You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
Thursday, 17 May, 09:00-10:30
WG co-Chairs: Johan (Julf) Helsingius and Achilleas Kemos
Scribe: Gergana Petrova
Status: Final
Julf and Achilleas welcomed the attendees to the session.
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/97
There were no questions.
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/99
Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN, spoke about how some weeks ago, at a European telecom regulators conference, the French telecom regulator mentioned that in addition to network neutrality, they wanted to look into platform neutrality, peering and competition. The OECD completed a few very good reports on competition in the peering market. He added that they needed to pay attention to regulators and have data and information at hand should they need it.
Jari Arkko clarified that the main message of his presentation was not to ask for more regulation, but rather to ask for a better understanding of the issues and the discussions around them.
Alexander Isavnin, Russian Internet Protection Society, added that there was also a trend towards the unification of autonomous system numbers. Currently there were only about 20-30 operators in Russia.
Alain Durand, ICANN, wondered to what extent the IETF’s work was pushing towards more consolidation. For example, by consolidating resolvers, the cost of deploying a resolver rises. He urged the audience to think about the unintended consequences of the technologies they deploy or push for.
Jari agreed that this was a good point.
Achilleas added that from a policy-makers’ point of view, it was important to discuss such issues in these fora. He referred to the Commission's answers to the written questions at the European Parliament on CGN that the Cooperation Working Group was the forum where such discussions should take place.
I welcomed Jari's presentation signalling that from a policy-makers’ point of view, it was important to discuss such issues in these fora. I referred to the answers by the Commission to the written questions at the EP on CGN that the Cooperation Wokgroup was the forum where such discussions should take place.
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/101
John Curran, ARIN, added that the E-evidence directive requires that parties that provide infrastructure or communication services designate an agent in the EU to receive the E-production or E-preservation order. This agent should be prominently listed on their website. Given that this could be a natural or a legal person, this seems to conflict with the recent GDPR regulation. Service providers outside the EU who offer services to EU residents have the same obligation, which means that they
will need to establish a presence within the EU.
Nurani Nimpuno, Asteroid International, remarked that this was an incredibly useful presentation. She agreed that a lot of the regulatory developments were taking place at a regional level, and added that there was a much greater chance of the technical community influencing governments in their own countries when they are provided with technical or other advice. She also asked if it would be possible to write a blog
with the contents of this presentation, which Chris agreed to do.
Carsten Schiefner, BMI/BDBOS, commented that it was still unclear whether or not ccTLDs and DNS root server operators were included in the NIS directive. He also asked if core TLD operators that were not situated in the EU fall under the regulation. For example, .com was an essential service across the globe, but Verisign is not headquartered within the EU.
Chris answered that the directive was quite vague, only mentioning “TLD operators”. There is an active cooperation group, where member states discuss what each of them have defined as an operator of an essential service. However, this was a regulation, not a directive, which meant that it was implemented differently in each country. And the countries were likely to focus on the operators located within their borders, so ccTLDs mainly. However, this was an ongoing discussion.
Carsten asked if there is an implicit assumption that the legal agent
[mentioned previously] would understand the legal inquiry documents that he/she was sent by a legal or judicial authority, which might potentially be located in a different EU country.
Chris answered that this was his assumption, but that such questions would be considered further down the line.
Constanze Bürger, Federal Ministry of Interior Germany, said that she wasoverwhelmed by the number of policy proposals she received from the EU. She attends RIPE Meetings with the hope of understanding the technical point of view and to bring it to the European political discussion. Constanze shared the political point of view, as far as Germany is concerned: there is a new government and a new coalition contract, which includes many digitalisation projects. She has to make sure that the infrastructure is running. However, she said she found it difficult to do this without knowing much about the two versions of IP addresses and other technical aspects. Constanze mentioned a new initiative called ‘the Digital Single Gateway’.
Chris added that this sense of being overwhelmed is precisely what drove the RIPE NCC to use the services of Political Intelligence. This presentation was the result of the information that the RIPE NCC received from them. He added that indeed there were many European projects and initiatives not covered in this presentation, which might be better addressed though a blog or a series of blogs.
Constanze asked the audience to help her political colleagues, to bring to them their experiences and to work together with them.
Achilleas thanked Constanze for being at the RIPE Meeting.
Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC, mentioned that ten years ago the regulatory situation for the RIPE NCC was much simpler. Regulations were copy-pasted, with slight adaptations, from the US. That has now changed with the EU’s new regulations. And the EU is just one part of RIPE NCC’s service region. There were multiple regulatory developments in all of the 76 countries comprising the RIPE NCC’s service region. The RIPE NCC’s remit is not to battle the politics of a sovereign country, but to provide technical, factual information to those who need to make better public policy. In addition, the RIPE NCC strives to bring to light information about current regulation to local operators and communities, who can then work with the local authorities in their own countries. The RIPE NCC is trying to reach out and be as cooperative with governments as possible by providing technical information and is constantly
searching for ways to do this more effectively.
Dmitry Burkov, in his personal capacity, commented that he was surprised by the amount of paperwork he received from the EU, which seemed a lot more than that of Russia, a country supposedly known for requiring heavy paperwork. Europe seemed to want to re-write international law, ignore the sovereignty of other countries and create new trade barriers. To him, it was still unclear how he, a non-European with a VM server who receives an email from a European citizen, should align with GDPR and E-evidence. He added that Iit created an unacceptable deadlock that can hamper communications between parts of the world and contain the
potential for fragmentation of the network.
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/104
There were no questions.
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/106
There were no no questions.
Alexander Isavnin, Russian Internet Protection Society, informed the audience that since 16 May 2018, the Russian government and law enforcement have been disrupting Internet connectivity in Russia. He said there was a need to discuss a policy against breaking Internet connectivity. He urged anybody interested to contact him.