- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Belgian limits on CGN/NAT?
by Marco Hogewoning 25 Nov '16

25 Nov '16

[apologies for duplicates, suggest to follow-up on this on the RIPE IPv6-WG for which you can subscribe at https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg/) Dear Colleagues, Unfortunately so far I have only found Dutch (and French) sources, we would be happy to receive pointers to English texts on this. The Belgian Institute for Post and Telecom (BIPT) recently ran a consultation to evaluate the National IPv6 Workplan, which was released back in 2012. The deadline to comment had already passed, but I trust our Belgian community members to have found this via other sources in time to respond. http://www.bipt.be/public/files/nl/22027/Raadpleging_ipv6.pdf In this, there is one question in particular that caught our eye, number 6, which roughly translates to a question asking if the requirements in a Code of Conduct on the usage of CGN which was agreed in 2012 are still current and workable and whether or not this CoC should be reviewed. Further in the introduction of the consultation, chapter 1 (page 3), there is some more information on this agreement: > Om de eindgebruiker toch eenduidig te kunnen identificeren was er beslist om bijvoorbeeld het delen van een IP-adres te beperken tot maximaal 16 gebruikers en dit via een gedragscode die door de sector werd ondertekend. Translation by me: > To identify users, it was agreed that sharing a single IP address would be limited to a maximum of 16 users and that this limit would be part of a code of conduct which would be signed by the industry” So far we have not yet been able to retrieve a copy of this Code of Conduct or a list of participating operators and would be happy to receive more information. But as the text suggests that there is an agreement between Belgian network operators and the government that would limit the use of CGN to 16 users per address. We wonder then, if this is the “magic ingredient” of why the IPv6 roll out in Belgium is so successful. As a question to this Working Group, would a 16:1 ratio be realistic and workable from an operational perspective? And further of course, do you think this form of cooperation between the public and private sector as a way to expedite the deployment of IPv6? Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Accountability Task Force
by Athina Fragkouli 24 Nov '16

24 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, At RIPE 73 there was support for a review of the RIPE community's accountability, by looking at its current procedures, documentation and structures. An Accountability Task Force has been established to carry out this work and will have its first meeting in the coming weeks, after which a charter and additional information will be published. A mailing list will also be created for the Task Force’s discussions and the archives will be publicly available. You can find the accountability presentation at RIPE 73 here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1248/ If you have feedback or would like to join the Task Force, please send an email to <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Cybersecurity Due Diligence - an ISP Perspective
by Mirjam Kuehne 15 Nov '16

15 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, For those who missed Joanna Kulesza's presentation at RIPE 73, she wrote a summary for RIPE Labs: Cybersecurity Due Diligence - an ISP Perspective Cybersecurity is no longer a corporate or private affair. What once was simply good business practice is now a legal obligation for ISPs, large and small. What does this mean for you? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/joanna_kulesza/cybersecurity-due-diligence Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: The Internet Infrastructure's Turn to Content
by Mirjam Kuehne 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article by Uta Meier-Hahn on RIPE Labs: The Internet Infrastructure's Turn to Content https://labs.ripe.net/Members/uta_meier_hahn/the-internet-infrastructures-t… One of the Internet’s key features is that it keeps networking functions separate from the applications and services that use these functions. However, network operators and especially Internet service providers appear to be becoming more content aware. Networking is becoming more intertwined with content. This might have implications for tomorrow’s Internet. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Euro-IX Memorandum of Understanding and RIPE NCC Engagement
by Paul Rendek 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC and the European Internet Exchange Association (Euro-IX) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the Euro-IX Forum in Krakow, Poland on 7 November. The MoU documents the existing relationship between the RIPE NCC and Euro-IX, and focuses specifically on the promotion of IPv6 and IXPs, the importance of security, and a common approach to Internet governance: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe-ncc-and… This MoU is the latest formalised agreement for greater cooperation between the RIPE NCC and one of the many external organisations we work with, and we wanted to give you some background on why we believe these types of agreements are valuable to the RIPE NCC membership and the greater RIPE community. We also want to be completely transparent about the agreements we’re entering into, which is why we’ve created a new page on the RIPE NCC website where you can get all of the details for yourselves: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations Beyond the RIPE NCC membership, there is a diverse range of organisations we work with in various ways, including governments, regulators, technical bodies, industry groups, law enforcement agencies, academic institutions and others. By engaging with these organisations, we can offer decision makers technical expertise that will ultimately benefit the Internet community, gain support for open, bottom-up policy-making, and strengthen the legitimacy, authority and accountability of the RIPE NCC, the RIPE community and the global registry system. In fact, this kind of engagement is included as one of the four main focus areas in the Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan & Budget 2017, and was the subject of a presentation by RIPE NCC Executive Board member Maria Häll at RIPE 73. You can find both of these online for more details if you’re interested: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016/draft-ri… https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1480/ You can also learn more about our engagement with external organisations and the mutual benefits of these agreements in this RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/building-and-documenting-stronger-rela… We encourage you to include any comments you might have in the comment section under the article, or on this mailing list. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC

1 0

BoF follow-up: Creation of IoT-Discuss mailing list
by Marco Hogewoning 08 Nov '16

08 Nov '16

Dear colleagues, During the Internet of Things BoF in Madrid, several participants commented on the need to strengthen the information exchange on this topic. Noting the wide variety of the topics and concerns that would fall under such a broad term as the Internet of Things, while it the same time too specific for any existing mailing list, it was concluded that the creation of a dedicated mailing list would be a feasible way forward in centralising the information available, while leaving open the option to take specific topics to specialist working groups or other venues. As we announced during the meeting, we have now set up this dedicated mailing list called “IoT Discussion”. The aim of this list is to facilitate the exchange of information concerning the Internet of Things, particularly as it may have impact on the RIPE NCC, RIPE or our stakeholders' operations. The list is also a platform to inform each other about proceedings in other relevant standards bodies or governance structures, and may be used to discuss and formulate common positions among participants on IoT-related topics. If you take interest in this topic or participate in other discussions surrounding the IoT, we would encourage you to subscribe to this mailing list. To subscribe to this list, please visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion. The same webpage also gives access to the public archives of this mailing list. Regards, Marco Hogewoning On behalf of the RIPE NCC’s External Relations department.

1 0

RIPE NCC's response to ITU SG20 Liaison Statement
by Marco Hogewoning 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, We would like to inform you that we have published our response to a Liaison Statement that we recently received on behalf of ITU Study Group 20, which is working on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications, including smart cities and communities. The incoming Liaison Statement as well as our response can be found on the RIPE NCC’s website: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-suppl… In case you have any questions regarding this topic, feel free to contact us via email, this mailing list or you can contact me or one of my colleagues during next week’s RIPE meeting, taking place in Madrid, Spain. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

6 8

Suggested agenda for RIPE73 Cooperation WG session
by Johan Helsingius 18 Oct '16

18 Oct '16

Here is the current suggested agenda for the cooperation WG session in Madrid. Julf & Achilleas - - - - - RIPE73 Cooperation WG session Thursday, 27 October, 10:00-11:30 Co-chairs: Achilleas Kemos, Julf Helsingius 1. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) - Welcome - Selecting a scribe - Approve agenda - Approve minutes from RIPE 72 https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/minutes/ripe-72 2. Cybersecurity Due Diligence - and ISP Perspective (20 minutes) Joanna Kuleza, University of Lodz, PL 3. EU 5G Action Plan (20 minutes) Achilleas Kemos 4. IPv6 and Government Update (20 minutes) Chris Buckridge and Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC, Constanze Bürger, BMI, DE 5. RIPE NCC Update (20 minutes) Chris Buckridge and Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC, Julf Helsingius - IANA transition - IoT issues - ITU activities 6. Open Microphone Session (5 minutes) 7. Any other business

1 0

European Commission tender: study to support the definition phase of the Next Generation Internet initiative
by Marco Hogewoning 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, We recently have been notified about the following, which we think this may be an area that RIPE community members have an interest in commenting on. At this stage we do not have more information than what is posted on the webpages mentioned below. "The European Commission has launched a call for tenders for a service contract to conduct a study to support the definition phase of the Next Generation Internet initiative. In their offer, the tenderer should demonstrate a deep knowledge of the Future Internet area and key applications, from a technical perspective, notably through relevant previous work of similar nature (SMART 2016/0033 The overall objective of the study is to support the definition phase of the Next Generation Internet initiative. This includes developing a concept for a new research and innovation initiative on next generation Internet and engaging with a broader community of stakeholders.” More information about this tender and the Next Generation Internet Initiative can be found on the Commission’s website: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/next-generation-internet… Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

the IANA transition has happened!
by Jim Reid 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

The last minute attempt to get an injunction to stop the NTIA contract from ending has been rejected. Rejoice!

2 1

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet Community
by Nurani Nimpuno 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

FYI Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 1 October 2016 at 06:39:02 GMT+2 > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Completion of the IANA Stewardship Transition to the global Internet Community > > Dear colleagues, > > > We are very pleased to see the completion of the transfer the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority’s (IANA) stewardship to the global multistakeholder community. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-st… > > We are also very happy to see that the implementation of the proposal fully reflects the spirit of the number community’s will. > > The number community has worked effectively and constructively together with the broader Internet community over the last two years in completing this plan. The number community’s fundamental principles of openness, transparency, inclusiveness and bottom-up decision making, have been a leading example throughout this work. We are immensely proud of the work carried out by our community and we feel privileged to have been part of this process. > > The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition, involving many different stakeholders across the globe, is a true testament to the multistakeholder model. > > The IANA function now in the hands of the global Internet community, which will ensure the continued stability and openness of those fundamental functions. > > We now have a stewardship mechanism which the Numbers Community, with expertise on the global number resources, has the stewardship of the IANA Numbering Services. This mechanism reflects the three Operational Communities, who have been responsible for the resources managed by the IANA, to have stewardship for these functions. > > We would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this successful transition. > Kind regards, > > Izumi Okutani, chair of the CRISP team > Nurani Nimpuno, vice chair of the CRISP team > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 14
by Corinne Cath 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

