in the RIPE region related to this work. Enough so that we suggest RIPE is requestion RIPE NCC to actively participate in these discussions. This will be discussed on the RIPE Closing Plenary on Friday as well as during the Cooperation Working Group on Wednesday. The suggested text as of Tuesday morning is what you can see below. Roland Perry <roland(a)ripe.net> is the person that is holding the pen of the text if you want to discuss details in private with him. Patrik Fältström & Maria Häll, Chairs of the Cooperation Working Group ==== The RIPE community supports all efforts to assist in the deployment of IPv6, especially in developing countries. However, it notes some concerns recently expressed in the ITU IPv6 Group that the current IP address management system is inadequate to support operators in developing countries. The RIPE Community does not share these concerns and mandates the RIPE NCC, in consultation with the Community, to identify ways to address concerns (if any) within the current IP address management system. ====

1 0

European Council suggests IP address revocation
by Carsten Schiefner 30 Apr '10

30 Apr '10

All, a bit unsure whether this belongs more to Address Policy or to Cooperation, I eventually opted for Coop WG. Maybe this WG, RIPE in general and/or the RIPE NCC would like to consider the following European Council conclusion: === The meeting statement noted as one of those medium term actions "to adopt a common approach in the fight against cybercrime internationally, particularly in relation to the revocation of Domain Names and IP addresses. The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and Europol, is invited to facilitate this objective." === (quoted from "European Union Gets Serious on Cybercrime Including Right to Revoke Domains", http://domainnews.com/en/european-union-gets-serious-on-cybercrime-includin… - the full EC doc is linked to at the end of the article) All the best, Carsten Schiefner

2 1

Heads Up - RIGF Meeting in Moscow, 13-14 May 2010
by Paul Rendek 09 Apr '10

09 Apr '10

Hello Patrik, The first Russian Internet Governance Forum (RIGF) is set to take place in Moscow on 12-13 May 2010. The local technical community is involved in getting this off the ground. I think its important that parts of the wider Internet Technical Community are present. I have a tele-conference with the local organisers tomorrow and will keep you posted. How does your schedule look for this time? Cheers, Paul

3 2

My role as co-chair
by Martin.Boyle＠nominet.org.uk 26 Mar '10

26 Mar '10

Hi all, I am conscious that as co-chair of the cooperation working group I have been more conspicuous by my absence than by my contribution to the work of the group. With Maria from government and Patrik from industry the group is in good hands and I am unlikely to be able to contribute anything additional or devote the necessary time to this work. So I believe I should step down from a role I am sorry to say I never properly stood up to. And wish you well with your two exceptionally competent remaining co-chairs. Best wishes Martin Boyle

2 1

hi8
by ulises xxx 03 Jan '10

03 Jan '10

_________________________________________________________________ Una nueva experiencia de búsqueda está aquí http://www.bing.com/?mkt=es-MX&FORM=M006IR&Publ=WLHMTAG&Crea=TEXT_M006IR_Bi…

1 0

hie
by mylene myleneaussi 02 Jan '10

02 Jan '10

_________________________________________________________________ Téléchargez Internet Explorer 8 et surfez sans laisser de trace ! http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/182932252/direct/01/

1 0

hic
by Anne Le Deun 01 Jan '10

01 Jan '10

_________________________________________________________________ Téléchargez Internet Explorer 8 et surfez sans laisser de trace ! http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/182932252/direct/01/

1 0

Minutes from RIPE 59 Meeting in Lisbon
by Patrik Fältström 28 Oct '09

28 Oct '09

Dear colleagues, The draft minutes have now been published on the website at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/cooperation/minutes/ripe-59.html Patrik - co-chair of the wg

1 0

Cooperation WG meeting at RIPE 59 - agenda
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 07 Oct '09

07 Oct '09

Dear Colleagues, The Cooperation WG meeting at RIPE 59 will take place at 14:00, Wednesday, 7 October in the Main meeting room. The draft agenda is as follows: 1. Administration - scribe, agenda confirmation, etc. (5 minutes) 1. Patrik Fältström as RIPE Cooperation WG Co-Chair (10 minutes) 2. Update on IGF - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) 3. The future of Internet Governance, a view from ICANN - Nick Thorne, ICANN (30 minutes) 4. Open Mic Discussion (25 minutes) Please note that Patrik Fältström will be chairing this session, as neither myself nor my Co-Chair Martin Boyle are able to be present in Lisbon. We also nominate Patrik to take up an official role as Co- Chair of the Cooperation Working Group, and time has been reserved in the agenda for the WG to discuss this nomination. Regards, Maria and Martin

2 1

Volker Frank/PLZ/CSC is out of the office.
by Volker Frank 02 Oct '09

02 Oct '09

I will be out of the office starting 30.09.2009 and will not return until 05.10.2009. In urgent cases please contact Monika Toelle at CSC.

1 0

New government testimonials on IPv6 Act Now
by Paul Rendek 18 Jun '09

18 Jun '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has posted two new video testimonials on the IPv6 Act Now website: http://www.ipv6actnow.org/info/video/ The new videos feature Constanze Bürger, who outlines the German government's plans to deploy a national IPv6 network, and Patrik Fältström, IT policy advisor to the Swedish government, discussing the various roles that government can play in promoting IPv6 adoption. We invite you to look around the site and hope that you find it useful. If you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in the interviews, you can sign up to the IPv6 Act Now forums to talk with forum participants from around the world: http://www.ipv6actnow.org/forum/ We welcome your feedback and involvement in the IPv6 Act Now website. If you have any comments or suggestions, please contact us at <ipv6actnow(a)ripe.net >. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Cooperation Working Group minutes
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 26 May '09

