From mike at smashing.net Fri Nov 1 18:51:19 2013 From: mike at smashing.net (Mike Hughes) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:51:19 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 October 2013 17:32, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you > are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not > mistaken. > Any more news on this? Cheers, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 17:26:32 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:26:32 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF Message-ID: I have been sharing this Internet draft by Pete Resnick with various people and getting very positive feed-back which has encouraged me to share more widely: Title : On Consensus and Humming in the IETF Author(s) : Pete Resnick Filename : draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-10-04 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/msg53974.html The text is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 It is a useful read for anyone who is looking for consensus in our kind of environment. Regards, Gordon @ Vancouver From nick at inex.ie Wed Nov 6 18:04:54 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:04:54 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. > In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? -n From nihb at netflix.com Wed Nov 6 22:01:30 2013 From: nihb at netflix.com (Nina Bargisen) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 22:01:30 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi there I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other participants? Rgds Nina Bargisen Netflix European Network Strategy mobile: +45 21287438 email: nihb at netflix.com Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten : > Thanks for this clear summary. > > I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. > > Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. > > Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package > Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. > > Wouter > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > For more information on the proposal consult EC website > > > > On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" wrote: > >> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. >> >> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. >> >> ------- >> >> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. >> >> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! >> >> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. >> >> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. >> >> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. >> >> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. >> >> So now we have a new proposed regulation. >> >> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. >> >> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: >> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? >> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? >> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? >> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services >> ** ... and so on >> >> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm >> >> But the "communication" is probably better: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 >> >> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single >> >> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. >> >> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs >> >> ------ >> >> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: >> >> Brussels, 11.9.2013 >> COM(2013) 627 final >> 2013/0309 (COD) >> >> Proposal for a >> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL >> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic >> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives >> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) >> No 531/2012 >> >> <> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half >> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of >> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, >> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This >> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to >> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast >> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers >> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, >> and one spectrum policy.>> >> >> <> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new >> types of online services.>> >> >> <> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with >> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and >> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the >> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting >> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider >> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based >> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in >> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster >> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A >> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore >> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply >> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> >> >> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made >> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP >> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network >> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the >> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified >> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> >> >> >> ----- >> >> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. >> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! >> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. >> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? >> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. >> >> ----- >> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: >> >> <> >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. >> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. >> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >> >> ---- >> >> So suggestions. >> >> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. >> >> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. >> >> I think a discussion here would be much better. >> >> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: >> >> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. >> >> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. >> >> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. >> >> Enough for now? >> >> Gordon >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect-bof mailing list >> connect-bof at ripe.net >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof >> > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From wouter at vanhulten.com Thu Nov 7 08:03:41 2013 From: wouter at vanhulten.com (Wouter van Hulten) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:03:41 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You?re very welcome to join. For now, it?s Alain, Joy, and Wouter. From: Nina Bargisen > Date: Wednesday 6 November 2013 23:01 To: Wouter van Hulten > Cc: Gordon Lennox >, "connect-bof at ripe.net" >, "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission Hi there I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other participants? Rgds Nina Bargisen Netflix European Network Strategy mobile: +45 21287438 email: nihb at netflix.com Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten >: Thanks for this clear summary. I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. Wouter http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. For more information on the proposal consult EC website On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" > wrote: Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. ------- The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. So now we have a new proposed regulation. I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm But the "communication" is probably better: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs ------ So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: Brussels, 11.9.2013 COM(2013) 627 final 2013/0309 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 <> <> <> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> ----- So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. The second point says an awful lot in a few words! The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. ----- Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: <> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html ---- So suggestions. I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. I think a discussion here would be much better. If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. ** or a community input with the help of NCC. One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. Enough for now? Gordon _______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof at ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof _______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof at ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rlb at ipv.sx Wed Nov 6 18:03:18 2013 From: rlb at ipv.sx (Richard Barnes) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:03:18 -0800 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. --Richard On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I have been sharing this Internet draft by Pete Resnick with various > people and getting very positive feed-back which has encouraged me to share > more widely: > > Title : On Consensus and Humming in the IETF > Author(s) : Pete Resnick > Filename : draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2013-10-04 > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/msg53974.html > > The text is available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 > > It is a useful read for anyone who is looking for consensus in our kind of > environment. > > Regards, > > Gordon @ Vancouver > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 6 20:01:32 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:01:32 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> References: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> Message-ID: On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) From rlb at ipv.sx Wed Nov 6 22:30:52 2013 From: rlb at ipv.sx (Richard Barnes) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:30:52 -0800 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF > consensus. > >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? > > I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) Before this gets too meta... the document has passed IETF last call, and I believe is currently in the process of resolving comments. --Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Thu Nov 7 09:19:49 2013 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:19:49 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79B07B57-7007-451F-873C-4645616E1324@ams-ix.net> Unless there are others with a more direct stake here, I'd like to volunteer and attend the meeting. Thanks, and with regards Bastiaan -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 16 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > You?re very welcome to join. > For now, it?s Alain, Joy, and Wouter. > > > From: Nina Bargisen > Date: Wednesday 6 November 2013 23:01 > To: Wouter van Hulten > Cc: Gordon Lennox , "connect-bof at ripe.net" , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Hi there > > I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other participants? > > Rgds > > Nina Bargisen > > Netflix > European Network Strategy > mobile: +45 21287438 > email: nihb at netflix.com > > > Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten : > >> Thanks for this clear summary. >> >> I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. >> >> Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. >> >> Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package >> Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent >> >> What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. >> That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. >> >> Wouter >> >> >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >> Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website >> >> >> >> On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" wrote: >> >>> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. >>> >>> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. >>> >>> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! >>> >>> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. >>> >>> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. >>> >>> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. >>> >>> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. >>> >>> So now we have a new proposed regulation. >>> >>> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. >>> >>> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: >>> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? >>> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? >>> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? >>> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services >>> ** ... and so on >>> >>> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm >>> >>> But the "communication" is probably better: >>> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 >>> >>> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: >>> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single >>> >>> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. >>> >>> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: >>> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: >>> >>> Brussels, 11.9.2013 >>> COM(2013) 627 final >>> 2013/0309 (COD) >>> >>> Proposal for a >>> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL >>> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic >>> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives >>> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) >>> No 531/2012 >>> >>> <>> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half >>> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of >>> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, >>> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This >>> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to >>> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast >>> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers >>> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, >>> and one spectrum policy.>> >>> >>> <>> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new >>> types of online services.>> >>> >>> <>> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with >>> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and >>> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the >>> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting >>> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider >>> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based >>> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in >>> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster >>> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A >>> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore >>> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply >>> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> >>> >>> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made >>> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP >>> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network >>> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the >>> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified >>> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. >>> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! >>> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. >>> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? >>> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. >>> >>> ----- >>> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: >>> >>> <>> >>> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. >>> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >>> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. >>> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> >>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> So suggestions. >>> >>> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. >>> >>> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. >>> >>> I think a discussion here would be much better. >>> >>> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: >>> >>> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. >>> >>> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. >>> >>> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. >>> >>> Enough for now? >>> >>> Gordon >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect-bof mailing list >>> connect-bof at ripe.net >>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect-bof mailing list >> connect-bof at ripe.net >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof > > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof From gert at space.net Thu Nov 7 13:44:37 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:44:37 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20131107124437.GS81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:01:32PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. > >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? > I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) We'll go along with it anyway! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 00:08:08 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:08:08 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72D63713-7BBD-4BAF-A400-3AAEFD32B422@gmail.com> EU Parliament threat to knife new telecoms rules Monica Horten Published on 07 November 2013 Not quite murder on the dance floor, but murder in the committees, according to one observer. It looks like the European Parliament could take a knife to parts of the proposed Telecoms Regulation (Connected Continent) if not its entirety.Iptegrity has followed the discussion in two committees this week ? IMCO and ITRE - and it was abundantly clear that the Parliament does not like this proposal. Not quite murder perhaps, but elements of the proposal could be killed off. The Parliament is accusing the Commission of failing to consult, rushing the timing, and overall making something of dogs breakfast, the full title of which is the 'Proposal on a European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent'l. One target for removal is the Commission?s attempt at what looks market consolidation. ..... http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/918-eu-parliament-threat-to-knife-new-telecoms-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 17:24:32 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 17:24:32 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Fwd: [cooperation-wg] Debriefing of meeting with Members of the European Parliament on 11/11/13 References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Alain Van Gaever > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Debriefing of meeting with Members of the European Parliament on 11/11/13 > Date: 12 November, 2013 09:43:40 CET > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > > Yesterday, on the 11th of November we went to the European Parliament to discuss the proposed Single Market Regulation (COM(2013) 627 final ) and meet with 2 Members of the European Parliament, namely: > > Pilar Del Castillo and http://www.pilardelcastillo.es > Marietje Schaake http://www.marietjeschaake.eu > > > > Present from our side: > > ? Wouter van Hulten, wouter at vanhulten.com > > ? Alain Van Gaever, co-chair-elect RIPE Cooperation WG, avangaev at gmail.com > > ? Bastiaan Goslings, bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net > > ? Gordon Lennox gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com > > ? Joy Marino, chair Milan Internet Exchange j.marino at mix-it.net > > ? Nina Bargisen, nihb at netflix.com > > ? Innocenzo Gemma, inno at innogenna.it (observer) > > > > On the agenda: the following items related to the Single Market Regulation were discussed > > Assured Service Quality (ASQ) ? proposal > Net Neutrality > Depeering practices > Engagement with the community of IP experts > > (Link to the draft Regulation: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single ) Most relevant Articles: Art.19, Art.23, Art.24 > > > > Short debriefing of the meeting: > > ASQ: we expressed our concerns that the introduction of the Assured Service Quality is a ?solution in search of a problem?. That it is not needed. And that this ASQ-proposal would be harmful to the evolution and innovative power of the Internet. MEP Del Castillo informed us that the ASQ-related articles would be removed in the draft she would send for translation next Thursday. > Net Neutrality: we expressed our concerns that given the importance of this topic it should not be rushed through. While a consensus could not be achieved (given the difficulty of the topic and the short time frame available this is hardly surprising) MEP Del Castillo seemed to suggest that she would strengthen the ?non discriminatory ? principle in the Regulations. > De-peering: The importance of peering and the European model of IXPs was highlighted. Concerns were expressed regarding the situation in Italy where Telecom Italia is de-peering. It was noted that ?de-peering? is an issue which is more relevant in other legislative/regulatory instruments and is not part of the proposed Single Market Regulation (relevant instruments are: Review of Relevant markets, DG Comp investigations). We explained that the European model of peering is currently being copied in the US, under the Open-IX initiative. MEP Del Castillo mentioned she would highlight this issue with her colleague MEP Trautmann. Further information would be welcomed. > We stressed the importance of engaging with the EU institutions, including of course the European Parliament, and our collective willingness to do so. It is important that the Internet community is heard when proposed regulation, which affects the functioning of the Internet, is being developed and discussed. > > Next Steps: > MEP Del Castillo?s text will go to translation this Thursday 14 November. Suggestions are still welcome. If you will submit feedback, please ensure you provide them in the form of proposed modifications to the current text, and with a justification why this change is needed. For those who want to engage individually, the MEP contact details can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96945/MARIETJE_SCHAAKE_home.html and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28390/PILAR_DEL+CASTILLO+VERA_home.html > Moving forward / Recommendations > This time we were faced with particularly short time-frames between proposed legislation ?leaving? the Commission and then being debated in Council and Parliament. It is however also more difficult in general correcting many things once they have been drafted and agreed by the Commission. We should therefore try and engage sooner in the legislative process. This means ideally before any legislation is actually proposed (i.e. talking directly to the European Commission). It is believed that Commission officials would welcome views from the Internet community. We should therefore start to establish a list of interlocutors and contacts so we could provide appropriate expertise. We should also seek to establish a view on what the Commission is going to do - in terms of their own forward planning. > Feedback and comment on any and all of this is most welcome on the list mailto:cooperation-wg at ripe.net > > > Alain Van Gaever > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nihb at netflix.com Wed Nov 13 08:39:35 2013 From: nihb at netflix.com (Nina Bargisen) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:39:35 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html Message-ID: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> I find it sad how little understanding there is on how the Internet works. Interestingly enough this end goal of this silly proposal could be achieved by 3320 having an open peering policy http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html Nina Bargisen Netflix European Network Strategy mobile: +45 21287438 email: nihb at netflix.