I would be happy to add to that conversation from the perspective of civil society, as ARTICLE 19 recently wrote about the impact of 5G development and roll-out on human rights. I assume a remote presentation option is possible? (I shared the blog to the list, but here is another link: https://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/252/view/). Best, On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Call for Agenda Items RIPE73 - Cooperation WG (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:04:51 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Call for Agenda Items RIPE73 - > Cooperation WG > Message-ID: <0D347044-5600-4F54-AF65-4E246BC50EE6(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Another interesting topic could be how the Commission, DG Connect, sees > how all their intended investments in 5G - political and regulatory and > financial - relate to the internet. > > At the "Net Futures" event earlier this year, Commissioner Oettinger said: > > << They (communication networks) need to move from "one size fits all" and > "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the versatile > requirements of many industries, and that can deliver guaranteed and > ubiquitous quality of service. >> > > When one thinks of the various fundamentals of the internet there is a > major mismatch there. > > Gordon > > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 14 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath

1 0

Call for Agenda Items RIPE73 - Cooperation WG
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

Dear group members, Our meeting at RIPE73 is just one month away and we are in the process of finalising the agenda. If you would like to suggest a topic for discussion or have a presentation you have or would like to see presented, please get in touch with us. Best regards, Julf & Achilleas

5 7

RIPE NCC's Response to CWG-Internet Open Consultation "Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”
by Marco Hogewoning 22 Sep '16

22 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, In response to the ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet)’s open consultation “Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”, we have prepared and submitted the attached contribution on behalf of the RIPE NCC. In our submission we emphasise the need for IPv6 and highlighted the ongoing coordinated efforts by all stakeholders to expedite the deployment of IPv6 in their networks, services and products. Should you have any questions regarding this consultation or our contribution, please do not hesitate to contact me or one of my colleagues. Regards, Marco Hogewoning External Relations RIPE NCC

3 3

New on RIPE Labs: What Do Network Operators Sell to Each Other?
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Sep '16

20 Sep '16

Dear colleagues, Please find this new article on RIPE Labs contributed by Uta Meier-Hahn: What Do Network Operators Sell to Each Other? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/uta_meier_hahn/what-do-network-operators-sell… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 56, Issue 4
by Corinne Cath 18 Sep '16

18 Sep '16

Thank you for sharing Achilleas! Related to this, I recently wrote a blog for ARTICLE 19 about the promises and perils of 5G and what civil society do to ensure that human rights play a central role in its development. Might be of interest. https://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/252/view/ Best, On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. President Juncker "State of the union 2016" and "Connectivity > package" (Achilleas.KEMOS(a)ec.europa.eu) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:14:02 +0000 > From: <Achilleas.KEMOS(a)ec.europa.eu> > To: <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] President Juncker "State of the union 2016" > and "Connectivity package" > Message-ID: > <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B2003FB@S-DC-ESTG02-J. > net1.cec.eu.int> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear group members, > > This week President Juncker gave (on Wedensday) the 2016 State of the > Union address. You can find the whole text here: > > www.ec.europa.eu/soteu<http://www.ec.europa.eu/soteu> > > The Digital Single Market is a key priority for this Commission. Below you > can find also the press release relative to improved internet connectivity > for all citizens and businesses in Europe. > > http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3008_en.htm > > On this occasion the Commission proposed an ambitious overhaul of EU > telecoms rules with new initiatives to meet Europeans' growing connectivity > needs and boost Europe's competitiveness. These proposals will encourage > investment in very high-capacity networks and accelerate public access to > Wi-Fi for Europeans. > > Documents adopted: > > Communication and Staff Working Document - Connectivity for a Competitive > Digital Single Market - towards a European Gigabit Society< > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34110> > > Action Plan and Staff Working Document Communication - 5G for Europe< > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34115> > > European Electronic Communication Code<https://ec.europa.eu/ > digital-single-market/news-redirect/34112> > > Regulation on the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications > (BEREC)<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34114> > > Regulation on the promotion of Internet connectivity in local communities > and public spaces (WiFi4EU) <https://ec.europa.eu/digital- > single-market/news-redirect/34228> > In view of preparing the Madrid meeting, could you please signal which EU > developments (if any) would be most interesting to discuss. > > Achilleas > > Achilleas Kemos > Programme Officer - Future Connectivity Systems > DG CONNECT > European Commission > >

1 0

President Juncker "State of the union 2016" and "Connectivity package"
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

