From snash at arbor.net Fri Feb 1 11:51:45 2013 From: snash at arbor.net (Nash, Steve) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:51:45 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT Message-ID: <8889DC743021D34399AB2D4981985CFB162FCE7D0A@MBX21.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> CleanIT (www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet.pdf ) seems to me to be a useful report asking governments to facilitate awareness and fund "referral units", and "Internet Companies" to provide reasonable end-user feedback mechanisms on suspected Terrorist Internet use. - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue. Regards Steve Nash Steve.nash at theiet.org -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Patrik F?ltstr?m Sent: 31 January 2013 12:34 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CleanIT Update Brian, I am sure many people on the coop wg is interested in this work, so thank you for copying the mailing list. Patrik F?ltstr?m Co-chair cooperation working group On 31 jan 2013, at 12:55, Brian Nisbet wrote: > Colleagues, > > (And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.) > > You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/ > > This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here: > > http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/ > > It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities. > > If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know. > > Brian > From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Fri Feb 1 15:41:15 2013 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:41:15 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT In-Reply-To: <8889DC743021D34399AB2D4981985CFB162FCE7D0A@MBX21.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> References: <8889DC743021D34399AB2D4981985CFB162FCE7D0A@MBX21.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Message-ID: <510BD40B.8050204@heanet.ie> Steve, I strongly believe we do not need a new WG to address this. You are correct that this matter doesn't strictly fit into the AA-WG Charter, it's more an accident of timing that brought us together. Nobody has raised an objection before now, but if the community would prefer this to be dealt with by another WG, we can easily work on that. I would also point out that both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC have clearly demonstrated their interest in this process and project. We have been active participants since the beginning of the project and both Tobias and I were at the meeting in Brussels, as were Athina Fragkouli and Andrew de la Haye from the RIPE NCC. There is no question that the people involved in this project would involve both the NCC and the community in any future work. I'm not sure what kind of response you had in mind? Brian Nash, Steve wrote the following on 01/02/2013 10:51: > CleanIT (www.cleanitproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Reducing-terrorist-use-of-the-internet.pdf ) seems to me to be a useful report asking governments to facilitate awareness and fund "referral units", and "Internet Companies" to provide reasonable end-user feedback mechanisms on suspected Terrorist Internet use. > > - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. > - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. > - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. > > Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? > > I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue. > > Regards > Steve Nash > Steve.nash at theiet.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Patrik F?ltstr?m > Sent: 31 January 2013 12:34 > To: Brian Nisbet > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] CleanIT Update > > Brian, > > I am sure many people on the coop wg is interested in this work, so thank you for copying the mailing list. > > Patrik F?ltstr?m > Co-chair cooperation working group > > On 31 jan 2013, at 12:55, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >> Colleagues, >> >> (And cross posted to the Cooperation WG as it may be something interesting for them also.) >> >> You may be aware of the the CleanIT project http://www.cleanitproject.eu/ >> >> This project has presented to the AA-WG at two RIPE meetings and Tobias and I said we would keep the working group up to date. The final document of the project was officially published yesterday in Brussels and handed over to the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gilles de Kerchove. More information, including a download link for the document can be found here: >> >> http://www.cleanitproject.eu/final-document-clean-it-published/ >> >> It is unclear at present whether there will be any follow-up to the project, but various parties wish to investigate possibilities. >> >> If there are any further moves or projects to come out of this, we will let the AA-WG know. >> >> Brian >> > > > From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Feb 1 16:10:57 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:10:57 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT In-Reply-To: <8889DC743021D34399AB2D4981985CFB162FCE7D0A@MBX21.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> References: <8889DC743021D34399AB2D4981985CFB162FCE7D0A@MBX21.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> Message-ID: <9102821F-D8D0-4202-A488-315DBF65FB19@rfc1035.com> On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:51, "Nash, Steve" wrote: > - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the remit of any one RIPE WG. > - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. > - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. It's almost impossible to come up with a consensus definition of terrorism for just one country, let alone across the RIPE service region. Consensus on a region-wide definition of illegal content seems unlikely too. So I suggest we don't go down those rat-holes. Instead we should engage with law enforcement and governments to reach a common understanding on what practical steps can be taken or are being taken, discuss the legal/technical issues, develop processes for exchanging information, doing liaison and outreach, etc. IIUC this is already happening. > Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? No. IMO the current arrangements seem to be fine. IIUC NCC staff and representatives of relevant WGs are already involved in this project and engage more generally with governments and law enforcement on things like crime prevention and counterterrorism. If the existing arrangements are not working, we first need to find out why before deciding how to fix the problem(s). Creating a new WG or a Task Force (say) seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Even