From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 1 12:38:53 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 12:38:53 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Changed copyright rules for orphaned work in UK? Message-ID: See this, might interest people on this list: 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 rhe at nosc.ja.net Wed May 1 12:46:18 2013 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:46:18 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Changed copyright rules for orphaned work in UK? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > See this, might interest people on this list: > > There is also a (more balanced?) opinion here: Rob From ripencc-management at ripe.net Wed May 1 16:31:35 2013 From: ripencc-management at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 16:31:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [news] RIRs Submit Remarks to ITU WTPF-13 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, On 29 April 2013, the RIPE NCC, as a sector member of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), formally submitted a document to the ITU Secretariat on behalf of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). The document addresses a range of issues that will be discussed at the upcoming ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum 2013 (WTPF-13): https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engagement/itu/rirs-submission-to-the-wtpf-13 In mid-April, various RIPE community members gave feedback on a draft of this document. It was updated ahead of its official submission and now includes more detailed information to address some of the opinions discussed by the Informal Expert Group (IEG) that was convened in preparation for the WTPF-13. An annex has been added outlining the efforts of the five RIRs to support the deployment of IPv6 and IPv6 capacity building. Representatives of all five RIRs will be present at WTPF-13 and, as always, are available for consultation on any of the points raised in this document, as well as any other aspects of RIR business. RIPE community members are encouraged to comment or raise questions on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC From maria at sunet.se Fri May 3 16:43:51 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 16:43:51 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Agenda for upcoming Cooperation WG - at RIPE 66 Message-ID: <71D4C5BC-5E81-458B-8DEA-403BD0FE2405@sunet.se> Hi all Coop WG colleagues See agenda for the session below. 1. RIPE NCC External Relations Update - Paul Rendek, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC 2. eID and Trust Services Regulation in the EU - Daphn? L?v?que, European Commission DG CONNECT 3. Building Cooperation with the Academic Networks Community - Maria H?ll, SUNET 4. Public/private Cooperation on Internet Issues: The Irish Experience - Michele Neylon, Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd 5. AOB See you at Cooperation WG session at RIPE 66, Thursday 16 May 11-12.30 Have a nice weekend! _________________________________ Best regards, Maria H?ll CEO/F?rest?ndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria at sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon May 6 09:42:36 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:42:36 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva Message-ID: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> Parallell with the RIPE Meeting in Dublin is the WTPF meeting in Geneva. We will on the Thursday get a report from RIPE NCC on what they have done and many of us do follow remotely very close what is happening. I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view. You can find other documents, all public, here: Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: S13-WTPF13-INF-0009!!MSW-E.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 74574 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Mon May 6 10:20:40 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:20:40 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> On 6 May 2013, at 08:42, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view. Thanks for this Patrik. It's all very well to look at these documents and perhaps comment on them here. But what should people do if they want to have their views heard where it would have the most impact? Should they make a trip to Geneva? Is the WTPF meeting open to non members? If not, how do non-ITU members get someone (who?) to make representations on their behalf? Would the NCC do this? How? Will the NCC even be at WTPF? What are the likely consequences of this WTPF meeting? Can it decide anything which influences or determines ITU policy, eg create a resolution that becomes a binding agenda item for the next plenipot or requires the ITU to set up a new study group? So many questions... I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone. From paf at frobbit.se Mon May 6 10:22:56 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:22:56 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On 6 maj 2013, at 10:20, Jim Reid wrote: > On 6 May 2013, at 08:42, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> I encourage everyone to, for example, have a look at this document and others that describe one view of the Internet that for example does not match my personal view. > > Thanks for this Patrik. It's all very well to look at these documents and perhaps comment on them here. But what should people do if they want to have their views heard where it would have the most impact? Should they make a trip to Geneva? Is the WTPF meeting open to non members? If not, how do non-ITU members get someone (who?) to make representations on their behalf? Would the NCC do this? How? Will the NCC even be at WTPF? They should write for example comments on this document and pass to whoever from their Government is going to Geneva. > What are the