Dear group members, This week President Juncker gave (on Wedensday) the 2016 State of the Union address. You can find the whole text here: www.ec.europa.eu/soteu<http://www.ec.europa.eu/soteu> The Digital Single Market is a key priority for this Commission. Below you can find also the press release relative to improved internet connectivity for all citizens and businesses in Europe. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-3008_en.htm On this occasion the Commission proposed an ambitious overhaul of EU telecoms rules with new initiatives to meet Europeans' growing connectivity needs and boost Europe's competitiveness. These proposals will encourage investment in very high-capacity networks and accelerate public access to Wi-Fi for Europeans. Documents adopted: Communication and Staff Working Document - Connectivity for a Competitive Digital Single Market - towards a European Gigabit Society<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34110> Action Plan and Staff Working Document Communication - 5G for Europe<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34115> European Electronic Communication Code<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34112> Regulation on the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC)<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34114> Regulation on the promotion of Internet connectivity in local communities and public spaces (WiFi4EU) <https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news-redirect/34228> In view of preparing the Madrid meeting, could you please signal which EU developments (if any) would be most interesting to discuss. Achilleas Achilleas Kemos Programme Officer - Future Connectivity Systems DG CONNECT European Commission

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Articles on the US Senate Hearing
by Nurani Nimpuno 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

FYI. Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Articles on the US Senate Hearing > Date: 15 september 2016 06:10:30 CEST > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > > FYI. > > Several articles published after the Hearing conducted by the US Senate Committee on Judiciary on 14th September, Chaired by Ted Cruz. > You can also see the video and statements of each panelist at the Hearing from the website. > > Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet > http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/protecting-internet-freedom-implic… > > > * Politifact: > Ted Cruz incorrect about Obama giving control of internet to UN-like body <http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-in…> > * Reuters: > Blocking Internet oversight transition a 'gift to Russia': Obama administration <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKCN11K26F> > * Dallas Morning News: > Cruz fights to keep internet domains under U.S. control as critics decry move as misguided <http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20160914-cruz-says-he-s-f…> > * Financial Times: > Republicans lash out at US plan to cede Internet control <https://www.ft.com/content/9ac0cfe4-7a97-11e6-ae24-f193b105145e>(subcribers only) > * Politico: > Cruz: Obama officials could face jail for internet ‘handover’<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/ted-cruz-internet-domain-larry-strick…> > White House: Cruz stand on ICANN 'ironic' <https://www.politicopro.com/tech/whiteboard/2016/09/josh-earnest-cruz-stand…>(subcribers only) > > Izumi Okutani > > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

6 8

whatabootery
by Jim Reid 16 Sep '16

16 Sep '16

I understand this word may need translation into English. Much like my accent I hear you say. :-) Whatabootery is a Glasgow expression for the practice of raising non-sequiturs, particularly when trying to divert attention from inconvenient truths: what about...

2 1

Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder
by Gordon Lennox 30 Aug '16

30 Aug '16

The Berec consultation closes on Monday July 18 at 14h00. http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/… There are websites to help you respond if you so wish: https://www.savenetneutrality.eu https://www.savetheinternet.eu/en/ Or of course you can respond directly. But the more who respond the better? Gordon

5 7

NRO Statement on IANA Intellectual Property Rights
by Nick Hyrka 25 Aug '16

25 Aug '16

This email is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) NRO Statement on IANA Intellectual Property Rights The NRO has reviewed the IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Assignment Agreement, the IANA IPR License Agreement and the IANA IPR Community Agreement, as published for comment at: https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements And finds that these IPR agreements meet the requirements of the numbers community, as expressed in the CRISP Proposal at: https://www.nro.net/news/final-proposal-crisp The NRO notes that these agreements are presently posted for public comments through September 12, 2016 at 23:59 UTC. After that time, and presuming a favorable review of the comments received, the NRO intends to enter into these agreements in order to facilitate the IANA Stewardship transition. For your information Oscar Robles Chair Number Resource Organization

1 0

"Incentives, Benefits, Costs, and Challenges to IPv6 Implementation"
by Marco Hogewoning 19 Aug '16

19 Aug '16

Dear Colleagues, As you may already have seen, the NTIA has published a Request For Comment regarding the implementation of IPv6. Apart from using the comments received to guide and inform NTIA’s efforts, they also intend to use this as a basis for a contribution to the IGF’s Best Practice Forum on IPv6. A more detailed blog post on this RFC is available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/ntia-seeks-input-it-develops-initiatives… Together with some community members I am participating in the IGFs Best Practice Forum (BPF) on IPv6: "Understanding the commercial and economic incentives behind a successful IPv6 deployment”. I would like to encourage network operators and other stakeholders tin the RIPE region, who have any data that could be relevant to this project, to share this with the Best Practice Forum, using the questions as posted by the NTIA as a guide. In particular we are interested to learn more details about the costs and return on investment of an IPv6 deployment and the commercial or economic arguments that motivated the decision to invest in and deploy IPv6. Contributions can be made directly to the Best Practice Forum mailing list at http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org or feel free to submit them to me personally and I am happy to forward them them on your behalf. A more detailed description of the BPF can be found at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/bpf-ipv6 We would also encourage RIPE community members, where applicable, to consider responding directly to the NTIA's RFC. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC

1 0

NTIA Announcement on IANA Stewardship Transition
by Nick Hyrka 17 Aug '16

17 Aug '16

Dear colleagues, Yesterday, the NTIA announced that they had informed ICANN that, barring any significant impediment, they intended to allow the IANA functions contract to expire on 1 October. You can find the full announcement here: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2016/update-iana-transition Kind regards, Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