26 May '09

4 April 2009, 14:15-15:45 Maria Häll introduced the Chairs and the agenda, explained the preparatory meetings that had been held with government and law enforcement representatives earlier in the day. Martin Boyle introduced himself and the panel on IPv6 deployment and why it is not being adopted. B. Panel Discussion: Why is IPv6 not being adopted by the business community? Chair: Martin Boyle (Nominet) Tom Wills-Sandford (Intellect UK) Patrik Fältström (Cisco, Swedish Government advisor) Kurtis Lindqvist (Netnod) Tom explained his background and interest in IPv6 deployment. He noted that much of industry was unaware or poorly informed about the possible consequences of the depletion of IPv4 address space and how they might prepare for migration to IPv6. He suggested the need for a positive marketing program, and noted that Intellect and organisations like them would find it very valuable if there existed a standard set of information from which to work. He suggested that some leadership is required here. Investing in preparing for IPv6 is well down the list of priorities for most managers, who have not got the evidence they need to make decisions. This needed to be in easy-to-understand language and provide some resource material that could help in preliminary planning - what he described as "cook books" and case studies. Martin turned the conversation to Kurtis, on whether there is cause for concern, and if the RIPE community can assist. Kurtis noted that the more industry groups identify IPv6 adoption and bring it to the attention of their members, the better. The more people preparing these resources (cookbooks etc.) the better, though coordination is also important, and the RIRs (including RIPE NCC and the RIPE community) can assist with this. He noted though that the vendors are helping; there has not been enough of a market to date, but this will change over time. Martin asked Patrik how much lead time people need? Patrik noted that the technical community has only really turned onto the seriousness of this issue in the last few years, and it is good to see business not too far behind that. He noted the importance of requiring IPv6 in the next upgrade cycle, because if you miss one now, it's possible that it will be 10 years before the next cycle comes around. Tom agreed that emphasis needs to be placed on the upgrade cycle. Martin noted that it is the Senior Management who need to get behind these ideas, and this can be difficult. Paul Rendek noted that the RIPE NCC will be launching a new IPv6 website, IPv6 Act Now, later in May, which fits the model of a cookbook that is accessible to the business and government communities. Rumy Kanis also noted that the RIPE NCC Training Team is using the RIPE 58 Meeting to shoot video testimonials of people who have deployed IPv6. Patrik noted that governments and large organisations can be useful in developing Request For Proposal (RFP) guidelines to ensure IPv6 incorporation in all government-funded projects. Jaap Akkerhuis noted that there is demand for information on IPv6, but that the people who require this information are often not at RIPE Meetings. C. Government Updates on IPv6 Policy Maria Hall (SE): Maria noted that Sweden will shortly take over the EU presidency, and will be focusing on what is coming after EU's ICT program, i2010. This will include an IT Policy High Level conference in November 2009 (Visby Agenda – Creating Impact for an eUnion 2015), as well as an e-Governance Ministerial Conference. IPv6 adoption is an important part of both of those focus areas. She also focused on the importance of coordination and communication with other communities, RIPE being one of the most important in this area. Kirsten Sanders (DK): Kirsten outlined how the Danish government is taking the lead in Denmark's IPv6 deployment. The government has drafted several documents on strategy and an Action Plan to roll out. She noted that there is a feeling that government is an important initiator, both through purchasing and also by assisting in connectivity deployment. International cooperation is also vital. Constanze Buerger (DE): Constanze described the German government strategies for IPv6 deployment in government networks. Jim Reid (UK): Jim outlined the strategies that the British Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) is developing. He noted the importance of moving from the center of the network out toward the edge, but noted that government is not going to be funding a wholesale move to IPv6. He also noted the task force that BERR will be setting up in the coming months. D. RIPE NCC Cooperation Activities Update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC Paul outlined the cooperation activities of the RIPE NCC (in many cases alongside other RIRs). E. Open Discussion on Issues Raised at Earlier Government and LEA Meetings. Marijn Schuubiers presented on what had taken place in the morning meetings, including the suggestion of a Cybercrime Task Force. This is still in the planning phase, and will be continued, in discussions at the meeting or online. Rob Blokzijl agreed that this is a good initiative, and advised on procedural aspects. Bill Woodcock noted that the ARIN Government WG is doing similar work and would be useful to liaise with. Brian Nisbett noted that there is an Anti-Abuse WG, and that those involved in this may find this interesting. Mat Ford of ISOC noted that he supported this initiative. There was some discussion of a recent program on Radio Four regarding the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Paul Hoare, of SOCA, noted that the program misrepresented the extent of SOCA's knowledge, but agreed that any additional support from the RIPE community would be very welcome. Z. A.O.B. George Michaelson of APNIC noted the new network deployment being discussed by the Australian government, and wondered if the government representatives felt that strong regulation would be appropriate at this moment in terms of IPv6. Maria noted that there are other ways than regulation, and that any regulation should be undertaken very carefully. Jim Reid spoke about the things happening in the UK, and noted that regulation is not really felt to be required. Martin agreed with Jim, and noted that government want to stand back, but need to feel confident that industry is taking up the challenge. If they do not think that this is happening, then they might decide that regulation is necessary to avoid serious failure. He noted though that many countries see the regulatory model as the only model, and they will increase pressure to use this very soon, while trying to show the breakdown of the industry-led model. Patrik noted that the problem is that it is felt that the passive infrastructure should be open, and whether IPv6 should be included is only a very new topic of discussion. Lorenzo Colitti of Google noted that the big step that needs to be fixed is getting IPv6 to users of large ISPs. He pointed out that the users don't actually know that they want IPv6, and they don't have the purchasing power that governments have. He wondered how governments see this happening? The technical solutions are well understood, but it's a question of scaling it up to large ISPs. Moshen Souissi of AFNIC noted that he doesn't want regulation of IPv6 from government, but that government can make these requirements in their equipment upgrades. Lorenzo noted, however, that "setting an example" is perhaps not an effective means of promoting IPv6, and that there are plenty of examples set, but people don't necessarily follow. Patrik noted that governments should be nervous when there are users that are ONLY using IPv6, and not IPv4, and that we are not there yet. Meeting minuted by Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC Regards, Martin Boyle Maria Häll Co-Chairs, RIPE Cooperation Working Group

