You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
RIPE 61 Cooperation Working Group
Rome, 14:00, Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Status: Final
The Chairs opened the meeting and introduced the agenda.
Paul Rendek delivered an update on the participation of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) (working together as the Number Resource Organization) in IGF 2010.
Maria Häll gave a perspective on the future of the IGF from a government perspective. She noted the importance of maintaining the IGF as a non-decision-making, multistakeholder forum, and highlighted the work being done by Sweden and other governments to push for the United Nations General Assembly to give the IGF a further five-year term.
Maria Häll gave an update on the ITU Plenipotentiary 2010 meeting, and focusing on the Swedish government's involvement and the meeting's relation to Internet issues.
Axel Pawlik thanked Maria and the others who had taken so much time to attend the Plenipotentiary meeting and report back to the RIPE community.
Nurani Nimpuno noted that while some in the technical community still view the IGF as overly political, many are now recognizing that this is a forum that cannot be ignored, and that the IGF can be a valuable collaborative process. Compared specifically to the ITU Plenipotentiary the IGF is very open and collaborative, but this simply reinforces the importance of having people from the technical community at ITU events, reporting back using tools such as Twitter. Nurani highlighted the Swedish government's creation of a reference group made up of members of the technical community, which helps form the Swedish government position and ensure that government positions are not created in a vacuum. She encouraged others in this Working Group to talk to their own governments, noting that the technical community still needs to do more to reach out to governments and that this Working Group can be a tool to do that.
Patrik Fältström noted that he is working as the IETF liaison to the ITU. He also supported Nurani's suggestion for attendees to talk to their governments or regulators and encourage them to take part in this Working Group.
Nurani noted that many members of the technical community are on the IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and that there are a range of roles open to members of the technical community who are interested in getting more involved in these processes.
Alice Munyua, of the Kenyan Government, spoke about the GAC and the work that it does in ICANN.
She noted that the work that RIPE and the RIPE NCC do with governments in their region is admirable and a model to be emulated elsewhere.
She clarified that she does not represent the entire GAC, but noted some issues on which the GAC is in relative consensus, particularly relating to new General Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) and issues of morality and public order. These issues include:
Alice explained that the role of GAC is always being discussed and refined. Many members have concerns about to what extent GAC advice to the Board is taken, and it is therefore important that the Board give full explanations of their decisions to the whole ICANN community, including the GAC.
She noted the importance of transparency, both from government and the technical community. She emphasised that it is important that the technical community be able to respond to straightforward questions from other stakeholder groups in a straightforward manner.
Alice noted that there is now a period of open public comment regarding the role of the GAC, and encouraged people to contribute, as the result will affect how ICANN moves forward.
Patrik Fältström asked for a clarification on the GAC's position regarding new TLDs: is the GAC position that if a certain string is unacceptable, then it cannot be used throughout the world? Alice responded that this is not the GAC position, but noted that the GAC feels that there should be better processes in place to investigate and review these applications.
Carsten Schiefner asked whether the GAC had considered a hypothetical scenario in which a new country joined the GAC, but was unhappy with TLDs already approved by an earlier GAC formation. Alice agreed that this could occur and may present problems, but the GAC has not considered it closely yet.
Maria Häll noted that, given the many decisions made by ICANN, it is not realisitic for all members of the GAC to go back to their ministers for sign-off on each decision. It is therefore vital that there be clear processes within ICANN relating to the GAC and its role in decision-making.
Paul Rendek noted that Alice is a Vice-Chair on the ICANN GAC, as is Maria, and noted that this RIPE Meeting is a very good opportunity for members of the RIPE community to speak to them.
Jim Reid recalled the discussion of the ITU IPv6 Group's activities at RIPE 60, and asked for an update on the RIPE NCC's involvement in this. Paul Rendek noted that the RIPE NCC is a member of the T-Sector and D-Sector of the ITU and has been a participant in the activities of the IPv6 Group since its inception. He noted that both the first and second meetings of the IPv6 Group (held in March and September 2010) had produced outcome documents, though access to these documents is restricted to ITU Member States and Sector Members. He summarised the report of the second meeting:
Following its first meeting in March, the IPv6 Group operated two Correspondence Groups (or mailing lists). Coming out of the second meeting in September, the first Correspondence Group (focusing on human capacity building) is continuing to collect information on various training and capacity building activities being conducted around the world. The RIRs will contribute to this discussion.
The second Correspondence Group (tasked with identifying issues with the current IP address distribution system, and investigating a greater role for the ITU in IP address management) was closed because no issues were identified. Various documents submitted separately to the IPv6 Group, however, will be sent to the technical community (including the RIRs) for input. This input is due by the third meeting of the IPv6 Group, to be held in March 2011.
Paul also noted that there are several governments who have been quite strong in their support of the existing Internet resource distribution system.
Constanze Bürger talked about her experience at the IGF, and agreed with earlier speakers about the importance of the IGf for governments.
She also noted that the German government's document on "Secure IPv6 Network Architecture" will be available by the end of 2010, and gave an update on the deployment of IPv6 on German government networks.
She concluded with some comments from the German government on the "IPv6 Requirements in ICT Equipment" discussed at the IPv6 Working Group earlier in the day [now published as ripe-501].
Joerg Wellbrink, a representative of the German Bundeswehr, discussed the current status of IPv6 adoption in the German armed forces. He noted that it is important to educate governments on how long government-related IPv6 deployments actually take.
Jan Zorz thanked the German government for their suggestions regarding the "IPv6 Requirements in ICT Equipment" document, and noted that the IPv6 Working Group plans to publish the document as is, and incorporate the German government's suggestions in a subsequent version.
The Chair closed the meeting at 15:28.