IANA IPR agreements - call for public comments
by Athina Fragkouli 12 Aug '16

12 Aug '16

Dear Colleagues, A call for public comment on IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) agreements has been posted. The announcement is available at: https://www.ianacg.org/call-for-public-comment-on-iana-ipr-agreements/ Comments are due by the deadline of 12 September 12 2016 at 23:59 UTC. Background The Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to the Global Multistakeholder Community includes a requirement for certain IPR associated with IANA to be transferred from ICANN to an entity independent of the IANA functions operator. The IPR consists of trademarks and domain names. After discussion within the operational communities and the IETF Trust, the IETF Trust indicated that it would be willing to hold the IANA IPR. The IETF Trust is a Virginia common law trust created in 2005. Among other things, the IETF Trust was created for the purpose of acquiring, holding, maintaining and licensing certain intellectual property for the advancement of the science and technology associated with the Internet and related technology. The IETF Trust agreed to hold the IANA IPR in the service of the affected Internet operational communities. Representatives from the names community, the numbers community, the protocol parameters community, the IETF Trust, and ICANN have drafted a set of agreements to effectuate the transfer of the IANA IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust and to govern the relationships amongst the parties with respect to the IPR after the transfer. These agreements are: - IANA IPR Assignment Agreement. This agreement transfers the IPR from ICANN to the IETF Trust. - IANA IPR License Agreement. This agreement allows for the IANA functions operator to use the IPR. The document available for public comment is a basic form that will be used to generate three license agreements, one each for the names, numbers, and protocol parameters IANA services. Items highlighted in yellow will vary by agreement and will be completed once the License Agreement is split into three. In each case the licensee is ICANN, with the ability established for ICANN to sublicense to PTI. - IANA IPR Community Agreement. This agreement explains the rights and obligations of the IETF Trust and each operational community as regards the IPR. The IETF Trust, the operational communities, and ICANN hereby solicit feedback as to whether the draft agreements address the needs of the affected communities. Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

Reports on the 10th European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG)
by Marco Hogewoning 29 Jul '16

29 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, The 10th edition of EuroSSIG (http://www.eurossig.eu) was held last week in Meißen, Germany. Started as a response to the conclusion by the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) on the lack of academic research and teaching on Internet governance. Since the inception of the summer school in 2007, RIPE NCC has been contributing both financially and with staff resources in the faculty. Over the years several RIPE NCC staff and RIPE community members have attended the summer school as fellows. With many of the alumni active in Internet governance across the various I* organisations and other stakeholder groups, EuroSSIG has been a successful initiative, which found itself copied in many regions, including the Middle East. We have written up our impressions of the 10th anniversary edition of EuroSSIG in the following two articles: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gergana_petrova/eurossig-a-deep-dive-into-the… https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/eurossig-internet-governance… Should you have any questions about the EuroSSIG or RIPE NCC’s involvement in these activities, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC External Relations

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments
by Peter Koch 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 05:02:40PM +0000, Achilleas.KEMOS(a)ec.europa.eu wrote: > Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. Habemus procuratores! > To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). In that spirit I'd suggest the wg allow itself a rest on process and start working on a program for Madrid. The NIS directive and its implementations status as well as similar legislation in non EU countries could be one topic. -Peter

1 0

IXP Best Practice Forum
by Michael Oghia 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, Building on last year's IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on enabling environments for establishing successful IXPs <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/best-practice-forums/creating-an-e…>, this year's IXP BPF aims to identify success stories and list factors that can contribute to the development and success of IXPs as well as the broader Internet ecosystem. I am reaching out to the RIPE community in particular due to many of the efforts by both the community as well as RIPE NCC in promoting IXPs and interconnection in general <http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/consultation2015/Attachments/36/RIPE-NCC-IXP-IT…> . The IXP BPF is a consensus-driven, bottom-up, and inclusive collaborative effort, one that brings together professional expertise from across stakeholder groups in order to generate a practical, constructive, and relevant outcome document. We are currently soliciting feedback and brainstorming ideas, especially related to the scope and goals of this year's IXP BPF, and invite you to contribute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/144r3BIFX8QF6wg5m-QNdNfDcYHOVoic4fSMKYA4… . If you are not already involved, I encourage you to add suggestions to the document, share it among your networks, and contact Wim Degezelle, the IXP BPF project manager, or Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, one of our IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) coordinators, for more information or if you have any questions. Additionally, you can sign up for the mailing list at: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org. Kind regards, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

1 0

Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments
by Achilleas.KEMOS＠ec.europa.eu 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

