Cooperation Working Group Minutes RIPE 91
Wednesday, 22 October 2025, 11:00 - 12:30 (UTC+1)
Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek
Chairs: Johan (Julf) Helsingius, Desiree Miloshevic and Achilleas Kemos
Status: Draft
Read the stenography transcript
1. Welcome and Opening Remarks
Desiree noted that co-chair Achilleas Kemos was not able to attend the session. She then introduced the agenda.
2. #LaLigaGate: private interests vs Fundamental Digital Rights
Román Ramírez, RootedCON Association
The recording is available at:
https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/31/VSJTPW/
Román explained the background of the issue, in which La Liga de Fútbol Profesional was blocking Cloudflare IP addresses in an effort to protect football match broadcasts. RootedCON Association and Cloudflare had begun an ongoing effort to appeal this IP blocking in court on the grounds that it unjustly harmed innocent third parties. Some of these blocks were permanent and affected legitimate operators and users. Román explained how this violated a number of EU rights such as freedom of speech and expression. He called for others to make an effort to protect fundamental digital rights.
Mirja Kühlewind, Ericsson, said she agreed that blocking was a problem and should not be in the hands of private companies. She referenced a presentation from the MAT WG session the day before about the Piracy Shield that Italy had introduced. In that case, the blocklist was not public, so at least there was more transparency in this case in Spain. The technical community should therefore do measurements on this.
Raffaele Sommese, University of Twente, said he had researched the situation in Italy that Mirja had referenced, and he agreed that it was good Spain had published the list of blocked addresses. He noted that in Italy, the law required that this blocking should only be used when an address was used for predominantly abusive activities. He asked whether this was required in Spain as well, or if the address had to be exclusively abusive.
Román said it did not have to be predominantly abusive, but La Liga should have identified the specific IP address that was proven to be the source of the illegal broadcast.
Raffaele asked whether the law required making sure that the IP address was not used for any other purpose.
Román said this was required, to prevent harm to third parties.
3. Decoding the DNA - The Digital Networks Act and the Open Internet
Mike Blanche, independent consultant
The recording is available at:
https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/31/W7UDWP/
Mike went over the current EU telecoms regulatory framework, the European Electronic Communications Code, and the proposed regulations under former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton, such as “fair share”. He then covered the potential regulations that would be under the Digital Networks Act (DNA) such as regulatory simplification, “level playing field” (the convergence of telecoms, cloud, content and applications under the same regulatory framework) and net neutrality rules. He noted that the DNA also proposed IP interconnection dispute resolution processes, which he said were not necessary as IP interconnection typically worked well without any formal processes, so adding a process here could actually increase the risk of disputes. He covered different stakeholder positions on the DNA and shared his thoughts on what the DNA should accomplish, such as driving demand for next-generation networks, reducing barriers to deployment and supporting genuine regulatory simplification. An update on the DNA could come in early December 2025.
Jim Reid, speaking for himself, asked how soon the DNA might be enacted in national law after publication. He also asked if the task force discussed at the last Cooperation WG session, the Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Internet Standards Deployment, might influence the act somehow.
Mike said this was just a draft and there would probably be an open consultation on it, so it would likely not be implemented until 2028. As an act, it would not need transposition into national law. To the second question, he said he hoped the task force mentioned would have a broader consultation at some point.
Peter Koch, DENIC, noted that the Draghi report led to countries urging the EU Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of its regulation, and the Commission subsequently releasing omnibus bills. The DNA did not seem to fit into this new strategy.
Mike said he was correct, as the Draghi report had called for regulatory simplification and deregulation except for technology companies, where more regulation was called for. The DNA was too far in development to drop, and they would have to see in December how it would affect the simplification agenda.
Peter suggested that the RIPE NCC encourage RACI projects studying BEREC’s collection of national regulatory authorities’ annual reports on the Open Internet Regulation, to support evidence-based policy-making.
Mike said this was a great suggestion.
Andrew Campling, speaking for himself, said the task force mentioned was not intended to create new regulations but instead to develop guidelines on best practices for implementing NIS2. On the subject of “fair share”, he referenced Maria Farrell’s keynote presentation at RIPE 90 about rewilding the Internet and the negative impact of consolidation. He asked whether extracting investment funds from big tech companies would be beneficial, as they primarily extracted value without re-investing, although he noted that this was a separate discussion from whether these funds should go to the big telecom companies.
Mike said the challenge would be determining who is extracting versus providing value. Network fees would affect everyone, not only big tech companies, as people would no longer pay their own way but would instead be funding telecom companies.
4. UN IGF Secretariat Update
Anja Gengo, Programme Management Officer and NRIs focal point
The recording is available at:
https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/31/YSFNHR/
Anja reviewed the timeline of the IGF 2025 process from January to now and went over what would be coming later this year. She shared the current leadership of the IGF and the outputs of the meeting in Lillestrøm. The main topics at the meeting were digital trust and resilience, sustainable and responsible innovation, universal access and digital rights, and digital cooperation. There had also been intersessional work on both technical and policy issues. Some strong partners included the 177 National and Regional Youth IGFs around the world. The IGF also had a number of initiatives for capacity development. Anja shared the broader agenda of the UN, including UNGA resolutions on Internet governance, such as a few on AI. She also addressed Internet governance beyond 2025 in relation to the ongoing WSIS+20 process.
