From nick at inex.ie Mon Dec 2 15:19:43 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:19:43 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposed Workplan Coop-WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <529C96FF.5070500@inex.ie> On 30/11/2013 16:19, Maria H?ll wrote: > *Topics for engagement, and modes of engagement*____ > > To make the best use of limited time and resources, we suggest focusing > on a select number of technical topics that are currently important > within a number of policy debates. Note that this suggestion is not > meant as a limitation: the focus topics will shift, and change, and any > RIPE community member eager to engage another topic is invited to do so. > The Coop-WG mailing list will will, of course, remain open and welcoming > of lively debate. Could I suggest you add content filtering to this list? I realise it can take up a lot of discussion time, but it is rather important. Nick From meredithrachel at google.com Mon Dec 2 16:21:33 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:21:33 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposed Workplan Coop-WG In-Reply-To: <529C96FF.5070500@inex.ie> References: <529C96FF.5070500@inex.ie> Message-ID: Hi Nick, Great call -- we were thinking to cover content filtering as a sub-section of "intermediary responsibility." We'll make this more explicit by listing it specifically, unless you (all) think it makes sense to give it its own section. Cheers, Meredith On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 30/11/2013 16:19, Maria H?ll wrote: > > *Topics for engagement, and modes of engagement*____ > > > > To make the best use of limited time and resources, we suggest focusing > > on a select number of technical topics that are currently important > > within a number of policy debates. Note that this suggestion is not > > meant as a limitation: the focus topics will shift, and change, and any > > RIPE community member eager to engage another topic is invited to do so. > > The Coop-WG mailing list will will, of course, remain open and welcoming > > of lively debate. > > Could I suggest you add content filtering to this list? I realise it can > take up a lot of discussion time, but it is rather important. > > Nick > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Dec 2 16:27:24 2013 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:27:24 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposed Workplan Coop-WG In-Reply-To: References: <529C96FF.5070500@inex.ie> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE8164BB7A@wds-exc2.okna.nominet.org.uk> Could I suggest something along the lines of Internet governance post Montevideo? Or is that so obvious it is take as read? I'd like people to think very carefully about what they'd see as good outcomes from the Brazil-hosted Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: 02 December 2013 15:22 To: Nick Hilliard Cc: cooperationWG cooperationWG; Maria H?ll Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Proposed Workplan Coop-WG Hi Nick, Great call -- we were thinking to cover content filtering as a sub-section of "intermediary responsibility." We'll make this more explicit by listing it specifically, unless you (all) think it makes sense to give it its own section. Cheers, Meredith On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Nick Hilliard > wrote: On 30/11/2013 16:19, Maria H?ll wrote: > *Topics for engagement, and modes of engagement*____ > > To make the best use of limited time and resources, we suggest focusing > on a select number of technical topics that are currently important > within a number of policy debates. Note that this suggestion is not > meant as a limitation: the focus topics will shift, and change, and any > RIPE community member eager to engage another topic is invited to do so. > The Coop-WG mailing list will will, of course, remain open and welcoming > of lively debate. Could I suggest you add content filtering to this list? I realise it can take up a lot of discussion time, but it is rather important. Nick -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 2 18:00:01 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:00:01 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposed Workplan Coop-WG In-Reply-To: References: <529C96FF.5070500@inex.ie> Message-ID: In message , at 10:21:33 on Mon, 2 Dec 2013, Meredith Whittaker writes >Great call -- we were thinking to cover content filtering as a sub- >section of "intermediary responsibility." We'll make this more explicit >by listing it specifically, unless you (all) think it makes sense to >give it its own section To avoid reinventing the wheel, how about an assumption that includes, as a starting point, everything mentioned in this extract from a much longer OECD report: -- Roland Perry From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 11:56:17 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:56:17 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission and Internet Governance Message-ID: <85C21285-FA9E-42AD-9A32-1CA8AF35001E@gmail.com> This is worth a read and probably some reflection: << EUROPE AT A TIPPING POINT: LEAKED EC DOCUMENT STIRS INTERNET GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY The European Commission is preparing a policy statement on Internet governance that elevates state power and multi-lateralism over the civil society-based open and participatory governance that has characterized the native Internet governance institutions. An early version of the policy document, obtained from sources in a national government, addresses ?Internet Governance and Policy: Europe?s role in shaping the future of the Internet.?[1] The document ?lays out Europe?s vision for the future global governance framework, based on a small number of key principles.? The draft is believed to have been written by Andrea Glorioso, a Policy Officer and formerly the EC?s representative on the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee, and may have support from Nellie Kroes, the EC Vice President. ... >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/12/06/europe-at-a-tipping-point-leaked-ec-document-stirs-internet-governance-controversy/ From avangaev at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 13:21:13 2013 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:21:13 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_?= =?windows-1252?q?Institutions?= Message-ID: I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. *Background:* The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)). Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND mentions *?Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the entire framework. ? * Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent regulation. Alain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 9 14:58:18 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:58:18 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 12:21:13 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Alain Van Gaever writes >I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to >provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who >would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience >the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on >how the European model differs from the US one? I suggest you ask Malcolm Hutty of LINX, who was also one of the founding fathers of this WG. He must have a list of suitable people. -- Roland Perry From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 15:42:19 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:42:19 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question. Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage with the WG. Who do you and the other co-chairs plan to invite to Warsaw? Your point about "assured service quality"? Oh dear... Some folk are indeed getting desperate. Gordon On 9 Dec, 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > > I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? > > > > Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. > > > > > > Background: > > The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)). > > > > Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND mentions ?Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the entire framework. ? > > > > > Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone > > Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent regulation. > > > > Alain > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 9 16:08:47 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:08:47 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F at gmail.com>, at 15:42:19 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question. Yes, it is. Who delivers their regulatory monitoring function these days (I know Bijal has taken on the secretariat after Serge moved to RIPE NCC). >Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with >European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage >with the WG Which is why I suggested someone familiar with the CoOp-WG (although several other operators, and Euro-IX, will also be). And in terms of engagement, why did this happen (I only just noticed it had become inactive). Inactive RIPE Working Groups EIX Working Group The EIX working group provided a means for the RIPE Internet Service Provider (ISP) community to find out about the status and activities of Internet Exchange Points (IXP) within the region. It was discontinued at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens in October 2013. -- Roland Perry From nick at inex.ie Mon Dec 9 16:19:34 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 15:19:34 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A5DF86.2050504@inex.ie> On 09/12/2013 15:08, Roland Perry wrote: > Inactive RIPE Working Groups > EIX Working Group > > The EIX working group provided a means for the RIPE Internet > Service Provider (ISP) community to find out about the status > and activities of Internet Exchange Points (IXP) within the > region. It was discontinued at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens in > October 2013. The reasons for closing the WG are all in the archives. It's been replaced by the Connect working group, which aims to deal with general interconnection issues rather than issues specific to european ixps. Nick From nihb at netflix.com Mon Dec 9 16:25:23 2013 From: nihb at netflix.com (Nina Bargisen) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 07:25:23 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5F15A4E8-F4E4-45A8-9F03-DF401A9D8714@netflix.com> Hi Roland A connect-bof exist in order to develop into an Internconnection Working Group as described here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/bof/connect-bof I think it would be possible that we can find people both knowledgeable and willing to participate. I also think it important that this is a person who both the know the IX model, but also know the MPLS VPN Interconnections models and the Private Interconnections that networks are also engaging in. IX interconnection is an important but but not the only way that Networks connect. Cheers, Nina Bargisen Den 09/12/2013 kl. 07.08 skrev Roland Perry : > In message <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F at gmail.com>, at 15:42:19 > on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >> Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question. > > Yes, it is. Who delivers their regulatory monitoring function these days > (I know Bijal has taken on the secretariat after Serge moved to RIPE > NCC). > >> Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with >> European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage >> with the WG > > Which is why I suggested someone familiar with the CoOp-WG (although > several other operators, and Euro-IX, will also be). > > And in terms of engagement, why did this happen (I only just noticed it > had become inactive). > > Inactive RIPE Working Groups > EIX Working Group > > The EIX working group provided a means for the RIPE Internet > Service Provider (ISP) community to find out about the status > and activities of Internet Exchange Points (IXP) within the > region. It was discontinued at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens in > October 2013. > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 9 17:11:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:11:08 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: <52A5DF86.2050504@inex.ie> References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> <52A5DF86.2050504@inex.ie> Message-ID: In message <52A5DF86.2050504 at inex.ie>, at 15:19:34 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Nick Hilliard writes >> Inactive RIPE Working Groups >> EIX Working Group >> >> The EIX working group provided a means for the RIPE Internet >> Service Provider (ISP) community to find out about the status >> and activities of Internet Exchange Points (IXP) within the >> region. It was discontinued at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens in >> October 2013. > >The reasons for closing the WG are all in the archives. I'm sure they are, but not everyone has the time to trawl through megabytes of user-unfriendly html discussion lists. >It's been replaced by the Connect working group, which aims to deal >with general interconnection issues rather than issues specific to >european ixps. Perhaps a note to that effect should be attached to the EIX 'obituary'. Then we could rapidly direct people to that WG to find people meeting the OP's requirements who are also engaged with RIPE. -- Roland Perry From avangaev at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 17:18:49 2013 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:18:49 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_?= =?windows-1252?q?Institutions?= In-Reply-To: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Gordon, "Whether the European Institutions would want to engage with us ? " Guess it depends on what we have to offer - I happen to think we could offer some valuable technical expertise :-) But before we start inviting them over, I think it is up to us to pay them a visit "hat in hand" so to say. Therefore it would be useful to know who can paint a good picture on IP interconnection. And who knows ... they might actually find it very helpful :-) Alain On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question. > > Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with > European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage with > the WG. > > Who do you and the other co-chairs plan to invite to Warsaw? > > Your point about "assured service quality"? Oh dear... Some folk are > indeed getting desperate. > > Gordon > > > > On 9 Dec, 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > > > I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to > provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who > would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience > the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on > how the European model differs from the US one? > > > Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service > quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of > pan-European health services and video-conferencing. > > > > *Background:* > > The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European > Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP > Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection > with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)). > > > Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament > dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in > which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND > mentions *?Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and > ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur > addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a > comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the > entire framework. ? * > > > Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be > found on: > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone > > Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the > European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent > regulation. > > > Alain > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 9 17:25:24 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:25:24 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: <5F15A4E8-F4E4-45A8-9F03-DF401A9D8714@netflix.com> References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> <5F15A4E8-F4E4-45A8-9F03-DF401A9D8714@netflix.com> Message-ID: In message <5F15A4E8-F4E4-45A8-9F03-DF401A9D8714 at netflix.com>, at 07:25:23 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Nina Bargisen writes >Hi Roland > >A connect-bof exist in order to develop into an Internconnection >Working Group as described here: >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/bof/connect-bof Thanks, I noticed the BOF [1] but hadn't realised it was already a WG (as Nick suggested). It's obviously much better for continuity that the new WG gets running in time for the next RIPE meeting. >I think it would be possible that we can find people both knowledgeable >and willing to participate. I also think it important that this is a >person who both the know the IX model, but also know the MPLS VPN >Interconnections models and the Private Interconnections that networks >are also engaging in. IX interconnection is an important but but not >the only way that Networks connect. It doesn't have to be just one person - but there are many knowledgeable people out there; although I'd also add experience of D.50 to the list of requirements. [1] Birds of a Feather, the RIPE jargon for an informal discussion group, for those suffering acronym overload. -- Roland Perry From nick at inex.ie Mon Dec 9 17:28:30 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:28:30 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> <5F15A4E8-F4E4-45A8-9F03-DF401A9D8714@netflix.com> Message-ID: <52A5EFAE.5020703@inex.ie> On 09/12/2013 16:25, Roland Perry wrote: > I noticed the BOF [1] but hadn't realised it was already a WG (as Nick > suggested). E&OE: it's still a bof. Nick From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 10:02:07 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:02:07 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA@gmail.com> So your thought is that you and maybe a few more should go to Brussels as representatives of the WG? What would you say? On behalf of the WG rather than as an individual that is. On the other hand you may like to talk to Maria and Patrik about their efforts to bring Brussels and other government people to WG meetings and how that worked out. Gordon On 9 Dec, 2013, at 17:18, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > Thanks Gordon, > > "Whether the European Institutions would want to engage with us ? " > > Guess it depends on what we have to offer - I happen to think we could offer some valuable technical expertise :-) > > But before we start inviting them over, I think it is up to us to pay them a visit "hat in hand" so to say. Therefore it would be useful to know who can paint a good picture on IP interconnection. And who knows ... they might actually find it very helpful :-) > > Alain > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question. > > Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage with the WG. > > Who do you and the other co-chairs plan to invite to Warsaw? > > Your point about "assured service quality"? Oh dear... Some folk are indeed getting desperate. > > Gordon > > > > On 9 Dec, 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > >> >> I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? >> >> >> >> Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. >> >> >> >> >> >> Background: >> >> The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)). >> >> >> >> Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND mentions ?Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the entire framework. ? >> >> >> >> >> Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone >> >> Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent regulation. >> >> >> >> Alain >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Dec 10 15:33:59 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:33:59 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA@gmail.com> References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA at gmail.com>, at 10:02:07 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >So your thought is that you and maybe a few more should go to Brussels >as representatives of the WG?? > >What would you say? On behalf of the WG rather than as an individual >that is. > >On the other hand you may like to talk to Maria and Patrik about their >efforts to bring Brussels and other government people to WG meetings >and how that worked out There are two parallel processes in the RIPE community. I'm very sure that the one most likely to produce the results you seek are getting a speaking slot at a Roundtable, the next of which happens to be in Brussels: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 There are many structural reasons why the Roundtables are a better channels for this particular activity[1] than RIPE CoOP-WG meetings, so I strongly recommend that this subject is put on that agenda, and even more so that any such agenda is promoted sufficiently ahead of the meeting that potential attendees can out it in their diaries. Currently, the attendee list is just three "insiders"... Not to undervalue the worth of their participation, but with the Xmas season so close, and event bookings pretty much in suspense until Mid-January (especially in the absence of a confirmed agenda) it would be good to see more external attendees registering by now. [1] The CoOp-WG's strengths lie elsewhere. -- Roland Perry From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 20:38:47 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:38:47 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com> <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <199BE130-44A0-463A-AB43-ED1301CFDBA7@gmail.com> I think the idea of starting with a presentation at the Roundtable is a very good one. Gordon On 10 Dec, 2013, at 15:33, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA at gmail.com>, at 10:02:07 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >> So your thought is that you and maybe a