- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

07 Feb '14

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

1 0

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

04 Feb '14

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

9 19

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

28 Jan '14

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

5 9

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

24 Jan '14

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

1 0

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

02 Jan '14

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

4 4

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

13 Dec '13

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

1 0

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

12 Dec '13

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

7 23

The proposed EU Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

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

1 0

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

09 Dec '13

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

1 0

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

02 Dec '13

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

5 4