more so when it's not clear what's broken or needs to be fixed. Do you have any insight that the community's current activities in this area are unsatisfactory? Can you explain how a new WG or whatever would improve matters? > I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily engaged in future dialogue. RIPE and the NCC are already engaged AFAICT. From julien at tayon.net Fri Feb 1 16:47:48 2013 From: julien at tayon.net (julien tayon) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:47:48 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet - CleanIT In-Reply-To: <9102821F-D8D0-4202-A488-315DBF65FB19@rfc1035.com> References: <8889DC743021D34399AB2D4981985CFB162FCE7D0A@MBX21.EXCHPROD.USA.NET> <9102821F-D8D0-4202-A488-315DBF65FB19@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: 2013/2/1 Jim Reid > On 1 Feb 2013, at 10:51, "Nash, Steve" wrote: > > > - Terrorist use of the Internet is not a subject that fits into the > remit of any one RIPE WG. > > - One might consider such use to be Abuse, but the current charter of > Anti Abuse excludes dealing with illegal content. > > - This subject may also be considered to require specialist attention > that not all members of any existing WG would wish to follow. > > It's almost impossible to come up with a consensus definition of terrorism > for just one country, let alone across the RIPE service region. Consensus > on a region-wide definition of illegal content seems unlikely too. So I > suggest we don't go down those rat-holes. Instead we should engage with law > enforcement and governments to reach a common understanding on what > practical steps can be taken or are being taken, discuss the > legal/technical issues, develop processes for exchanging information, doing > liaison and outreach, etc. IIUC this is already happening. > > > Do we need a new WG, or do we need a sub-WG list within an existing WG? > > No. IMO the current arrangements seem to be fine. IIUC NCC staff and > representatives of relevant WGs are already involved in this project and > engage more generally with governments and law enforcement on things like > crime prevention and counterterrorism. If the existing arrangements are not > working, we first need to find out why before deciding how to fix the > problem(s). Creating a new WG or a Task Force (say) seems to be putting the > cart before the horse. Even more so when it's not clear what's broken or > needs to be fixed. > > Do you have any insight that the community's current activities in this > area are unsatisfactory? Can you explain how a new WG or whatever would > improve matters? > > > I do think it is important that RIPE responds to the report in some way, > otherwise RIPE will be considered as disinterested, and not necessarily > engaged in future dialogue. > > RIPE and the NCC are already engaged AFAICT. > > So IETF is (thus internet) is above the ?wire? and below the application. RIPE is a (big) RIR is delivering IP/AS: it is clearly in the realm described earlier and in the RIR policy stuff. Terrorism is an highly politicial content and behaviour based definition, it is way up the level of application. So it seems to me it is clearly not relevant to treat terrorism threat at the media level. Should the media be aware of the content? Yes, if like louis XIV you want to create patent for editing in order to censor the ideas. The printing was not responsible for the fall of monarchy, it was the ideas. You don't fight ideas by fighting the media that carries them. You fight them with education. For the record France is not a monarchy anymore and ?Colporteur? (alternative reseller of books printed in Holland) made the idea spread whatever the illusion of control the monarchy had. History repeats itself, you can try to control media to fight idea, but it is inefficient and counterproductive. Legit citizens that read the RIPE mailing list will at a moment or another blow the whistle regarding their concern of a techno censorship. I am disappointed by RIPE an organisation based in the country that so dearly protected the spread of ideas that were considered ?terrorists? by the monarchy, and a major actor in the ?Philosophie des Lumi?res? to side with the actual initiative for obscurantism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michieldeweger at centuryconsulting.nl Fri Feb 1 18:28:57 2013 From: michieldeweger at centuryconsulting.nl (Dr Michiel de Weger) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:28:57 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE response to Terrorist use of the Internet -CleanIT Message-ID: <0BF05B5C231542B495CD7C24520F6AEF.MAI@hostingenregistratie.nl> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Feb 12 23:02:33 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:02:33 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues Message-ID: <0BD5F6CF-D17B-4D7C-BD18-5C8BA2D9864F@frobbit.se> ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" ? Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to effectively countering and combatting spam. ? Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. ? Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to developmental aspects of the Internet. http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of the meeting: > Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico > > The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried out, in other organizations. > > The member states note the extensive work on policy development and procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to provide information to the CWG before conducting public consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. > > The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in existing multi-stakeholder fora. Patrik F?ltstr?m From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Feb 13 00:01:43 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:01:43 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues In-Reply-To: <0BD5F6CF-D17B-4D7C-BD18-5C8BA2D9864F@frobbit.se> References: <0BD5F6CF-D17B-4D7C-BD18-5C8BA2D9864F@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <511AC9D7.7030408@schiefner.de> Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the well-worded statement. However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? Thanks and best, Carsten On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public > Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" > > ? Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting > spam. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to effectively countering > and combatting spam. > > ? Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues > concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 > addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. > > ? Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to developmental aspects > of the Internet. > > http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx > > Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting > with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of > the meeting: > >> Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, >> United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico >> >> The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU >> conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to >> take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried >> out, in other organizations. >> >> The member states note the extensive work on policy development and >> procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder >> forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As >> proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to >> provide information to the CWG before conducting public >> consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. >> >> The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, >> including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in >> existing multi-stakeholder fora. > > Patrik F?ltstr?m From michele at blacknight.com Wed Feb 13 00:52:50 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon :: Blacknight) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:52:50 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues In-Reply-To: <20130212233031.091A133C3EC@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <0BD5F6CF-D17B-4D7C-BD18-5C8BA2D9864F@frobbit.se>, <20130212233031.091A133C3EC@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: And more importantly, what should we be doing? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://mneylon.tel/ 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 Carsten Schiefner [ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de] Sent: 12 February 2013 23:01 To: Patrik F?ltstr?m Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the well-worded statement. However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? Thanks and best, Carsten On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public > Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" > > ? Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting > spam. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to effectively countering > and combatting spam. > > ? Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues > concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 > addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. > > ? Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on > international public policy issues related to developmental aspects > of the Internet. > > http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx > > Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting > with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of > the meeting: > >> Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, >> United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico >> >> The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU >> conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to >> take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried >> out, in other organizations. >> >> The member states note the extensive work on policy development and >> procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder >> forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As >> proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to >> provide information to the CWG before conducting public >> consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. >> >> The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, >> including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in >> existing multi-stakeholder fora. > > Patrik F?ltstr?m From paf at frobbit.se Wed Feb 13 12:56:40 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:56:40 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues In-Reply-To: <511AC9D7.7030408@schiefner.de> References: <0BD5F6CF-D17B-4D7C-BD18-5C8BA2D9864F@frobbit.se> <511AC9D7.7030408@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <55348A73-8ABF-490A-8DA1-EE1DB18E2A12@frobbit.se> On 12 feb 2013, at 18:01, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? The ITU Council is a subset of the members of ITU where for example directions of ITU work, budget etc is discussed. You can see the members of the ITU Council here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx Now, compare that list with the list of countries that (so far) co-signed the text I just sent. Then ask yourself why some has not signed (yet) and what you can do to understand why they did not and then in the next step, get them to understand how important that and similar messages are. Do you think a country missing should have signed? For example, Germany, where you live, did not sign. If you think signing would have been a good thing, what can you do to fix that? Should you be worried? What are the implications that Germany did not sign? Was it just a mistake, and in reality Germany should have signed (lack of time, lack of the right person available)? The working groups they have are the ones mentioned on this page: http://www.itu.int/council/groups/index.html Patrik From paf at frobbit.se Wed Feb 13 12:58:23 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:58:23 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues In-Reply-To: References: <0BD5F6CF-D17B-4D7C-BD18-5C8BA2D9864F@frobbit.se>, <20130212233031.091A133C3EC@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: <1F593E01-10D8-41E1-8CDD-46F75E7E8908@frobbit.se> In your case I understand your largest frustration is that Ireland is so passive in general. So maybe your "what can I do" is different than people from countries that are active. I think personally that the Tunis Agenda is clear. Existing processes must be recognized, by ITU as well as by RIPE and IETF etc. So a text like the one I forwarded should already be "ok" for everyone. And that it is not is to me problematic. Patrik On 12 feb 2013, at 18:52, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > And more importantly, what should we be doing? > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://mneylon.tel/ > 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 Carsten Schiefner [ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de] > Sent: 12 February 2013 23:01 > To: Patrik F?ltstr?m > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy Issues > > Thanks, Patrik for the FYI. > > And thanks to Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, United > Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, and Mexico for the > well-worded statement. > > However, as I have failed to find a sufficient definition on ITU's > website: what is the ITU Council again, what is its role and function? > > Thanks and best, > > Carsten > > On 12.02.2013 23:02, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >> ITU Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public >> Policy Issues have an "Open consultation" >> >> ? Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting >> spam. >> >> The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public >> Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on >> international public policy issues related to effectively countering >> and combatting spam. >> >> ? Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues >> concerning IPv4 addresses. >> >> The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public >> Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on >> international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 >> addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. >> >> ? Issue 3: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. >> >> The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public >> Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on >> international public policy issues related to developmental aspects >> of the Internet. >> >> http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx >> >> Sweden did give together with a few other participants at the meeting >> with the CWG the following statement that was added to the minutes of >> the meeting: >> >>> Statement from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, >>> United Kingdom, United States of America, Finland, Canada, Mexico >>> >>> The above mentioned member states are of the view that, before ITU >>> conducts public consultation on IPv4 addresses, there is a need to >>> take into account the responsibilities of, and work already carried >>> out, in other organizations. >>> >>> The member states note the extensive work on policy development and >>> procedures already carried out in existing multi-stakeholder >>> forums, including the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). As >>> proposed in the meeting, the RIRs should have been invited to >>> provide information to the CWG before conducting public >>> consultation in order to avoid duplication of work. >>> >>> The member states are further of the view that all stakeholders, >>> including the ITU members, should be encouraged to participate in >>> existing multi-stakeholder fora. >> >> Patrik F?ltstr?m > > From paf at frobbit.se Wed Feb 13 15:32:25 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:32:25 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: ITU-T SG 2 meetings - summary References: <511B9776.60005@veni.com> Message-ID: Forwarded with permission from Veni Markovski. Veni wrote among other things: > It is worth to notice how the ITU plays the game of occupying more and more space from the I* organizations - starting with ad hoc groups, study groups, dedicated groups, ITRs, and - late next year - with the change in their mandate. > > I am afraid that there is no (easy) way out of this labyrinth. > > The IPv4 legacy was discussed also at the last Council Working Group on Internet, and is now open for public comments, see here: , namely: > > > ? Issue 2: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. > > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to (a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses. Patrik F?ltstr?m -------------- 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 Wed Feb 13 17:41:43 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:41:43 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New EU Cybersecurity Plan Message-ID: "EU Cybersecurity plan to protect open internet and online freedom and opportunity - Cyber Security strategy and Proposal for a Directive" http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/eu-cybersecurity-plan-protect-open-internet-and-online-freedom-and-opportunity-cyber-security From chrisb at ripe.net Wed Feb 20 15:43:27 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:43:27 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet Governance and the RIPE NCC: The Year Ahead Message-ID: <4206C49B-9966-4753-8948-0E7C70A21EFE@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We have just published an article on RIPE Labs that details some of the major Internet governance-related discussions currently taking place, as well as the RIPE NCC's priorities and activities in this area for the coming year. We encourage you to read the article and comment, either on RIPE Labs or on this mailing list. Feedback from the RIPE NCC membership and RIPE community is vital in shaping the RIPE NCC's position and strategy in relation to these issues. We also welcome any suggestions on how to improve the RIPE NCC's engagement with the public sector and other Internet stakeholders in your country or region. You can read the article in full at: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-the-year-ahead Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From chrisb at ripe.net Thu Feb 21 16:18:29 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:18:29 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC to Host Arab IGF MAG Meeting and Open Consultation Message-ID: <79CB9B8C-AAD0-4702-B164-3B5B666FC4BD@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We have posted a news item on www.ripe.net regarding the upcoming Arab IGF Open Consultation and Arab Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (AMAG) meeting, which will be hosted by the RIPE NCC and the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of the UAE. The two events will run from 3-5 March at the Radisson Royal Hotel in Dubai, UAE, with the AMAG meeting in closed sessions on 3 and 5 March and the Open Consultation on 4-5 March. Anyone with an interest is welcome to attend the Open Consultation, and remote participation facilities will also be available. The programme will also include a public session on ?Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance in the Arab World?, with speakers including ICANN President and CEO, Fadi Chehade, and Chairman of the ICANN Board, Steve Crocker. The RIPE NCC is honoured to be working with the UAE TRA and the Arab IGF Secretariat to facilitate the community-driven development of the 2013 Arab IGF agenda. Full details are online at: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/ripe-ncc-to-host-arab-igf-mag-meeting-and-open-consultation Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC