- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: ITU-T SG 2 meetings - summary
by Patrik Fältström 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Forwarded with permission from Veni Markovski. Veni wrote among other things: > It is worth to notice how the ITU plays the game of occupying more and more space from the I* organizations - starting with ad hoc groups, study groups, dedicated groups, ITRs, and - late next year - with the change in their mandate. > > I am afraid that there is no (easy) way out of this labyrinth. > > The IPv4 legacy was discussed also at the last Council Working Group on Internet, and is now open for public comments, see here: <http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx>, namely: > > > • Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. Patrik Fältström

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

And more importantly, what should we be doing? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Carsten Schiefner [ripe-wgs.cs(a)schiefner.de] Sent: 12 February 2013 23:01 To: Patrik Fältström Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the well-worded statement. However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? Thanks and best, Carsten On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik Fältström wrote: > ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public > Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" > > · Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting > spam. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to effectively countering > and combatting spam. > > · Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues > concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 > addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. > > · Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to developmental aspects > of the Internet. > > http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx > > Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting > with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of > the meeting: > >> Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, >> United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico >> >> The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU >> conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to >> take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried >> out, in other organizations. >> >> The member states note the extensive work on policy development and >> procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder >> forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As >> proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to >> provide information to the CWG before conducting public >> consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. >> >> The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, >> including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in >> existing multi-stakeholder fora. > > Patrik Fältström

2 1

ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues
by Patrik Fältström 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" · Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to effectively countering and combatting spam. · Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. · Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to developmental aspects of the Internet. http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of the meeting: > Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico > > The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried out, in other organizations. > > The member states note the extensive work on policy development and procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to provide information to the CWG before conducting public consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. > > The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in existing multi-stakeholder fora. Patrik Fältström

2 2

Re: [cooperation-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet -CleanIT
by Dr Michiel de Weger 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

1 0

RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT
by Nash, Steve 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

CleanIT (www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Reducing-terrorist-use-of-… ) seems to me to be a useful report asking governments to facilitate awareness and fund "referral units", and "Internet Companies" to provide reasonable end-user feedback mechanisms on suspected Terrorist Internet use. - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue. Regards Steve Nash Steve.nash(a)theiet.org -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström Sent: 31 January 2013 12:34 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CleanIT Update Brian, I am sure many people on the coop wg is interested in this work, so thank you for copying the mailing list. Patrik Fältström Co-chair cooperation working group On 31 jan 2013, at 12:55, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: > Colleagues, > > (And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.) > > You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/ > > This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here: > > http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/ > > It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities. > > If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know. > > Brian >

4 3

CleanIT Update
by Brian Nisbet 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

Colleagues, (And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.) You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/ This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here: http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/ It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities. If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know. Brian

2 1

RIPE NCC Report on IGF 2012
by Chris Buckridge 05 Dec '12

05 Dec '12

Dear colleagues, The seventh Internet Governance Forum took place in Baku, Azerbaijan from 6-9 November 2012, bringing together more than 1600 people from 128 countries. The RIPE NCC participated in the event, working with fellow Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and industry partners to develop the IGF program, organise workshops and contribute to discussions. Reports and session transcripts have now been published on the IGF website for the three workshops that the RIPE NCC was involved in organising: Workshop 99: Moving to IPv6: Challenges for Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organization (NRO)) http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no99-moving-ipv6-challenges-internet-g… Workshop 100: Internet Governance and RPKI (Organised by the NRO) http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no100-internet-governance-and-rpki#rep… Workshop 117: Best Common Practices for Building Internet Capacity (Organised by RIPE NCC, AFRINIC and the Arab IGF) http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no117-best-common-practices-building-i… The RIPE NCC also contributed to workshops on Internet Exchange Point development (Workshop 159), Developing a National/Regional Framework of Principles for Internet Governance (Workshop 170), and two sessions discussing output from the Arab IGF. The main plenary session on Managing Critical Internet Resources (CIRs) considered issues surrounding the ICANN new gTLD program, Intergovernmentalism (focusing on the ITU, WCIT and the International Telecommunications Regulations) and IPv4 markets. Each of these discussions built on work done in earlier workshops, with APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston representing the RIR community perspective on the panels. A transcript of this session is available at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-pr… Looking ahead, APNIC Director General Paul Wilson spoke to the Closing Ceremony, highlighting the ongoing concerns regarding IGF funding and the importance of maintaining the IGF as part of a broader, multi-stakeholder, bottom-up system of Internet governance. There were also calls from many participants for the IGF to take a more active role in defining and facilitating "Enhanced Cooperation", a key concept in Internet governance processes since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003. The next IGF will be held in late 2013 in Indonesia. Paul Rendek will continue in his role as a member of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), which will develop the themes and working methods for the event. There will also be opportunities for members of the general public to contribute feedback and ideas through Open Consultations, the first of which will take place at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 28 February 2013. We welcome any questions or comments regarding the RIPE NCC's participation in IGF 2013 on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0