few more should go to Brussels as representatives of the WG? >> >> What would you say? On behalf of the WG rather than as an individual that is. >> >> On the other hand you may like to talk to Maria and Patrik about their efforts to bring Brussels and other government people to WG meetings and how that worked out > > There are two parallel processes in the RIPE community. > > I'm very sure that the one most likely to produce the results you seek are getting a speaking slot at a Roundtable, the next of which happens to be in Brussels: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 > > There are many structural reasons why the Roundtables are a better channels for this particular activity[1] than RIPE CoOP-WG meetings, so I strongly recommend that this subject is put on that agenda, and even more so that any such agenda is promoted sufficiently ahead of the meeting that potential attendees can out it in their diaries. > > Currently, the attendee list is just three "insiders"... Not to undervalue the worth of their participation, but with the Xmas season so close, and event bookings pretty much in suspense until Mid-January (especially in the absence of a confirmed agenda) it would be good to see more external attendees registering by now. > > [1] The CoOp-WG's strengths lie elsewhere. > -- > Roland Perry > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 20:42:26 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:42:26 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The proposed EU Regulation Message-ID: Following on from Alain's: "Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing." Here is an interesting take by Monica Horten: http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/923-eu-telecoms-rules-smokescreen-lifts-over-telco-specialised-services Gordon From paf at frobbit.se Tue Dec 10 21:09:10 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:09:10 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 dec 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? There is a larger issue here, and that is that we have three categories of people: - The ones that understand how Internet works, and based the world view on it - The ones that do not understand how the Internet work, and continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks - The ones that understand how Internet works, and [because of this] continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks > Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. See above. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 21:29:26 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:29:26 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39290F59-B9F8-4527-8F37-E1DD1E70536A@gmail.com> And this is ETNO's view: http://www.etno.eu Gordon On 10 Dec, 2013, at 21:09, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > On 9 dec 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > >> I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one? > > There is a larger issue here, and that is that we have three categories of people: > > - The ones that understand how Internet works, and based the world view on it > > - The ones that do not understand how the Internet work, and continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks > > - The ones that understand how Internet works, and [because of this] continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks > >> Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing. > > See above. > > Patrik > From avangaev at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 22:45:53 2013 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:45:53 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_?= =?windows-1252?q?Institutions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, thanks for your useful input! And yes a presentation at the RIPE NCC Roundtable in Brussels (19 Feb) is definitely a good idea; I will check straight away with RIPE NCC to see whether they can give us a slot on the agenda. Next to the RIPE NCC Roundtable, there might also be value to actually go and talk to the officials in Brussels who prepare the legislative texts. >From experience I would argue that those are NOT necessarily the same people as those who attend the RIPE NCC Roundtable meetings. I think Gordon is right that it is very hard to get them to join us at the RIPE meeting in Warsaw. So maybe we have to reach out in a different way? So what if a small group of technical experts would actually prepare a technical presentation (e.g. on IP interconnection, IXP?s,...- subject to the needs of our audience) and go to Brussels and actually provide an overview to the officials in the units dealing with drafting those legislative texts? This seems perfectly in line with the ?Proposed Workplan for the coop-wg? (see mail of Maria on 30 Nov). What do you think? Alain On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > On 9 dec 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever wrote: > > > I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to > provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who > would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience > the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on > how the European model differs from the US one? > > There is a larger issue here, and that is that we have three categories of > people: > > - The ones that understand how Internet works, and based the world view on > it > > - The ones that do not understand how the Internet work, and continue to > apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks > > - The ones that understand how Internet works, and [because of this] > continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based > networks > > > Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of ?assured service > quality? on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of > pan-European health services and video-conferencing. > > See above. > > Patrik > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 11 11:08:27 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:08:27 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 21:45:53 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Alain Van Gaever writes >Next to the RIPE NCC Roundtable, there might also be value to actually >go and talk to the officials in Brussels who prepare the legislative >texts. From experience I would argue that those are NOT necessarily the >same people as those who attend the RIPE NCC Roundtable meetings That's right, the Roundtables are more for invitation-only "Heads of Department", who are also the people who can more easily arrange to spend a day out of the office 'on expenses'[1]. I never organised a Roundtable in Brussels, but it would make sense to me that it should be slightly more of an 'open house' for local officials. Perhaps the date for the Roundtable has been chosen as the day after an EIF meeting, so there might be more industry folks in town that day too. [1] The difficulty of which is often much underestimated, and is a major reason for poor attendance at a 2hr RIPE-WG session in an 'exotic' location. -- Roland Perry From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 18:34:31 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:34:31 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Let us take a few steps back. ;-) When I first started turning up at RIPE - which was a few years ago! - the attitude was that as the meetings were open anybody who wanted to turn up could do so. And that obviously