Andrew Campling, speaking for himself, said the IGF was a valuable forum, and the technical community was underrepresented at the meeting. He encouraged everyone in the WG to go to the IGF to help inform policymakers.
5. Making an Impact: Experiences in IETF Standards Development
Moderator: Éric Vyncke (IETF INT Area Director)
Panellists: David ‘tale’ Lawrence (IETF Adaptive DNS Discovery Chair & Liaison to ICANN), David 'equinox' Lamparter (NetDEF (Open Source Routing & IPv6)), Jen Linkova (IPv6 Plumber at Google, IETF 6MAN WG chair, and past RIPE IPv6 WG chair), Sander Steffann (RIPE NCC Executive Board Member)
The recording is available at:
https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/31/Z9EGV8/
Éric asked the panellists about the similarities and differences between the communities of RIPE and the IETF.
David Lamparter said the two communities functioned similarly, with open processes. However, the two had different targets. The structure of the IETF was more complex in terms of WGs.
David Lawrence added that the two were similar culturally due to the technical people that were part of them. Hierarchy did not have much importance, as both communities valued a person’s contributions more than their position.
Sander said the RIPE community felt more consistent throughout, while one’s experience in the IETF depended heavily on the WG. Some IETF WGs were similar to the RIPE WGs, while other WGs were more competitive internally.
Jen agreed and noted that the IETF was very much not a conference with a focus on presentations but on the work being done there.
Éric asked what they had done at the IETF that was useful for RIPE.
Jen brought up IPv6-mostly. The IETF could be the right place to solve a problem.
Sander said the work of the IETF was very useful for the RIPE community, and so they should participate there more.
David Lawrence had focused on documenting a number of lesser-known protocols, such as through the draft on the EDNS Client Subnet, which gave operators more insight into their networks and into CDNs. He was currently working on a protocol called DELEG intended to enhance the DNS by making it easier for clients to get encrypted DNS, among other things.
David Lampert said he was active in work related to IPv6, especially regarding end hosts and CPEs. One challenge they aimed to address was multihoming for IPv6 networks without BGP settings. He invited input from the RIPE community on what aspects of their routing work could be useful for the IETF community as well.
Jen noted that people should get involved in the processes if they cared about the outcomes.
Sander said there was some overlap between the IETF and the Address Policy WG. However, sometimes they did not align, such as in an Address Policy WG proposal for operators to assign an IPv6 /32 loopback to their interfaces. This would go against IETF policies.
Éric asked what aspects of RIPE should be brought to the IETF.
Sander suggested operators’ feedback. He noted that the size and complexity of the IETF community made it hard to get very involved unless an operator’s employer sponsored their participation.
Jen suggested this question was more appropriate for the audience.
David Lawrence said one of the biggest criticisms of the IETF was the lack of operator input. This was essential to drafting standards that accounted for real-world scenarios.
Jen noted that 10% of attendees of RIPE Meetings of the last 3 years had also attended the IETF in that timeframe, which was a decent amount of overlap.
Éric asked why the RIPE community should go to the IETF.
David Lampert said the IETF needed them to highlight problems to fix.
Sander said they needed better representation from smaller operators.
Jen said she had seen real results not only from participating in IETF WGs but from discussing problems and solutions with people at the meeting. It was a good place to make contacts in the community.
David Lampert said people could also get involved on the mailing lists, and they could focus on just the topic that interested them.
Éric echoed this sentiment and encouraged people to at least share feedback on drafts.
David Lampert said these arguments also applied to why IETF attendees should come to RIPE Meetings. He invited the audience to share other reasons with them so they could bring them to the IETF meeting.
Jen agreed and added that she first got involved in an IETF meeting when it had taken place right after a RIPE Meeting in the same location. She suggested that they should arrange the meetings this way again.
Éric asked if it was difficult to participate in the IETF.
David Lawrence said accessing the meeting was easy, but the challenging part was that it was hard for newcomers to know what was going on in WGs, as they already had ongoing projects they were working on.
Éric noted that people could attend remotely for free, and there were BoF sessions starting work from scratch.
Sander asked where people should start looking.
David Lawrence suggested signing up for a mailing list.
Jen said at her first IETF meeting, she had actually immediately encountered a session relevant to her work.
David Lawrence suggested checking the mailing lists’ public archives.
Constanze Bürger, speaking for herself, said she supported these messages. She noted that governments wanted to help standardise and make policies on these issues to ensure security and sovereignty. They also wanted to help bring democratic values into IETF standards, such as when they came together to prevent IPv6+. She recommended that policy makers go to the IETF, especially those from the EU Commission, and said using these processes was better than regulation.
Éric agreed and said the IETF did sometimes need to push back against negative changes.
6. AOB
Working Group Chairs
The recording is available at:
https://ripe91.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/sessions/31/MBZXRQ/
There was no other business. Desiree thanked attendees and closed the meeting.