Dear group members, This is a joint message by Julf and Achilleas. Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. We regret that Meredith and Collin decided to step down, we hope they will continue to follow the Workgroup and provide advice based on their experience and knowledge. We also ask for the support of the Group and the RIPE team, in order to fulfil the Group's objectives and have a successful meeting already in Madrid. To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). Best regards Julf and Achilleas From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:29 PM To: Jim Reid Cc: RIPE Co-operation WG Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Thanks, all, Jim, I appreciate your reiterating the process. The issue is, as I see it, that we've already gone through two rounds of this process, imperfect as they may have been, and pretending that "doing it again" will produce something "better" seems like a stretch. To review -- we have four candidates. These are: · Achilleas Kemos · Collin Anderson · Julf Helsingius · Analia Aspis Analia won't be able to make the RIPE meetings. So, while her experience is formidable and her voice very welcome on the list, she does not look like a good choice for Co-chair. That leaves us with three candidates. I know Collin, he has been a shadow chair in the past, helping organize and assemble WG sessions, and working on a number of policy and research issues in collaboration with RIPE community members. Achilleas brings considerable policy expertise, and can help bring policymakers from EC and otherwise into the RIPE community. This is a great asset. Julf is a last-minute candidate who is clearly invested and experienced. His tone is even-keeled, and by all accounts, he appears to be someone who'd be a pleasure to work with. So this is what I will do: given that I feel the years of work I've put into the Co-op WG are not being weighted or acknowledged, that many list members would prefer to see me reflect back their opinion passively than voice my own based on these years of experience, and given the increasing time-pressures I'm under in all other areas of life, I am going to step down. I will remain available to answer questions and help guide the process through Barcelona, but I will no longer be Co-chair. In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com<mailto:jim@rfc1035.com>> wrote: > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com<mailto:meredithrachel@google.com>> wrote: > > So, what do you suggest? It’s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG Meredith. That’s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation with the WG. However given where we are, here’s what I would do if I was in your shoes. Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn’t followed and things have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that never happened and start from scratch once more. There’s no point apportioning blame or playing “he said, she said” about what happened since that would not help. I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go beyond that by naming any personal preferences or “qualified candidates”. This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then there’s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last words... Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for nominees. When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it would be helpful to clearly state the dates when “nominations” close, when the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. hope this helps -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

1 0

The 5G consultation
by Gordon Lennox 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

This is sort of just for the record - because we are too late! There was another consultation: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/targeted-consultation-co… A short time-scale to respond and a a "targeted" consultation. So I guess they did not want to hear from individual experts and civil society. Which is a pity given that network neutrality is of interest to very many people and that much of the 5G community is clearly and publicly against network neutrality. They are arguing for the neutrality legislation to be relaxed and at the same time for public subsidies. Gordon

3 4

New on RIPE Labs: Internet Access Disruption In Turkey - July 2016
by Mirjam Kuehne 19 Jul '16

19 Jul '16

Dear colleagues, With the attempted coup in Turkey, reports went out about social media being throttled and/or blocked. We analysed data about this that we collected with RIPE Atlas and the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI). Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/internet-access-disruption-in-turke… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Open ITU consultation on the Internet
by Jim Reid 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

The ITU’s created an open consultation on "Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet”. More details are here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-feb2016.aspx It might be worthwhile for this WG to submit something. Or ask our respective governments what sort of response, if any, they’re preparing.

3 2

Co-chairs - current status?
by Gordon Lennox 15 Jul '16

15 Jul '16

I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort she put in. However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates for the positions of co-chair: • Achilleas Kemos • Collin Anderson • Julf Helsingius • Analia Aspis After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.” Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have settled down. Gordon

3 3

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6
by Corinne Cath 14 Jul '16

14 Jul '16

Dear all, I would like to echo the sentiments by Gordon and Julf. It is a great loss for the cooperation WG that Meredith has decided to step down, and I hope she reconsiders. I cannot speak for the group, but I want to say that her enthusiasm, experience and dedication will be sorely missed. Something we will all realize soon enough. The same holds for Collin's efforts and support to the WG. I hope the remaining candidates are not scared away by what seems to be politics with a very very tiny 'p', that have colored the discussions and going-ons of late in this WG. I also believe that we should move swiftly in putting in place new (co) chairs, and I support Gordon's suggestions on how to move forward. Best, Corinne Cath On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Co-chairs - current status? (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Meredith Whittaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:42:57 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has > done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort > she put in. > > However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates > for the positions of co-chair: > > ? Achilleas Kemos > ? Collin Anderson > ? Julf Helsingius > ? Analia Aspis > > After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint > Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.? > > Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and > whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. > > I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could > confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. > > We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have > settled down. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:59:26 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <5786574E.1050906(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > step down as she has done. > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > think we all agree that her contributions have been > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > to provide additional support and resources. > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > co-chairs for the WG. > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > their positions. > > Julf > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:51:22 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> > To: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > Cc: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: > < > CAHx-7Ow+6S+bwvM3p8yT_bdHctzju_PN3SDrkmKsEDHZZKC9QA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Julf, Gordon, > > Thank you for your kind words. > > I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although I appreciate the > entreaty. This due both to the climate on the WG list, and to my personal > workload, which was already making it very difficult to act as chair. Note > that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He has merely dedicated > his time and expertise to the group in the past. > > Thanks, > Meredith > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > > step down as she has done. > > > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > > think we all agree that her contributions have been > > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > > to provide additional support and resources. > > > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > > co-chairs for the WG. > > > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > > their positions. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC >

2 1

time-lines for co-chair appointments
by Jim Reid 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-) Could you please clarify matters? I have three questions: [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting. [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria? It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.

