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