Euro-IX EC Position Statement on the Review of the ITRs
by Bijal Sanghani 06 Nov '12

06 Nov '12

Dear Cooperation WG Members, Today the Euro-IX Board posted a position statement on the review of the ITRs, please see details of the press release below - regards, Bijal === Euro-IX Executive Committee Position Statement on the Review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Amsterdam, The Netherlands 18 October 2012 In December 2012, the World Conference on International Telecommunications will consider a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations. As some proposed amendments may have a negative impact on the future of the Internet, the Euro-IX Board (Executive Committee) has prepared a Position Statement. The statement lists the points which are considered important to ensure the open, competitive and innovative nature of the Internet in the future. The Euro-IX Board has encouraged the members of Euro-IX to talk to their Government representatives and share the position statement with them and also with the members (customers, participants) of the exchange point. The position statement can be found in the link below - https://www.euro-ix.net/documents/1042-EuroIX-EC-WCIT-Position-Statement-pd… About Euro-IX: Euro-IX (European Internet Exchange Association) was formed in May 2001 with the intention to further develop, strengthen and improve the Internet Exchange Point (IXP) community. Euro-IX is a collaboration of the leading Internet Exchange Points that connect the networks of Internet service providers, carriers and content providers to facilitate the exchange of Internet traffic. https://euro-ix.net