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swa at ecix.net Wed Nov 13 09:25:55 2013 From: swa at ecix.net (Stefan Wahl) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:25:55 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> Message-ID: <14746F3D-C52E-4A33-AD09-AF0A67AA8177@ecix.net> Hi Nina, the internet is a complex system as we all know. In Germany large lobbyist groups put their ideas how internet should work into the brains of politicians. The result is frighting. Politicians start to explain to us how to run it, they are the new experts (I hope this is only true for Germany). At the end, they will support the ideas of big players and regulate the market ..... http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kommentar-Schlandnetz-gegen-NSA-die-feuchten-Schengen-Traeume-der-Telekom-2044024.html (sorry it is german, if there is interest I will translate) Stefan Wahl ECIX > Am 13.11.2013 um 08:39 schrieb Nina Bargisen : > > I find it sad how little understanding there is on how the Internet works. Interestingly enough this end goal of this silly proposal could be achieved by 3320 having an open peering policy > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html > > > Nina Bargisen > > Netflix > European Network Strategy > mobile: +45 21287438 > email: nihb at netflix.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de Wed Nov 13 09:01:16 2013 From: wilhelm at boeddinghaus.de (Wilhelm Boeddinghaus) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:01:16 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> Message-ID: <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> Hi, I personally think their want the monopoly back. Oh, the good old times without competition :-) DTAG will not have an open peering policy. But even more dangerous is that some of the politicans who try to form a new government in Germany think this "German Internet" is a good idea. They also talk about a "Schengen Internet". The UK is not member of the club of the Schengen countries, so they and their secret service would not be part of this new "European internet". Officially the German government is against the American spying, but internally they prepare for something totally different like copying more and more traffic from peering points. If the funny ideas make it into laws this will not be funny anymore. Regards, Wilhelm Am 13.11.2013 08:39, schrieb Nina Bargisen: > I find it sad how little understanding there is on how the Internet > works. Interestingly enough this end goal of this silly proposal > could be achieved by 3320 having an open peering policy > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html > > > Nina Bargisen > > Netflix > European Network Strategy > mobile:+45 21287438 > email: nihb at netflix.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 13 10:25:06 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:25:06 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> Message-ID: <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> Wilhelm, all - On 13.11.2013 09:01, Wilhelm Boeddinghaus wrote: > I personally think their want the monopoly back. Oh, the good old times > without competition :-) the smell is just too strong here to go unnoticed: this is pure market powerplay for dominance in the disguise of "The Good for the People". If domestic traffic needs to be routed within the borders of that very domain - whether this is a country or the Schengen EU - it would drastically reduce the number of carriers, ISPs etc. In essence, the only carrier(s) to be able to do this on a national/Schengen EU wide level is/are the... [DRUM ROLL] incumbent carrier(s)! If if this is even backed by a law specifically made for this: it's Christmas, Easter and the respective CEO's birthday on 365 days of the year from now on. Hooray, life is beautiful again! The interesting bit is: this is *NOT* a layer 3/4 issue - this is the mother of all layer 8 and higher issues. And therefore should only be dealt with there. I cannot be told that whoever aims at tapping a "national" or "Schengen EU" Internet will fail to do so, because of... it's different architecture? It's deployed for only being tapped by the "Good Ones" aka. "our" spies? Or what? Best, -C. From will at harg.net Wed Nov 13 10:56:22 2013 From: will at harg.net (Will Hargrave) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:56:22 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> On 13 Nov 2013, at 09:25, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> I personally think their want the monopoly back. Oh, the good old times >> without competition :-) > the smell is just too strong here to go unnoticed: this is pure market > powerplay for dominance in the disguise of "The Good for the People". If > domestic traffic needs to be routed within the borders of that very > domain - whether this is a country or the Schengen EU - it would > drastically reduce the number of carriers, ISPs etc. In essence, the > only carrier(s) to be able to do this on a national/Schengen EU wide > level is/are the... [DRUM ROLL] incumbent carrier(s)! The irony is, it is these sorts of large carriers who, without oversight, started selling our data to governments in the first place! With increasing focus on liberalising the market for services in the EU, excluding British companies from competing on a level footing within the EU would be interesting. (e.g. consider Vodafone's recent acquisition of Kabel Deutschland) The prospect of countries 'pulling up the drawbridge' is concerning. Politicians are finally realising that it is not the US dominance of organisations like ICANN which matters to the Internet but the actual network itself. We can expect similar rhetoric in the future. Will From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 11:43:51 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:43:51 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> Message-ID: The double-irony is that the EU's Data Retention Directive means that they were legally obliged to collect a lot of the data in the first place. Gordon On 13 Nov, 2013, at 10:56, Will Hargrave wrote: > > On 13 Nov 2013, at 09:25, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > >>> I personally think their want the monopoly back. Oh, the good old times >>> without competition :-) >> the smell is just too strong here to go unnoticed: this is pure market >> powerplay for dominance in the disguise of "The Good for the People". If >> domestic traffic needs to be routed within the borders of that very >> domain - whether this is a country or the Schengen EU - it would >> drastically reduce the number of carriers, ISPs etc. In essence, the >> only carrier(s) to be able to do this on a national/Schengen EU wide >> level is/are the... [DRUM ROLL] incumbent carrier(s)! > > The irony is, it is these sorts of large carriers who, without oversight, started selling our data to governments in the first place! > > With increasing focus on liberalising the market for services in the EU, excluding British companies from competing on a level footing within the EU would be interesting. (e.g. consider Vodafone's recent acquisition of Kabel Deutschland) > > The prospect of countries 'pulling up the drawbridge' is concerning. Politicians are finally realising that it is not the US dominance of organisations like ICANN which matters to the Internet but the actual network itself. We can expect similar rhetoric in the future. > > Will > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 11:56:11 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:56:11 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Data Retention Directive Message-ID: <3FC66134-72E9-4970-A6C4-9B774EE5D921@gmail.com> When I was in Vancouver my attention was drawn to this report <> And no, they do not mention NATs. They do mention child pornography though. Gordon From wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net Wed Nov 13 13:07:01 2013 From: wolfgang.tremmel at de-cix.net (Wolfgang Tremmel) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:07:01 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> Message-ID: On 13.11.2013, at 08:39, Nina Bargisen wrote: > Interestingly enough this end goal of this silly proposal could be achieved by 3320 having an open peering policy 100% agree also see our press release http://presse.de-cix.net/uploads/media/PM_DE-CIX-NationalesRouting_vfinal.pdf (sorry, German only) best regards, Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3253 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 13 14:00:56 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:00:56 