1 0

Website Launch: www.IPv6ActNow.org
by Paul Rendek 20 May '09

20 May '09

[Apologies for duplicate emails.] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the launch of the IPv6 Act Now! website. www.IPv6ActNow.org is a one stop website that explains IPv6 in terms that everyone can understand and provides a variety of useful information aimed at promoting the global adoption of IPv6. The site is for anyone with an interest in IPv6, including network engineers, company directors, law enforcement agencies, government representatives and civil society. The site content is regularly updated and includes: - Education, advice and opinions from the experts - Latest IPv6-related news stories - Videos and articles from Internet community leaders - Current IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 uptake statistics - The RIPE community's statement on IPv6 deployment, including a list of organisations supporting this statement - Information on community-developed IPv6 distribution policies - Useful links to other sources of information about IPv6 - A forum for everyone to share experiences, ask questions and find answers The site also includes contributions from other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and industry partners. We invite you to take a look around the site. We hope that you find it useful. If you have and comments or suggestions about IPv6ActNow!, please contact us at <ipv6actnow(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communication RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Cooperation Working Group meeting 4 May in Amsterdam
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 27 Apr '09

27 Apr '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Cooperation Working Group will meet at RIPE 58 at the Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky in Amsterdam, from 14:00-15:45, Monday, 4 May 2009. Below is a draft agenda for the session. Please send any comments on this draft to the mailing list or contact the Co-Chairs at <cooperationwg-chairs(a)ripe.net >. Draft agenda: - Panel discussion: Why Is IPv6 Not Being Adopted? - Government updates on IPv6 policy - RIPE NCC Cooperation Activities update - Open discussion During the final agenda item, the working group will discuss issues raised in earlier meetings of government and law enforcement representatives. For more information on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/cooperation/index.html Regards, Martin Boyle Maria Häll Co-Chairs, RIPE Cooperation Working Group

1 0

Fw: Agenda RFC announcement
by Martin.Boyle＠nominet.org.uk 07 Apr '09

07 Apr '09

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Cooperation Working Group will meet at RIPE 58 in Amsterdam, from 14:00 - 15:45, Monday, 4 May 2009. We are seeking input from the community on any topics that you would like to see covered in the meeting agenda, or volunteers who wish to give a presentation. Please send your comments or suggestions to the mailing list or contact the Co-chairs at <cooperationwg-chairs(a)ripe.net. For more information on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/cooperation/index.html Regards, Martin Boyle Maria Häll Co-Chairs, RIPE Cooperation Working Group

1 0

Report of the RIPE Enhanced Cooperation Task Force Published
by Paul Rendek 25 Mar '09

25 Mar '09

[Apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce the publication of ripe-464, "Report of the RIPE Enhanced Cooperation Task Force". This document is now available in the RIPE Document Store at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-464.html Regards, Paul Rendek Head of External Relations and Communications RIPE NCC

1 0

FWD: Public Consultation on a "Strengthened Network and Information Security in Europe"
by Jaap Akkerhuis 30 Nov '08

30 Nov '08

From various sources I got last week the following announcement. It just occurred to me that this might be of interest to some people on this list, therefore I decided to forward one of these announcements here. jaap ________ From: "Relations to Industry & Academia" <industry(a)enisa.europa.eu> Subject: [ENISA] Public Consultation on a "Strengthened Network and Information Security in Europe" Dear NIS Stakeholder, I would like to inform you that the European Commission has opened a public consultation with the title "Towards a Strengthened Network and Information Security in Europe". The consultation will run through until 9 January 2009. It is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=InfsoNis Further information on the public consultation is published at: -DG INFSO newsroom: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item… -Your voice in Europe: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm It is stated on the webpage: "In order to facilitate this debate, the Commission's services are organising an online consultation to gather contributions from *as many stakeholders as possible* on the possible objectives for a strengthened network and information security policy at EU level and on the means to achieve those objectives." We urge you make an effort to contribute to this very important public dialogue! kind regards, Dr. Panagiotis TRIMINTZIOS ENISA - European Network and Information Security Agency www.enisa.europa.eu/eq/

1 0

Notes Cooperation Working Group, Thursday 30 Oct 2008, Dubai
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 14 Nov '08

14 Nov '08

Cooperation Working Group Thursday, 30 October 2008, Dubai A. Administrative Matters Patrik Fältström introduced himself as Chair for this meeting, as the two official Co-Chairs were unable to attend RIPE 57. He also noted some confusion about the name of the Jabber room. Two items were added to the agenda, under the A.O.B. item. These were presentations by Daniel Karrenberg and Jim Reid, and were added under A.O.B. as the Co-Chairs had already approved the existing agenda. Malcolm Hutty noted the closure of the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, and its instruction for the Cooperation Working Group to maintain the document produced by the task force. Discussion of this matter was added as a third item under A.O.B. The participants in the room introduced themselves over the microphone. B. Open Comment/Review of Working Group Charter The Chair read out the charter in its current form. The participants endorsed the charter. C. Addressing the Rise of Criminal Service Providers - Paul Hoare, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) The speaker discussed the issue of criminal activity by Internet Service Providers and how it might be policed. Jim Reid raise a question about whether criminal ISPs could have their RIPE NCC membership terminated as a form of sanction, and how effective this would be as a deterrence, given that the ISP would already have the IP resources. Paul agreed that there remain issues, but that the RIPE NCC could remove reverse DNS services, and the ranges could be handed to a group such as a white-hat organisation who could also announce the ranges, which would degrade the connectivity of the criminal ISP. Jim also noted that there the routing database and the deployment of routing security could be a two-way street, in that the original holder (the criminal ISP) might have a certificate associated with those resources, making it difficult to disrupt their connectivity. Paul agreed that there were many issues, and encouraged anyone with further suggestions to contact him, noting that the RIPE NCC could provide his contact details. He also noted that if the Internet community could regulate this area successfully, it might remove the need or temptation for government to step in and regulate. Daniel Karrenberg noted the term "crime caused by the Internet", and the danger of thinking that by fixing the Internet we can fix crime, whereas the Internet is simply a tool for certain crimes because it has enormous reach, it can rapidly disseminate material throughout the world and because it transcends jurisdictions. Technical solutions can only be a small part of a larger strategy in fighting crime. Paul agreed, noting that the Internet, like any technological development, presents new opportunities to criminals and we should try to restrict these opportunities. Daniel noted that the RIPE NCC's power is limited in terms of physically preventing criminal ISPs from using the Internet, but that this forum should be used to reach out to all ISPs, who collectively have the means to disable these rogue ISPs. He also noted that the RIPE NCC cannot be judge and executioner at the same time, but noted that SOCA is working with the Dutch law enforcement community in sorting this out. He emphasised that there should not be a focus on the RIPE NCC as the head of a hierarchical structure. Paul agreed and reiterated that he is primarily seeking suggestions and solutions. Jaap Akerhuis noted that in the domain name business there are also moves to have registries take down rogue sites, but that there is not a lot that can be done. Paul noted the large number of countries in the RIPE community and that gaining consensus from all these countries is difficult. There are issues of where free speech ends and crime begins. He reiterated the problems of cross-jurisdictional crime, though there are some crimes, such as pedophilia, that are widely accepted. He noted that there is no final solution to remove crime from the Internet, but that slowing them down is still an important goal. Malcolm Hutty noted that, supposing RIPE NCC could knock an ISP off the network, what kind of cooperation and approval would be necessary to obtain from national authorities in the relevant territory. He noted that several years ago UK CEOs were being arrested in the USA for gambling sites that were situated in the UK, and that there would be similar issues between countries within the RIPE region. Paul noted that in many cases SOCA would simply work with authorities in the relevant country, by approaching them and asking them to do something themselves. D. Update on RIPE NCC Outreach Activities RIPE NCC Government Roundtable Meeting, ICANN GAC and IGF 2008 preparations. There was no discussion. E. IPv6: What Should Governments Do? Patrik Fältström Patrik noted that the current deployment of IPv6 is not going well, what can be done about this and the role that government can play in that. There was no discussion. Z. A.O.B./Q&A Session Daniel Karrenberg – Presentation from the Address Policy Working Group on Address Depletion Scenarios Daniel pointed the WG to some work being done in the Address Policy WG on policies about the end of IPv4. He asked whether governments were concerned about the scenarios that were raised in his presentation. Jim Reid noted that in terms of "perceived unfairness", some governments in the region are actually saying that there is already unfairness in the distribution of IP addresses. Nurani Nimpuno noted that there are policy proposals in the works that address these issues in various ways, and that governments should be aware that this is not an issue that is being neglected. Daniel agreed that there are proposals that address part of this issue, but not all of it. Jim Reid - NTIA Open Consultation About Signing of the Root - Report on Work Being Done in the DNS Working Group Jim noted that the US Department of Commerce has asked for comments about signing the DNS root zone, and the DNS Working Group is preparing a statement, as they have in the past pushed for this. The WG has nearly completed this statement, and hopes to present it at the Closing Plenary, and that this can then be accepted as a RIPE community statement. It states basically that this is about the authenticity of the data in the DNS root, not about some overt form of control. There was no discussion. Enhanced Cooperation Task Force Document – What To Do? Malcolm noted that the document created by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force (EC TF) consists of two parts, one recommending the establishment of this Working Group, the other explaining how the RIPE community works, what bottom-up governance is and why we have these processes in place. It is essentially a communications document. It was decided that a statement from the RIPE community to this effect would be useful to underpin the current system. It is now hoped that this document could go through the appropriate RIPE PDP steps to become a RIPE Document. Rob Bokzijl noted that there is no need for any further formalities as the document has gone through the appropriate RIPE Task Force steps. Paul Rendek noted that any revisions should be showcased in this Working Group. Action point: The RIPE NCC is directed to create a new RIPE Document and place it on the WG website. Malcolm is appointed as the contact for any final edits. Meeting closed. /Maria

1 0

Name of jabber room has changed
by Patrik Fältström 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

The name of the jabber room for the Coperation Wg is "coop", and the name of the jabber server is "conference.ripe.net". Not "cooperation" that was stated earlier. Regards, Patrik Fältström Chair of the cooperation wg session and RIPE-57

1 0

RIPE Cooperation Working Group meeting 30 October in Dubai
by maria.hall＠enterprise.ministry.se 03 Oct '08

03 Oct '08

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Cooperation Working Group will meet for the first time at RIPE 57 in Dubai, from 9:00 - 10:30, Thursday, 30 October 2008. Below is a proposed draft agenda for the session. We are seeking input from the community on any additional topics that you would like to see covered, or volunteers who wish to give a presentation. You can send any comments or suggestions to the mailing list or contact the Co-Chairs at <cooperationwg-chairs(a)ripe.net>. Draft agenda: - Open comment/review of working group charter - Addressing the Rise of Criminal Service Providers, Paul Hoare, Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) - Update on RIPE NCC Outreach Activities (including RIPE NCC Government Roundtable meeting, ICANN GAC, IGF 2008 preparations) - IPv6: What Should Governments Do? - AOB/Q&A Session For more information on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, please see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/cooperation/index.html Regards, Martin Boyle Maria Häll Co-Chairs, RIPE Cooperation Working Group __________________________ Best regards / Med vänlig hälsning, Maria Häll Deputy Director/Kansliråd Division for Information Technology Policy / Enheten för IT-politik Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications / Näringsdepartementet SE-103 33 Stockholm SWEDEN Visitors address: Mäster Samuelsgatan 70 Direct phone: +46 8 405 21 49 Switchboard +46 8 405 10 00 Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 e-mail: maria.hall(a)enterprise.ministry.se Hemsida: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2373 Homepage: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2156/a/20015

1 0