2 1

Minutes from meeting at RIPE-65
by Patrik Fältström 19 Oct '12

19 Oct '12

All, Here are the minutes from the meeting at the last RIPE meeting. Thanks to specifically Chris that took the minutes. Regards, Patrik Co-chair, cooperation wg Cooperation Working Group Minutes [Draft] RIPE 65, Thursday, 27 September, 11:00 – 12:30 A. Discussion of ITU Issues - Input from RIPE 65 Plenary on Internet Governance & WCIT, Patrik Fältström Patrik summarised some of the issues raised in the Internet Governance and WCIT panel that took place in the RIPE 65 Plenary. He noted the importance of specific words in how we discuss Internet governance issues, including the word "governance" itself. He also noted questions from some network operators as to why they should take an interest in WCIT. He emphasised the need for all Internet stakeholders to engage with the public sector in their home country. - Process towards WCIT from a CEPT perspective, Anders Jönsson Anders Jönsson, former Chair of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Committee for ITU Policy (ComITU), presented an overview of that group and the regional preparation process leading up to WCIT. Maria Häll raised the question of who could participate in the various regional ITU preparatory meetings. Anders noted that different organisations have different rules: CEPT allows a number of observer organisations, including RIPE NCC, ETNO, ISOC, ICANN. The Asia Pacific Telecommunity (APT) applies the same principle, though their meetings often have 300-400 representatives, so they are organised differently to CEPT. Olaf Kolkman noted that while the CEPT states have made no proposals on certain Internet-related issues (as listed in Anders' slides), it is unclear whether the CEPT would push back against proposals on these issues from other regions, or may be willing to entertain others' proposals? Anders noted that while the CEPT negotiating position is based on certain high-level principles, once negotiation starts, all parties will need to prioritise what they hope to achieve in the ITRs. Carsten Schiefner asked about Criterion 1, "As an International Treaty, the ITRs should address high level strategic and policy issues" - to what extent does this make it impossible to make significant changes to the existing ITR text? Anders reiterated that the CEPT "guiding criteria" are a starting point, but that in the negotiation process there will necessarily need to be compromise. Patrik Fältström noted the potential of the revised ITRs to affect the role of the ITU itself. Anders agreed that the ITRs may have a significant affect on what the ITU does and how it works, as has in the past been demonstrated by other ITU agreements and international treaties. It is also clear that if you change the definitions of terms like "telecommunications" (to "telecommunications/ICT"), you change the scope of the ITU's work. Patrik also noted the ETNO proposal, and asked whether CEPT's Criterion 1 would prevent CEPT from supporting it. Anders noted that the CEPT will need to consider both whether the ETNO proposal raises issues that should be discussed in some forum, and whether it is appropriate for such issues to be addressed via the ITRs. Tahar Schaa noted that the Internet was built by private companies in a transparent manner, and that many in the Internet community do not see any justification for limiting transparency in Member States' Internet governance discussions. Anders noted that CEPT has aimed to limit their discussions to issues between Member States, rather than those issues which directly affect individuals. Anders also directed people to a recent discussion held at the UN in New York between several high level government and ITU representatives [available at http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/25722111] Paul Rendek thanked Anders for his role in inviting RIPE NCC and other industry partners to take part in the CEPT Com-ITU. - What is happening re WCIT: Definitions of Operating Agencies, Telecommunication etc., Phil Rushton Phil discussed the definitions being discussed in WCIT discussions, and noted the significance of changing these definitions or trying to apply them to contemporary technologies. Some of the definitions currently being examined in preparatory meetings are "Recognised Operating Agency" (which some are pushing to change to "Operating Agency") and "telecommunication" (which may be changed to "telecommunication/ICT", and may be expanded to include all "processing" of communications). - Looking ahead to WTPF, Cathy Handley Cathy discussed the ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, which will take place in May 2013. The sole input document is a Secretary-General's report, which will reflect input from an Informal Experts Group (IEG), of which Cathy and APNIC Director General Paul Wilson are members. The Number Resource Organization (NRO, representing the five RIRs) has submitted a document correcting some confusion about IP addressing issues. Cathy noted that the IEG is a non-decisional group, but that non-ITU members can follow and contribute to it via community representatives. Olaf Kolkman noted that the potential impact of the WTPF (and other ITU events) remains quite vague. Cathy committed to send some additional information to the Cooperation WG list. Maria Häll asked about any connection between WTPF, WCIT and the ITRs. Cathy noted that the WTPF is part of a much larger chain of events (including the World Telecommunication Development Conference and Plenipotentiary Conference, both in 2014). The WTPF, however, is one of the few forums where non-members can participate, and is therefore an important opportunity. Andrew Sullivan sounded a sceptical note regarding whether Internet technical community contributions would even be included in the Secretary-General's report. Dmitry Burkov questioned how some of the proposed changes to the ITRs could be implemented in reality. He noted that the US did not even ratify the 1988 ITRs, and for the revised ITRs to have a significant impact they would need to be ratified and integrated into national legislation in all ITU Member States. Maria noted that the language and method of implementation will be decided as part of the negotiation process. Dmitry noted that he doesn't see any real consequences coming out of this work. Maria thanked Cathy and Paul Wilson for their work in the WTPF Informal Experts Group. - Updates from Regional ITU groups (including Arab States), Paul Rendek Paul gave an update on some of the other regional preparations going on, including RIPE NCC's participation in CEPT, and RIPE NCC's cooperation with AFRINIC to contribute to the Arab Group. He noted that a significant issue is the breadth of the language being used, and that the RIRs will have a strong delegation going to Dubai for WCIT-12. Wout de Natris recalled the recent Council of Europe Octopus meeting on cybercrime, and the Russian delegation's statement that they would not sign the Budapest Convention on cybercrime, but would instead rely on the ITU. Dmitry Burkov later noted that in relation to the Budapest Convention, the Russian opposition was based on quite specific issues with the Convention that affect national sovereignty. Meredith Whittaker echoed the point that the Internet technical community is not defining the potential threats clearly enough, and people need to understand what is at stake. She noted that the pushback to SOPA/PIPA legislation in the US was the result of effectively engaging and educating Internet users. Rob Blokzijl noted that half of the current ITRs list government reservations, and suggested that the contemporary environment may result in a treaty with many more reservations. Maria also noted that the status of the ITRs (mandatory or optional) is one item for negotiation. Fahad AlShirawi noted that most governments are driven by a fear of something they have no control over, and need to be reminded of the benefits that the Internet in its open form has brought them. - Modern Paradigm for Global Standards Development, Andrei Robachevsky Andrei gave an overview of the OpenStand project, which is dedicated to promoting a jointly developed and proven set of principles that establish The Modern Paradigm for Standards. Maria Häll asked if the ITU had endorsed the OpenStand principles. Andrei noted they have not at this stage, and that standards organisations that wish to sign on should provide a statement of how they live up to these ideals. - Building on the Success of the IGF: Paul Rendek gave an overview of the planning underway for the global Internet Governance Forum, which will take place in Baku in November 2012, and the first Arab IGF, which will take place in Kuwait in October 2012. - AOB Steve Nash noted that the Internet technical community cannot pretend that governments are going to go away, and that they need to continue to find ways to allow governments to take an active interest in Internet governance. He noted that while the ITU may not be the ideal vehicle for government involvement, there may need to be new international organisations developed.

1 0

First Arab IGF now happening
by Chris Buckridge 09 Oct '12

09 Oct '12

Dear colleagues, The first Arab Internet Governance Forum event is now taking place in Kuwait. It will run for three days, from 9-11 October. The program is available at: http://arabigf.kits.org.kw/program/ You can follow events via webcast and contribute via chat on the Arab IGF website: http://arabigf.kits.org.kw/livestream/ The RIPE NCC is proud to be a supporter and sponsor of the Arab IGF. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

1 0