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> Message-ID: <52837808.4000603@schiefner.de> Hi Will, all - On 13.11.2013 10:56, Will Hargrave wrote: > With increasing focus on liberalising the market for services in the > EU, excluding British companies from competing on a level footing > within the EU would be interesting. that comes in addition. And I recall issues when the Commission got already highly excited about much smaller and less obvious competition violations... > (e.g. consider Vodafone's recent acquisition of Kabel Deutschland) And now AT&T alledgedly has put an eye on VF: would this render KD inappropriate as a "national/Schengen EU Internet" carrier? > The prospect of countries 'pulling up the drawbridge' is concerning. > Politicians are finally realising that it is not the US dominance of > organisations like ICANN which matters to the Internet but the actual > network itself. We can expect similar rhetoric in the future. Unfortunately I can't disagree here. Best, -C. From randy at psg.com Wed Nov 13 14:07:45 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:07:45 +0900 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> Message-ID: > The double-irony is that the EU's Data Retention Directive means that > they were legally obliged to collect a lot of the data in the first > place. large organizations, which include governments, do not have it in their genes to discard, reduce, ignore, ... data, or to bypass opportunities to accrue more data. it is the opposite. expecting them to do otherwise is naive or silly. and pick your battles very carefully when choosing to push back against some facet of this. randy From horke at regio.net Wed Nov 13 14:04:59 2013 From: horke at regio.net (Bernhard Kroenung) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:04:59 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <52837808.4000603@schiefner.de> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> <52837808.4000603@schiefner.de> Message-ID: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-DE-CIX-und-das-Schland-Netz-Betreiber-empoert-ueber-Telekom-Plaene-zum-Schengen-Routing-2044731.html Ciao Bernhard --- regio[.NET] GmbH & Co. KG, Bahnhofstrasse 8a, D-36157 Ebersburg/Rhoen Tel : +49 6656 50470-0 Fax : + 49 6656 919022 GF: Bernhard Kr?nung AG Fulda, HRA 2592, Komplement?r : regio[.NET] Holding GmbH, HRA 2592 From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 13 14:40:52 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:40:52 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> <52837808.4000603@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <52838164.902@schiefner.de> On 13.11.2013 14:04, Bernhard Kroenung wrote: > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-DE-CIX-und-das-Schland-Netz-Betreiber-empoert-ueber-Telekom-Plaene-zum-Schengen-Routing-2044731.html That text reads in Google translated English: === The DE-CIX and the "Schland network": telecom operators outraged by plans to "Schengen routing" In the debate about a "national IP Routing", as recently the German Telekom has proposed , then switched to the DE-CIX Management GmbH as the operator of Europe's largest peering node. Their CEO Harald Summa revolted against the advance of Deutsche Telekom CEO Ren? Obermann. He described the initiative as "pure marketing campaign and mislead policy." Like other routing experts now also dismissed Summa out that it was just the Telekom itself, which restricts a destination of data packets in the German jurisdiction. On public DE-CIX peering loud Summa participate 220 ??German provider. Whose traffic is therefore remain "already within German borders and in German jurisdiction. Part of the German data traffic that is 'gepeert' through DE-CIX, so a national routing follows long," said Summa. The German Telekom is connected only one of the top 10 vendors that together provide 98 percent of Internet access in Germany, not far at DE-CIX. Instead, they organize the transport of your traffic as part of private peering directly with other network operators. In such a topology, it would now even more common for traffic between German operators the way for several others - take Networks - foreign. The goal is to reduce the attack surface for foreign intelligence over shorter routing paths, DE-CIX operator shall explicitly. The plans of Deutsche Telekom but keep it "for publicity eyewash and an attempt to restore their old de facto monopoly in Germany again," Summa said. "If the German Telekom would also exchange data traffic through DE-CIX, we could work together as a German company ensure that a very large part of the German data traffic would remain in German jurisdiction." Thus, "but a readily available solution on hand, which would benefit both the Internet industry and citizens - without huge additional costs on all sides We would be pleased to sit down with Deutsche Telekom to a table.." === From swmike at swm.pp.se Wed Nov 13 15:01:13 2013 From: swmike at swm.pp.se (Mikael Abrahamsson) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:01:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-ge rman-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <52838164.902@schiefner.de> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> <52837808.4000603@schiefner.de> <52838164.902@schiefner.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > On 13.11.2013 14:04, Bernhard Kroenung wrote: >> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-DE-CIX-und-das-Schland-Netz-Betreiber-empoert-ueber-Telekom-Plaene-zum-Schengen-Routing-2044731.html > > That text reads in Google translated English: Ah, peering-discussions brought into this as well. Well, I'm not going to touch that one... In the swedish debate before the "FRA-law" that gives the swedish military intelligence agency right to tap communication cables going in/out of the country, the aim to use this for trading with other intelligence agencies, was spoken about outright. If the EU really wants to stop this sharing of information with the US, then this decision needs to be taken at the EU level and required to be implemented by all EU countries. Good luck with that one. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se From martin at he.net Wed Nov 13 15:36:43 2013 From: martin at he.net (Martin J. Levy) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 06:36:43 -0800 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> Message-ID: <727CEEFC-3F2B-41DE-A31C-5ACF92B255A4@he.net> Wolfgang, Thanks for writing a piece: > On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:07 AM, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote: > > 100% agree > also see our press release > http://presse.de-cix.net/uploads/media/PM_DE-CIX-NationalesRouting_vfinal.pdf (Which google translate does a good job with). Some thoughts: First: AS3320/DTAG is a member of DC-CIX today and the ASNs moves (I assume) some minimal traffic via the IX. Of course they don't peer with many players; but it's there. Second: DE-CIX doesn't publish PNI (carrier to carrier interconnects) numbers as it's not in their business model. Hence a majority of traffic or interconnects within Frankfurt or other locations are ignored when looking at the IX stats. Note: LINX in the UK does publish this for London. Third: There are other major IXs in Germany. Don't forget ECIX in four cities. BCIX in Berlin. INXS in Munich. Plus Others. Germany is a large land mass (large mSec latency edge to edge). Other interconnect points besides Frankfurt are needed. Forth: Even without AS3320/DTAG present at DE-CIX German traffic may well be kept within the countries borders. It's efficient to route packets using a shortest path and employ what's called hot potato routing. For German networks that don't directly interconnect with AS3320/DTAG; I'm pretty sure their upstream transit provider does. I'm pretty sure that interconnect is also within Germany (and France, UK, Holland, Sweden, etc with their respective major telco's). I strongly recommend a review of http://ixmaps.ca/ project - maybe a budding German masters candidate could covert that from a Canadian to German experiment. Then we would know more data and read less rhetoric. (I mean from politicians vs this group - honest). Enjoy, Martin From gert at space.net Wed Nov 13 09:28:03 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:28:03 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <14746F3D-C52E-4A33-AD09-AF0A67AA8177@ecix.net> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <14746F3D-C52E-4A33-AD09-AF0A67AA8177@ecix.net> Message-ID: <20131113082803.GU81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 09:25:55AM +0100, Stefan Wahl wrote: > the internet is a complex system as we all know. In Germany large lobbyist groups put their ideas how internet should work into the brains of politicians. The result is frighting. Politicians start to explain to us how to run it, they are the new experts (I hope this is only true for Germany). At the end, they will support the ideas of big players and regulate the market ..... > > http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kommentar-Schlandnetz-gegen-NSA-die-feuchten-Schengen-Traeume-der-Telekom-2044024.html > > (sorry it is german, if there is interest I will translate) Oh, I wouldn't actually mind seeing 3320 being forced to peer with all ISPs present in germany, on reasonable terms. That should have been done years ago. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 13 18:14:01 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:14:01 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> Message-ID: Of course the next twist is that once they have collected some slightly indelicate data for some extreme reason they seem to find it unthinkable not to reuse the data for some other totally banal reason. Well they have gone to all the effort and expense of collecting it so they might as well extract maximum value from it? Whatever... Seen this so many times. Gordon On 13 Nov, 2013, at 14:07, Randy Bush wrote: >> The double-irony is that the EU's Data Retention Directive means that >> they were legally obliged to collect a lot of the data in the first >> place. > > large organizations, which include governments, do not have it in their > genes to discard, reduce, ignore, ... data, or to bypass opportunities > to accrue more data. it is the opposite. expecting them to do > otherwise is naive or silly. and pick your battles very carefully when > choosing to push back against some facet of this. > > randy From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Nov 13 20:53:54 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:53:54 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <528331CC.9040902@boeddinghaus.de> <52834572.2090706@schiefner.de> <84597963-1574-41A2-B694-75819C4A1890@harg.net> Message-ID: <5283D8D2.8050304@schiefner.de> Gordon, all - On 13.11.2013 18:14, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Of course the next twist is that once they have collected some > slightly indelicate data for some extreme reason they seem to find it > unthinkable not to reuse the data for some other totally banal > reason. Well they have gone to all the effort and expense of > collecting it so they might as well extract maximum value from it? > Whatever... > > Seen this so many times. happens again as we speak: some "reading material" that has been prepared by the Ministry of Interior Affairs for the currently ongoing coalition negotiations between the conservatives and social democrats here in Germany suggested that the collected toll data for trucks on German highways - strictly and exclusivly bound *BY* *LAW* to the purpose of collecting the toll - should potentially b used for other purposes as well: prosecuting crime, fighting terrorism etc. pp. Unheard of! Or is it? Have a nice evening, all - best, -C. From Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com Wed Nov 13 17:33:15 2013 From: Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com (Remco Van Mook) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:33:15 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <20131113082803.GU81676@Space.Net> Message-ID: On 11/13/13 09:28 , "Gert Doering" wrote: >Hi, > > >Oh, I wouldn't actually mind seeing 3320 being forced to peer with all >ISPs >present in germany, on reasonable terms. > >That should have been done years ago. A term as 'reasonable' is very much in the eye of the beholder and I think we should be very careful in spinning the discussion in any direction that would encourage legislation. Reasonable, in this example would for you mean something like 'not more than half than what I'm paying for transit' whereas 3320 might think that 'twice the price of your transit' would be entirely reasonable because they're delivering such a quality experience. This is a commercial issue and if you think a legislative body might help you here, well, I respectfully disagree. Back to the subject at hand: I think any form of "$national Internet" to protect anyone from "evil" foreign entities is exactly what Neelie Kroes meant with being na?ve about online spying in her speech earlier this week: http://commentneelie.eu/speech.php?sp=SPEECH%2F13%2F903 Best Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, EMEA EQUINIX | 80 Cheapside, London, EC2V 6EE, United Kingdom E remco at equinix.com | T +31-6-11356365 HOW ARE WE DOING? Please click here to Tell Equinix - We're Listening Equinix.co.uk | Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383. From arnold.nipper at de-cix.net Fri Nov 15 20:59:45 2013 From: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net (Arnold Nipper) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:59:45 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html In-Reply-To: <727CEEFC-3F2B-41DE-A31C-5ACF92B255A4@he.net> References: <7C241DC5-405A-4C7D-91C6-528EEA28A4EC@netflix.com> <727CEEFC-3F2B-41DE-A31C-5ACF92B255A4@he.net> Message-ID: <52867D31.4030301@de-cix.net> On 13.11.2013 15:36, Martin J. Levy wrote: > First: AS3320/DTAG is a member of DC-CIX today and the ASNs moves (I > assume) some minimal traffic via the IX. Of course they don't peer > with many players; but it's there. > AS3320/DTAG does have a trial IPv6 conenction to DE-CIX only. > Second: DE-CIX doesn't publish PNI (carrier to carrier > interconnects) numbers as it's not in their business model. Hence a > majority of traffic or interconnects within Frankfurt or other > locations are ignored when looking at the IX stats. Note: LINX in the > UK does publish this for London. > We do not offer PNI but only more or less are a wholesale for DC PNI. We could give numbers on how many PNI have been sold but don't have any idea of hw much traffic goes across these PNI > Third: There are other major IXs in Germany. Don't forget ECIX in > four cities. BCIX in Berlin. INXS in Munich. Plus Others. Germany is > a large land mass (large mSec latency edge to edge). Other > interconnect points besides Frankfurt are needed. > Depends on your definition of 'major' and 'large' ... There are interconnect points in Hamburg, Berlin, Duesseldorf, Frankfurt and Munich. DE-CIX also runs IXP in Hamburg and Munich. INXS in Munich is not really alive anymore afaik (News last updated [2009-10-26]) https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_list.php?s_country=DE&mgmtPublicsOrder=Sorter_city&mgmtPublicsDir=ASC should really give all of the interesting places. Besides the cities listed above there are IXP in Bremen, Dortmund, Nuernberg and Stuttgart. By heart I would say that 95% of all Germans live with a 100km radius of these cities. > I strongly recommend a review of http://ixmaps.ca/ project - maybe a > budding German masters candidate could covert that from a Canadian > to German experiment. Then we would know more data and read less > rhetoric. (I mean from politicians vs this group - honest). > Good idea! Arnold -- Arnold Nipper CTO/COO and Co-Founder DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net | Phone +49 69 1730902 22 | Mobile +49 172 2650958 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | arnold.nipper at de-cix.net | Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 21:35:35 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:35:35 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Peering Message-ID: <6D29F743-9058-412A-B33B-7AD5BC6A26A5@gmail.com> People I have worked with in the past have viewed peering as something primitive, something akin to barter. I don't agree and I strongly don't agree. But maybe why I personally don't agree is for another time. But if people want to change that