included government folk. There may also have been the feeling that as "the Internet is not regulated" then the need for involvement with governments was low. There has been a definite change regarding that latter point and indeed, as the recent proposed Regulation and as the "leaked" Communication make clear, better contact is more and more required. In parallel there have been changes in how that contact has been organised. A particular WG, the Cooperation WG, was set up and NCC organised Roundtables. I seem to remember that early roundtables were organised at Schipol to make it as easy as possible for government people to attend. When even that was seen to have its limits then the Roundtables were organised in Brussels. From what I have heard that works. Not only do people from the Commission attend but also people from other states who either work in Brussels or travel in for the day. And by the way, picking up on Roland's point, it is probably more the familiarity of Brussels as a destination than allows people from out of town to attend rather than the issue of expenses. They can also add in some side meetings which adds value. So all in all the Roundtables are appreciated and working. There have also been efforts to get people to come to talk to the WG. That has been perhaps less successful. But we have had Commission staff making presentations. And perhaps with this fresh start we can bring new ideas. More on that later. The WG though is about people coming together either at RIPE meetings or here on the mailing list - and not necessarily at a Roundtable. It is about sharing information and concerns in those two main WG contexts. And when warranted it is about communicating common views and concerns to others on behalf of the WG. Of course individuals may decide that they have a particular concern and decide to take it up with their local regulator or government or with the Commission. It good that people do this. Maybe they could even share their experiences! I think though that it is recognised that there is a problem with small groups of people or even individuals going to Brussels and claiming to represent the WG - unless of course there has been discussion and consensus on the message to be passed. Maybe other people think otherwise. Maybe we need to discuss this I also have a variety of problems with the notion of "free consultancy". I won't try to cover them all here and now. But the Commission spends a lot of money on acquiring information: from research projects, to studies, to workshops, to consultation processes. So they are paying people. They are also surrounded by a mass of local lobbyists all also giving them information. A lot of groups either have offices or people in Brussels, including ISOC, CENTR and ICANN. So many people in the Commission probably think they are already getting all the information they need. So we in turn would need to be clear about the added value and who would do the work and what process we would use and so on. And by the way the Commission has continued to send people, and sometimes significant numbers of people, to meetings considered more important, such as ICANN and the IGF. So what can be done within the WG to engage with policy makers? 1) We now have two co-chairs who have very good knowledge of the Commission. I think it would be good if the co-chairs wrote seeking a commitment to send somebody to future meetings - not necessarily always the same person. I think the scope could include, as appropriate for different meetings, Internet governance, telecoms regulation, broadband initiatives and research. 2) I think it would be useful to expand the scope of those we invite. Involving local government folk has already proved useful. So who in Poland? And other organisations. The OECD has done and is doing interesting policy work. Then we have folk from BEREC and ENISA and the Data Protection agency. 3) I think we can also use "proxies". People have said to me that they find Commission documents "difficult". So why not invite people who have already analysed them to make a presentation? A good presentation and a good discussion may encourage people to go back and look again. I would also be tempted to consider inviting ETNO or GSMA or ETSI. 4) Finally I think it would be good to invite other groups to talk about their policy concerns and what they are doing in that direction. The people are probably already there. But Euro-IX? CENTR? ISOC? This is of course in addition to the excellent feedback we tend to get from people going to the IGF and the EIF and so on. Pause... Gordon On 11 Dec, 2013, at 11:08, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 21:45:53 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Alain Van Gaever writes >> Next to the RIPE NCC Roundtable, there might also be value to actually go and talk to the officials in Brussels who prepare the legislative texts. From experience I would argue that those are NOT necessarily the same people as those who attend the RIPE NCC Roundtable meetings > > That's right, the Roundtables are more for invitation-only "Heads of Department", who are also the people who can more easily arrange to spend a day out of the office 'on expenses'[1]. > > I never organised a Roundtable in Brussels, but it would make sense to me that it should be slightly more of an 'open house' for local officials. > > Perhaps the date for the Roundtable has been chosen as the day after an EIF meeting, so there might be more industry folks in town that day too. > > [1] The difficulty of which is often much underestimated, and is a major > reason for poor attendance at a 2hr RIPE-WG session in an 'exotic' > location. > -- > Roland Perry > From dburk at burkov.aha.ru Thu Dec 12 00:12:21 2013 From: dburk at burkov.aha.ru (Dmitry Burkov) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:12:21 +0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Gordon, just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all. And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. I think it should be also special point on our agenda. An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all. Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips. It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region. regards, Dmitry On 11 Dec 2013, at 21:34, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Let us take a few steps back. ;-) > > When I first started turning up at RIPE - which was a few years ago! - the attitude was that as the meetings were open anybody who wanted to turn up could do so. And that obviously included government folk. There may also have been the feeling that as "the Internet is not regulated" then the need for involvement with governments was low. > > There has been a definite change regarding that latter point and indeed, as the recent proposed Regulation and as the "leaked" Communication make clear, better contact is more and more required. > > In parallel there have been changes in how that contact has been organised. A particular WG, the Cooperation WG, was set up and NCC organised Roundtables. > > I seem to remember that early roundtables were organised at Schipol to make it as easy as possible for government people to attend. When even that was seen to have its limits then the Roundtables were organised in Brussels. From what I have heard that works. Not only do people from the Commission attend but also people from other states who either work in Brussels or travel in for the day. And by the way, picking up on Roland's point, it is