8 12

Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
by Peter Koch 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Johan Helsingius wrote: > I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, > but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) > to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are > people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. I feel that we have a significant confusion regarding the chairs' role and position. <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selectio…> is quite clear in stating that the two or three chairs are collectively chairing the goup, but the WG gets to decide (which is not unlike the other RIPE WGs). I have not received signals that the WG was accidentally off track with combining its choices. -Peter

1 0

Fwd: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Johan Helsingius 03 Jul '16

03 Jul '16

Just back from ICANN56 - and I am sure you all saw this announcement that Nick sent out. On Wednesday, RIPE (and the other RIRs) and ICANN signed the IANA Numbering Services SLA, so the work of the CRISP team is now done (and the team dissolved). At ICANN56 we also clarified some of the outstanding issues related to the post-transition IANA, and earlier in June NTIA published a report stating that their criteria for the transition have been fulfilled, so we are closer and closer to actually completing the transition - US politics willing... Julf -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:35:42 +0200 From: Nick Hyrka <ripencc-management(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: ripencc-management(a)ripe.net Organization: RIPE NCC To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Helsinki, Finland – 29 June 2016. The RIRs and ICANN signed the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services today at ICANN 56 in Helsinki, Finland. This agreement documents the arrangements for provision by ICANN of IANA numbering services, after the IANA stewardship transition which is expected to occur on 30 September 2016. The SLA will only come into effect with the transition, and will have no effect whatsoever before that time. This event is a significant milestone in the long process of transition planning which started in March 2014 with US Government announcement. The process involved huge efforts by the Internet number community collectively, and by teams formed specifically to carry out the work. In particular the NRO Executive Council expresses its sincere thanks for the contribution by CRISP members during the last year and a half in the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. The CRISP Team worked tirelessly to integrate and consolidate the views from the five different regional communities into a single proposal. As the work of the CRISP team is now finally complete, we hereby announce that the team is formally dissolved. Finally the NRO EC also wishes acknowledge the support of the ICANN Board and staff who worked hard with us to finalise the SLA and ensure it was completed on time. The final version of the SLA is available at: http://www.nro.net/sla

1 0

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

30 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

29 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

24 Jun '16

Dear all, I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects. I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup: The working group discusses the following: 1. The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are *not* to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg>. This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. 2. The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list> mailing list. 3. The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. 4. The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-464>, describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies> (PDP) itself. The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO <http://www.nro.net/>) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group. I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele? best, On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, > Issue 16 (Michael Oghia) > 2. Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:44:21 +0300 > From: Michael Oghia <mike.oghia(a)gmail.com> > To: Constanze.Buerger(a)bmi.bund.de > Cc: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net>, Gordon Lennox > <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > Message-ID: > <CAMCMt7oat=fWQxn_kOub6cbdq1Mu_os172J3nWiHHb-d_= > oVxA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you for sharing this Constanze! > > Indeed, the more we work together, the more we will accomplish things. I am > sure of that. Collaboration is how we built the Internet, and and I firmly > believe collaboration and openness is how we will continue to ensure it > evolves in a way that is advantageous and beneficial to humanity. > > -Michael > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM, <Constanze.Buerger(a)bmi.bund.de> wrote: > > > We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: > > > > For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content ? we have the > > process. J > > > > > > > > For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: > > > > New role of public administration and governments > > > > > > > > The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only > > ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home > > with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 > solutions, > > worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. > > The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running > and > > we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. > About > > this communication way and the role of public administration in the > > community I told you last year. > > > > But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. > > > > The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are > > driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. > In > > hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but > we > > have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a > problem > > because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. > > > > So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts > > and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . > > > > . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social > > and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to > > figure out a new ?Thinking? and new ?Cooperation Forms?. > > > > Regards > > > > Constanze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Im > > Auftrag von *Michael Oghia > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 > > *An:* Gordon Lennox > > *Cc:* Cooperation WG > > *Betreff:* [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg > > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > > > > > > > > I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. > > > > > > > > My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact > > decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and > > once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are > > positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen > to > > listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work > > with diplomats and a lot of training with government. > > > > > > > > In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of > politics > > and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, > > etc. -- are still people. Just people. > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox < > gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I agree. > > > > One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question > and > > you get a response. > > > > But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is > > not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong > > disagreement about values. > > > > I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. > > Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour > > there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And > > it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> wrote: > > > > > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > > > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > > > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > > > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > > > > > >

2 1

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

23 Jun '16

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

6 9

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

22 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

22 Jun '16

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

3 4

The Working Group
by Gordon Lennox 21 Jun '16

21 Jun '16

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

5 7

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

20 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

20 Jun '16

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

1 0

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

11 Jun '16

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

1 0

NTIA Issues IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Report
by Axel Pawlik 10 Jun '16

10 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, The transition of stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community has reached a significant milestone. On 9 June 2016, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued its assessment report on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. The proposal was submitted to the NTIA in March 2016 following the ICANN 55 Meeting. From its first announcement, the NTIA has set down a number of requirements that any proposal for transition would need to meet. The proposal must: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2. Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3. Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet. The NTIA further stipulated that it "would not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution." After thorough review the NTIA reports that it finds that "the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal meets the criteria necessary to complete the long-promised privatization of the IANA functions." The NTIA also looked at the recommendations developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, and found that "the accountability recommendations are consistent with sound principles of good governance that reflect the unique and important mission of ICANN within the Internet ecosystem.” The NTIA is now engaging with members of the United States Congress, and has asked ICANN to provide an implementation planning status report to gauge whether this work is likely to be completed prior to the expiration of the IANA functions contract on 30 September 2016. A fact sheet and link to the full report is available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/fact-sheet-ntias-assessment… Further information on the IANA stewardship transition is available at: https://www.ripe.net/iana-stewardship-transition Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Best effort, specialised services, network neutrality and more
by Gordon Lennox 09 Jun '16

09 Jun '16

I seem to remember some people thinking that the “network neutrality” debate in the EU was over when the Regulation was adopted last year. But this is what Commissioner Oettinger said in April in Brussels at the NetFutures event: << The challenge is that communication networks themselves have to evolve and to adapt to the new digital economy. They need to move from "one size fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the versatile requirements of many industries, and that can deliver guaranteed and ubiquitous quality of service. This is precisely what 5G is aimed to achieve: Changing communication networks into innovation platforms rather than mere voice and data pipes. >> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-s… Now we have a fairly short public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines. << Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 included new Net Neutrality rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of Internet Access Service. It specified that BEREC lay down guidelines on the implementation by NRAs of their obligations to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules. The Guidelines aim to contribute to the consistent application of the Regulation, thereby contributing to regulatory certainty for stakeholders. >> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_co… For comments from TheRegister see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equa… <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equa…> And elsewhere: https://savetheinternet.eu https://edri.org/make-break-summer-eu-net-neutrality-first-stop-vienna/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/eu-net-neutrality-draft-guidel… https://netzpolitik.org/2016/leak-eus-forthcoming-net-neutrality-rules-here… http://motherboard.vice.com/read/europe-is-about-to-make-some-big-decisions… Enjoy, Gordon

2 1

Co-chair attributes
by Gordon Lennox 06 Jun '16

06 Jun '16

Now that I think we have clearly moved into the discussion stage - it will be interesting to see how that goes - I have looked back at what has been said on criteria and how we get to consensus. I don’t think the process can or should be micro-managed by the group. I think we can trust Meredith to assume her responsibilities. With that in mind I think the three criteria mentioned by Meredith - candidates should be willing (and not coerced!), able to attend (ideally for the full RIPE meeting), available - are “necessary but not sufficient”. To those of course we should add the generic requirements coming from the “job description" on the RIPE web-site. I hope everybody has read those! I suppose it should almost go without saying that folk should understand what RIPE is and what NCC is and how they each fit into the wider ecosystem. And of course that the co-chairs as a team should also be able to put together a meeting! But all that is probably the same for any WG. So looking through the comprehensive list of criteria from Jim I find myself in agreement with many of them, but not all. I would like to see people from the local community: people who understand how governments work in this region and who understand what the concerns of individuals and organisations in this region are. I would like at least some of the co-chairs to be explicitly sensitive to the tensions between governments and the Internet. Governments and regulators are not always benign! Where I diverge a little from Jim, and the topic has come up recently on this list, is when it comes to outreach and to what extent co-chairs are supposed to represent the WG and indeed RIPE elsewhere. This area is a bit different from others and maybe particularly when it comes to outreach where NCC has been very much involved. NCC, among other things, organises regular roundtables with government folk. I am aware that NCC as such has participated in other meetings such as those of CEPT. I also remember the support NCC gave when it was felt a letter should be written to Brussels. It was not easy. But we were able to do it. Then there was a meeting in the European Parliament on “network neutrality” which proved slightly problematic. Who were the participants representing exactly? To be clear: I am very happy with what NCC has done in this area. I could only wish they mentioned their good work more often on this list! Where I am less comfortable is about outreach being part of the job description of WG Co-chairs. I also wonder to what extent participants in the WG can also take on this kind of task. I think this needs to be discussed further. In Madrid when we have our full complement of co-chairs? As far as consensus is concerned there was a question elsewhere about that. I do not anticipate any problem. If all those who have been following the discussions here on the list just nod at their screens when Meredith announces what she sees as consensus then she will have got it right. Regards, Gordon

3 2

QoS, QoE and Enhanced Services
by Gordon Lennox 05 Jun '16

05 Jun '16

We have EuroDIG this week and of course there will be discussions about "network neutrality” This paper - Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History - by kc claffy and David Clark is very much worth a read by anyone seriously interested in the topic. https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2015/adding_enhanced_services_int… Regards, Gordon

1 0