initial perception then maybe AS3320 is not the best target right now. What about the European Commission? In some ways they are a politically important, highly visible, not-for-profit "ISP". In these times they should be looking to reduce costs by peering. If they are then it should be made known. If they are not then the question could be put. I remember also being told they had an interesting chunk of v4 space. I am not sure whether they have applied for v6 space. Gordon From m.hallgren at free.fr Fri Nov 15 22:43:30 2013 From: m.hallgren at free.fr (Michael Hallgren) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:43:30 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Peering In-Reply-To: <6D29F743-9058-412A-B33B-7AD5BC6A26A5@gmail.com> References: <6D29F743-9058-412A-B33B-7AD5BC6A26A5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52869582.3080405@free.fr> Le 15/11/2013 21:35, Gordon Lennox a ?crit : > People I have worked with in the past have viewed peering as something primitive, something akin to barter. I don't agree and I strongly don't agree. But maybe why I personally don't agree is for another time. > > But if people want to change that initial perception then maybe AS3320 is not the best target right now. > > What about the European Commission? > > In some ways they are a politically important, highly visible, not-for-profit "ISP". In these times they should be looking to reduce costs by peering. If they are then it should be made known. If they are not then the question could be put. > > I remember also being told they had an interesting chunk of v4 space. I am not sure whether they have applied for v6 space. Hi Gordon, friends, public info: mh at home:~$ whois -h whois.ripe.net -i origin AS3320 |grep route6 route6: 2001:67c:14c4::/48 route6: 2003::/19 route6: 2003::/20 route6: 2a00:8a00:6000::/35 route6: 2a01:598::/29 mh at home:~$ ... I worked from time to time with Ruediger to kick these into the peering with AS6453, Teleglobe/Tata, with some success, before my late departure. Sanity-check of my statement: route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp regexp _3320_ BGP table version is 0, local router ID is 128.223.51.112 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 2001:3b8::/32 2001:1890:111d::1 0 7018 3320 2527 i * 2001:62a::/31 2001:240:100:ff::2497:2 0 2497 3320 1764 760 i * 2001:638::/32 2001:428::205:171:203:138 8000051 0 209 3320 680 i * 2001:678:c::/48 2001:240:100:ff::2497:2 0 2497 3320 2484 i * 2001:678:88::/48 2001:418:0:1000::f000 0 0 2914 3320 12578 15440 42549 44358 i * 2001:240:100:ff::2497:2 0 2497 3320 12578 15440 42549 44358 i * 2001:67c:14::/48 2001:200:901::5 0 7660 2516 3320 15456 15960 ? * 2001:67c:fc::/48 2001:200:901::5 0 7660 2516 3320 15456 15960 ? and route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp regexp _3320$ BGP table version is 0, local router ID is 128.223.51.112 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, R Removed Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 2001:67c:14c4::/48 2001:4830::5 562 0 30071 6939 9121 3320 i * 2600:803::15 0 701 6939 9121 3320 i * 2001:4830::e 72 0 30071 6939 9121 3320 i * 2001:200:901::5 0 7660 4635 6939 9121 3320 i ... seen worse. I agree, that peering is generally a good thing (engineer I am since some time now), business model of yesterday in need of thoughtful remake I hear/think since quite a while now. Let's not forget about the extra-financial bits.;-) Cheers, mh > > Gordon > > > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 13:52:54 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:52:54 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> "The European Commission's proposal on harmonising electronic communications services across the EU will unduly limit internet freedom, says the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). In his Opinion, the EDPS welcomes the inclusion of the principle of net neutrality - the impartial transmission of information on the internet ? in the text, but also said that it is devoid of substance because of the almost unlimited right of providers to manage internet traffic. " https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/PressNews/Press/2013/EDPS-2013-10_eComms_EN.pdf https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2013/13-11-14_Electronic_Communications_EN.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 18:23:14 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:23:14 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Internet governance Message-ID: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> A sort of conversation seem to be starting and I am not sure where it will take us. It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council. You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: "What is the situation we have decided to change: The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, will present an EU vision for Internet governance as part of the overall internet strategy. The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables. The complexity of the current multi stakeholder approach to Internet Governance has to be further developed in a comprehensible manner so as to ensure inclusiveness of all actors. The establishment of GIPO will contribute to this. ..." http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/connect/en/content/international-internet-governance-and-management-eu So they want to reform the multi-stakeholder set-up? And by the way I am intrigued by the mention of "enhanced coordination". That always had a special EU meaning and that was not what people, perhaps naively, thought. Meanwhile ICANN is also busy. Steve Crocker writes: "As anyone who has followed the global discourse on Internet governance knows, the multistakeholder model is under threat. Some governments have expressed a clear interest in putting multilateral organizations in charge of Internet policymaking. As the Internet has taken on a larger role in the economy and society, some governments have grown increasingly uncomfortable with their perceived lack of control. More recently, ICANN has received requests to expand its remit to address issues beyond the coordination of the Internet?s unique identifiers. This we will not do. The ICANN Board recognizes that the single, open, global, interoperable Internet is under threat of failing due to emerging pressures on multistakeholder governance. As a consequence, the Board gave the ICANN CEO a mandate to work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition to evaluate and participate in the formation a movement or initiative for an Internet cooperation agenda. We are pleased with his initial engagement with the Internet organizations and the broader multistakeholder community. ..." http://blog.icann.org/2013/11/icanns-mandate-to-preserve-and-enhance-multistakeholder-internet-cooperation/ Watch this space? Gordon From nick at inex.ie Sun Nov 17 19:01:52 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:01:52 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote: re: DG CONNECT's statement: > The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and > streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory > Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in > producing concrete deliverables. the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF meeting in Bali in October. I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view. So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety of valid and important points of view. This allows the people who are tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions. There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum will be lost. Nick From nurani at netnod.se Tue Nov 19 08:24:41 2013 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:24:41 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> Message-ID: <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> On 17 nov 2013, at 19:01, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > re: DG CONNECT's statement: > >> The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and >> streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory >> Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in >> producing concrete