probably more the familiarity of Brussels as a destination than allows people from out of town to attend rather than the issue of expenses. They can also add in some side meetings which adds value. So all in all the Roundtables are appreciated and working. > > There have also been efforts to get people to come to talk to the WG. That has been perhaps less successful. But we have had Commission staff making presentations. And perhaps with this fresh start we can bring new ideas. More on that later. > > The WG though is about people coming together either at RIPE meetings or here on the mailing list - and not necessarily at a Roundtable. It is about sharing information and concerns in those two main WG contexts. And when warranted it is about communicating common views and concerns to others on behalf of the WG. > > Of course individuals may decide that they have a particular concern and decide to take it up with their local regulator or government or with the Commission. It good that people do this. Maybe they could even share their experiences! > > I think though that it is recognised that there is a problem with small groups of people or even individuals going to Brussels and claiming to represent the WG - unless of course there has been discussion and consensus on the message to be passed. Maybe other people think otherwise. Maybe we need to discuss this > > I also have a variety of problems with the notion of "free consultancy". I won't try to cover them all here and now. > > But the Commission spends a lot of money on acquiring information: from research projects, to studies, to workshops, to consultation processes. So they are paying people. They are also surrounded by a mass of local lobbyists all also giving them information. A lot of groups either have offices or people in Brussels, including ISOC, CENTR and ICANN. So many people in the Commission probably think they are already getting all the information they need. So we in turn would need to be clear about the added value and who would do the work and what process we would use and so on. > > And by the way the Commission has continued to send people, and sometimes significant numbers of people, to meetings considered more important, such as ICANN and the IGF. > > So what can be done within the WG to engage with policy makers? > > 1) We now have two co-chairs who have very good knowledge of the Commission. I think it would be good if the co-chairs wrote seeking a commitment to send somebody to future meetings - not necessarily always the same person. I think the scope could include, as appropriate for different meetings, Internet governance, telecoms regulation, broadband initiatives and research. > > 2) I think it would be useful to expand the scope of those we invite. Involving local government folk has already proved useful. So who in Poland? And other organisations. The OECD has done and is doing interesting policy work. Then we have folk from BEREC and ENISA and the Data Protection agency. > > 3) I think we can also use "proxies". People have said to me that they find Commission documents "difficult". So why not invite people who have already analysed them to make a presentation? A good presentation and a good discussion may encourage people to go back and look again. I would also be tempted to consider inviting ETNO or GSMA or ETSI. > > 4) Finally I think it would be good to invite other groups to talk about their policy concerns and what they are doing in that direction. The people are probably already there. But Euro-IX? CENTR? ISOC? > > This is of course in addition to the excellent feedback we tend to get from people going to the IGF and the EIF and so on. > > Pause... > > Gordon > > > On 11 Dec, 2013, at 11:08, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 21:45:53 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Alain Van Gaever writes >>> Next to the RIPE NCC Roundtable, there might also be value to actually go and talk to the officials in Brussels who prepare the legislative texts. From experience I would argue that those are NOT necessarily the same people as those who attend the RIPE NCC Roundtable meetings >> >> That's right, the Roundtables are more for invitation-only "Heads of Department", who are also the people who can more easily arrange to spend a day out of the office 'on expenses'[1]. >> >> I never organised a Roundtable in Brussels, but it would make sense to me that it should be slightly more of an 'open house' for local officials. >> >> Perhaps the date for the Roundtable has been chosen as the day after an EIF meeting, so there might be more industry folks in town that day too. >> >> [1] The difficulty of which is often much underestimated, and is a major >> reason for poor attendance at a 2hr RIPE-WG session in an 'exotic' >> location. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> > > From nick at inex.ie Thu Dec 12 00:47:42 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:47:42 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A8F99E.9050109@inex.ie> On 11/12/2013 23:12, Dmitry Burkov wrote: > It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we > can outreach the whole region. +1 Nick From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 08:39:46 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:39:46 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B1BE212-29D6-4618-97B4-3F582946BC33@gmail.com> I agree. This is one more important reason to focus on the WG mailing list and the WG session at RIPE meetings. I think what NCC have done with the roundtable is good, particularly how they have evolved the approach. But my concern is with the WG. That is why may main suggestions were how to enrich the contact with policy makers in that context. And while I see the Commission as being important in that regard I think we should not focus entirely on them, far from it. So is there for example a Russian policy maker who might wish to speak in Warsaw? I am already thinking forward to the ITU PP-14 in Busan, Korea. Best regards, Gordon On 12 Dec, 2013, at 00:12, Dmitry Burkov wrote: > Dear Gordon, > > just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all. > > And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. > I think it should be also special point on our agenda. > > An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all. > Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips. > > It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region. > > regards, > Dmitry > From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 12 11:44:34 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:44:34 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 18:34:31 on Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >I seem to remember that early roundtables were organised at Schipol to >make it as easy as possible for government people to attend. When even >that was seen to have its limits then the Roundtables were organised in >Brussels. That makes it sound like all of them are now Brussels-based but in fact they appear to be alternating, with one each in Brussels and Amsterdam each year. 2014 will be the third year. >From what I have heard that works. Not only do people from the >Commission attend but also people from other states who either work in >Brussels or travel in for the day. And by the way, picking up on >Roland's point, it is probably more the familiarity of Brussels as a >destination than allows people from out of town to attend rather than >the issue of expenses. They can also add in some side meetings which >adds value. So all in all the Roundtables are appreciated and working. Yes, looking at the records (on the RIPE NCC website) the attendance from out-of-town has been maintained and the Commission has risen from typically one or two attendees (in Amsterdam) to between six and eleven (in Brussels). >I think though that it is recognised that there is a problem with small >groups of people or even individuals going to Brussels and claiming to >represent the WG - unless of course there has been discussion and >consensus on the message to be passed. Maybe other people think >otherwise. Maybe we need to discuss this If the material presented is simply "this is what the WG does, these are its working methods, some of the topics discussed recently and how to get involved", then I don't think that should be a problem. In the past the Roundtables have had presentations about the proceedings of the RIPE 'Policy' workgroups. >I also have a variety of problems with the notion of "free >consultancy". I won't try to cover them all here and now. > >But the Commission spends a lot of money on acquiring information: from >research projects, to studies, to workshops, to consultation processes. Feeding into consultations, either in writing or much better by attending hearings, is a very good way to "get involved" in the flow of information. -- Roland Perry From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Dec 12 11:45:32 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:45:32 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?utf-8?q?IP_Interconnection_=E2=80=93_expertise?= =?utf-8?q?_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institut?= =?utf-8?q?ions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <+VCmn9UMPZqSFAkN@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 03:12:21 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Dmitry Burkov writes >just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all. > >And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. >I think it should be also special point on our agenda. > >An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all. Yes, there are even parts of the EU which are not a comfortable round-trip to Amsterdam (even less so Brussels as it's a much smaller airport). By comfortable I would say within 90 minutes flying time and planes arriving and departing at the required times. >Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips. > >It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region. RIPE NCC has Regional Meetings which can include aspects of outreach to governments. I see there was also a Middle East Regional Roundtable in 2011. -- Roland Perry From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 13:42:18 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:42:18 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?IP_Interconnection_=96_expertis?= =?windows-1252?q?e_wanted_-_providing_information_to_the_European_Institu?= =?windows-1252?q?tions?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15970EA4-DAE5-4FE4-9224-ABAD36111400@gmail.com> On 12 Dec, 2013, at 11:44, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 18:34:31 on Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox writes > >> I seem to remember that early roundtables were organised at Schipol to make it as easy as possible for government people to attend. When even that was seen to have its limits then the Roundtables were organised in Brussels. > > That makes it sound like all of them are now Brussels-based but in fact they appear to be alternating, with one each in Brussels and Amsterdam each year. 2014 will be the third year. > >> From what I have heard that works. Not only do people from the Commission attend but also people from other states who either work in Brussels or travel in for the day. And by the way, picking up on Roland's point, it is probably more the familiarity of Brussels as a destination than allows people from out of town to attend rather than the issue of expenses. They can also add in some side meetings which adds value. So all in all the Roundtables are appreciated and working. > > Yes, looking at the records (on the RIPE NCC website) the attendance from out-of-town has been maintained and the Commission has risen from typically one or two attendees (in Amsterdam) to between six and eleven (in Brussels). Thanks for the clarification. >> I think though that it is recognised that there is a problem with small groups of people or even individuals going to Brussels and claiming to represent the WG - unless of course there has been discussion and consensus on the message to be passed. Maybe other people think otherwise. Maybe we need to discuss this > > If the material presented is simply "this is what the WG does, these are its working methods, some of the topics discussed recently and how to get involved", then I don't think that should be a problem. Agreed. Particularly "how to get involved". > In the past the Roundtables have had presentations about the proceedings of the RIPE 'Policy' workgroups. > >> I also have a variety of problems with the notion of "free consultancy". I won't try to cover them all here and now. >> >> But the Commission spends a lot of money on acquiring information: from research projects, to studies, to workshops, to consultation processes. > > Feeding into consultations, either in writing or much better by attending hearings, is a very good way to "get involved" in the flow of information. Indeed signing up as an "expert" means that you can even be paid. "Experts" are used for proposal evaluation and project reviews. Both give a really good insight into how some things work. Signing up is not difficult. But you then need to contact the appropriate services and project officers. Recommended for those with the appropriate skills. > -- > Roland Perry Gordon From nick at inex.ie Thu Dec 12 17:32:33 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:32:33 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: <5294F863.6080506@gmail.com> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <5294F863.6080506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A9E521.90205@inex.ie> On 26/11/2013 19:37, Pier Carlo Chiodi wrote: > I would like to bring to your attention a brand new document by the > Attorney General of the Court of Justice of the European Community, Cruz > Villal?n, regarding the compatibility of web-blocking measures with EU > law [1]. > > Unfortunately at time of writing there is not an English version, so I > link here a blog post with some English excerpts too [2]. > http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=144944&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=305207 There is still no english translation of this document. This is very peculiar. Nick From denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl Fri Dec 13 10:27:34 2013 From: denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl (Wout de Natris) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:27:34 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The discussion seems extremely EU focussed, which is not surprising as the EU Commission is a central force to be reckoned with in Internet Governance and a body that makes regulations that touch upon the internet, regulations that often influence other parts of the world be it directly or indirectly as well. It is an important player for RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to reckon with. However, there are at least three regional meetings within the RIPE region. Is there anything to stop those regions to have its own regional Cooperation Working Groups as well? It probably takes some initiative and topics to identify. If the need is there, it is your choice to start one. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:42:25 +0100 > > > 1. Re: IP Interconnection ? expertise wanted - providing > information to the European Institutions (Dmitry Burkov) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 03:12:21 +0400 > From: Dmitry Burkov > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] IP Interconnection ? expertise wanted - > providing information to the European Institutions > To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" , Roland Perry > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Gordon, > > just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all. > > And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. > I think it should be also special point on our agenda. > > An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all. > Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips. > > It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region. > > regards, > Dmitry > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5 > ********************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chrisb at ripe.net Fri Dec 20 05:18:35 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:18:35 +1000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings - Some Background References: <52B306A6.1080900@ripe.net> Message-ID: <65C485D1-99F6-4693-BC26-6B5E6E5B99BF@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Based on recent discussions, it would perhaps be useful to provide some background information on the RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings for Governments and Regulators (to use their full title). The RIPE NCC has been holding these events since 2005, generally on a twice-yearly basis, as an opportunity for representatives of governments and public sector authorities to engage directly with RIPE NCC staff and key members of the RIPE community. Over the years, agenda items have included issues such as IPv6 adoption, Internet governance developments, network security, and Internet measurements and analysis. Presentations are generally delivered by RIPE NCC staff, though there have been occasions when representatives from other organisations have presented on issues relevant to the RIPE NCC or RIPE community (e.g. Olaf Kolkman delivered a presentation at the last Roundtable Meeting on the IETF and its role in Internet security). The Roundtable Meetings are held as invitation-only events. This is to allow government representatives, who are often constrained in what they can say in open forums, to speak and exchange information freely. This is vital to ensuring that all participants get the most out of the meetings. The trade-off is that Roundtable Meetings are purely informational - no formal policy discussion or decision-making occurs. As noted on this list, recent Roundtable Meetings have been held alternately in Amsterdam and Brussels - this has been a conscious move to engage more effectively with European Commission and Parliament staff, as well as EU member state representatives who may otherwise be in Brussels at the time. We have coordinated with contacts in the European Commission to organise our Brussels Roundtable Meetings adjacent to relevant meetings or events held by the Commission. Our plan is to continue this pattern, but we are always open to adjusting our Roundtable Meeting organisation to more effectively reach new participants. The Roundtable Meetings have a great success in helping the RIPE NCC to build relationships with the public sector and inform public sector representatives on issues relating to the RIPE community. While the Roundtable Meetings are invitation-only, the RIPE NCC is very happy to hear input or suggestions from the community (particularly this working group) on issues that might usefully be included on the agenda (we are currently developing the agenda for our next Roundtable Meeting in February, and have noted the discussion that has taken place here regarding IP interconnection). We also strongly you to connect us with public sector representatives from your country who may be interested in attending. I hope this is helpful for discussions going forward, and I am happy to answer questions either on or off the mailing list. Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 20 11:20:10 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:20:10 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings - Some Background In-Reply-To: <65C485D1-99F6-4693-BC26-6B5E6E5B99BF@ripe.net> References: <52B306A6.1080900@ripe.net> <65C485D1-99F6-4693-BC26-6B5E6E5B99BF@ripe.net> Message-ID: In message <65C485D1-99F6-4693-BC26-6B5E6E5B99BF at ripe.net>, at 14:18:35 on Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Chris Buckridge writes > Presentations are generally delivered by RIPE NCC staff, though there >have been occasions when representatives from other organisations have >presented on issues relevant to the RIPE NCC or RIPE community And let's not forget the discussions in the corridors, over coffee and lunch. They are extremely valuable networking opportunities and are even more 'off the record', as far as the government attendees are concerned, than questions they might ask from the floor of the formal sessions. This is perhaps one reason why so many of the attendees are not in fact Government/Regulators, but I*/private sector folk with valuable insights into the various issues. -- Roland Perry From pc.chiodi at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 21:00:35 2013 From: pc.chiodi at gmail.com (Pier Carlo Chiodi) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:00:35 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Roundtable Meetings - Some Background In-Reply-To: <65C485D1-99F6-4693-BC26-6B5E6E5B99BF@ripe.net> References: <52B306A6.1080900@ripe.net> <65C485D1-99F6-4693-BC26-6B5E6E5B99BF@ripe.net> Message-ID: <52B4A1E3.40408@gmail.com> Hello, Il 20/12/2013 05:18, Chris Buckridge ha scritto: > While the Roundtable Meetings are invitation-only, the RIPE NCC is very happy to hear input or suggestions from the community (particularly this working group) on issues that might usefully be included on the agenda (we are currently developing the agenda for our next Roundtable Meeting in February, and have noted the discussion that has taken place here regarding IP interconnection). because of recent domestic events (I'm writing from Italy) I focused my attention on web blocking and filtering issues. I also noticed that this topic has already been addressed by this wg and I'm working on a blog post / document to deepen the suggestions emerged on the "DNS-based filtering" thread: - explaining how DNS and IP work in a manner as clear as possible to non-tech people; - explaining advantages and disadvantages of various blocking measures; - focusing on cross-border / human rights issues. I'm quite new on this wg and I don't know if Roundtable Meetings are the right place where to discuss similar topics, but if I really manage to complete this draft and if you feel it will be suitable I believe it would be worth of consideration to be added to the agenda. My two cents :) -- Pier Carlo Chiodi http://about.me/piercarlo.chiodi The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of any organization, entity or committee to which I may hold a position.