deliverables. > > the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF > meeting in Bali in October. > > I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make > any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart > thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the > attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, > etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to > approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of > people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view. > > So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this > means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it > produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality > understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety > of valid and important points of view. This allows the people who are > tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much > more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions. > > There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a > requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum > will be lost. Hear hear. It would also mean that it puts governments in the position of negotiating the outcome of the IGF which has several implications. It takes away the open-ended nature of the discussions and the free and open exchange of ideas. Governments (and in part the rest of us too) will have to defend their positions as the outcomes of the IGF will have to be considered or even implemented in their countries. Once you have agreed text, a country can't just decide that they want to ignore it. It also moves the discussions away from focusing on real issues, to negotiating paragraphs and words. I have been in those types of UN meetings, and believe me, it is not a particularly satisfying process. (Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the thought of such negotiations.) While I can see that in some international negotiations (say peace negotiations?), the slowness of that process can be a feature, I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better and making things work on the Internet. Nurani *Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets... > > Nick > > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 17:05:10 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:05:10 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> References: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Two draft opinions from EP committees: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-522.939&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-522.810&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01 Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 18:56:42 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:56:42 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just in case some people have missed one or more of these: An initial appraisal of the Commission's impact assessment is here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/514071/IPOL-JOIN_NT(2013)514071_EN.pdf BEREC's views are here: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/opinions/?doc=2922 You can find the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor here: https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/Consultation/OpinionsC Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 23:15:38 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:15:38 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> Message-ID: And now the Committee of the Regions: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_COR-13-103_en.htm?locale=en http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Documents/A_CDR5960-2013_00_00_TRA_PAC_en.pdf Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 20 15:44:27 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:44:27 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection Message-ID: <5027D3BC-F6B4-4F9F-A0E8-92F419999476@gmail.com> http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Some interesting information from Renesys. Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 14:13:53 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:13:53 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] London Message-ID: Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content ? such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 14:35:29 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:35:29 +0100 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > 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 will at harg.net Sun Nov 24 15:08:39 2013 From: will at harg.net (Will Hargrave) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:08:39 -0500 Subject: [connect-bof] London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 Nov 2013, at 08:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html > > So how will Wifi access be organised in London? This article is a sales pitch for a wifi service provider who would love to collect people's personal data. It is not an accurate representation of the law in this area. I have and will continue to run events in the UK with open or semi-open wifi (UKNOF, EMFCamp, etc) without the need to invasively snoop on users and retain their personal data. -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303 4444 From randy at psg.com Sun Nov 24 15:43:56 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:43:56 +0900 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: > And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... and they live in which fantasy land? From michele at blacknight.com Sun Nov 24 14:21:48 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:21:48 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Gordon London for what exactly? regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie 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 at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:13 To: connect-bof at ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] London Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content ? such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon From michele at blacknight.com Sun Nov 24 14:52:31 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:52:31 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: <20131124133544.79B4A59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20131124133544.79B4A59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Gordon ICANN has been held in far more restrictive environments without any filters or traffic shaping .. (and it's on in London next year) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie 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: Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:35 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: connect-bof at ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] London Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > 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 jim at rfc1035.com Mon Nov 25 19:50:40 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:50:40 +0000 Subject: [connect-bof] reheated press releases and RIPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C00CD30-AF5E-4E90-B2D0-83081C36EE59@rfc1035.com> On 24 Nov 2013, at 13:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. Hmmm. If it's in the Torygraph and on the interwebs it must be true, mustn't it? The article is interesting Gordon. But perhaps not in the way you thought. IMO, the article is a good example of churnalism: a press release given a cursory makeover by a lazy reporter to turn it into "news". There's no reasonable attempt to report the detail or check the facts. My understanding is that RIPA obligations (and the rest) apply to Communications Service Providers: essentially the main telcos and ISPs based in the UK. It's highly unlikely those requirements would be directly imposed on someone providing Internet access for an IETF or RIPE or ICANN meeting. So money launderers, pornographers, drug dealers and terrorists will still be able to attend and get connectivity just like the rest of us when they show up. :-) I'm sure the RIPE meeting team will be aware of what needs to be done about compliance, if anything, since much of that legislation was in place for RIPE49.