likely consequences of this WTPF meeting? Can it decide anything which influences or determines ITU policy, eg create a resolution that becomes a binding agenda item for the next plenipot or requires the ITU to set up a new study group? They can accept statements that then will be referenced in for example PP-14. > So many questions... > > I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone. Because governments do want to control for example IP address allocation, tie that to licensing, and use that in turn to control "what is information" and how that is allowed to flow within their state. Patrik From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon May 6 10:32:28 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 08:32:28 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear all, Sorry to intervene but I'm confused by a statement by Jim and I need to ask... >-----Original Message----- >From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg- >bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:21 AM >To: Patrik F?ltstr?m >Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva > Jim Reid: >I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that >issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone. Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so? Ciao, Andrea From paf at frobbit.se Mon May 6 10:37:34 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:37:34 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> On 6 maj 2013, at 10:32, wrote: >> Jim Reid: >> I wonder too why ITU is continuing to discuss Internet governance when that >> issue is supposed to be something they've to leave alone. > > Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so? My view is that any organisation that is to discuss Internet Governance is to follow the conclusion of WSIS in the form of the Tunis Agenda. Para 55 of the Tunis Agenda states: > 55. We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges. As long as an organisation is not recognizing this paragraph, i.e. does not recognize existing arrangements, private sector lead etc, there are problems. And I claim *that* is the problem with ITU. Not that ITU discuss IG issues. Of course they can. Just like anyone else. So to me, to answer your question, the decision was taken when the Tunis Agenda was agreed on. Patrik From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon May 6 10:48:30 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 08:48:30 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear Patrik, >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik F?ltstr?m [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:38 AM >To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) >Cc: jim at rfc1035.com; cooperation-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva >My view is that any organisation that is to discuss Internet Governance is to >follow the conclusion of WSIS in the form of the Tunis Agenda. Para 55 of the >Tunis Agenda states: > >> 55. We recognize that the existing arrangements for Internet governance >have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and >geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking >the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at >the edges. > >As long as an organisation is not recognizing this paragraph, i.e. does not >recognize existing arrangements, private sector lead etc, there are problems. > >And I claim *that* is the problem with ITU. Not that ITU discuss IG issues. Of >course they can. Just like anyone else. > >So to me, to answer your question, the decision was taken when the Tunis >Agenda was agreed on. Not that I like too much engaging in the hermeneutics of the Tunis Agenda, but if we quote Paragraph 55, then we should also quote other paragraphs, such as: ? 35: "We reaffirm that the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders and relevant intergovernmental and international organizations. In this respect it is recognized that [?] Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues [?]International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies" ? 58: "We recognize that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet." ? 60: "We further recognize that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" Before anyone asks: no, this does not mean that whatever the ITU claims to have as a role is what it should have. The European Commission, among others, made its position on the issue very clear, most recently in Dubai at the WCIT-12 Conference. But a statement such as "the ITU is supposed to leave Internet Governance alone" is perhaps a bit exaggerated. We (meaning Patrik and I) seem to agree on this particular point. Ciao, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Mon May 6 10:56:33 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:56:33 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: On 6 May 2013, at 09:32, wrote: > Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave alone"? And when / where was it decided so? The WSIS meeting in Tunis. Various ITU meetings and workshops. I'm fairly sure the last plenipot resolved to stop ITU mission creep on Internet governance too. IIUC, most Western governments have the view that Internet governance is best served by an open, multistakeholder institution. [ie Not the ITU.] So whenever the ITU tries to push for a more active role in this area, there's no consensus for it. Witness the recent discussion paper on how ITU-T could become an RIR or the proposals that were put forward at WCIT in Dubai last year. The latter provokes US Congress to unanimously pass a resolution that now appears to be a bill: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Text-HR-Affirm-US-Internet-Governance-2013-4-10.pdf. ITU is of course free to discuss Internet governance. Just as RIPE could discuss telephone numbering and tariffs. There doesn't seem to be much point to either of these things IMO. From jim at rfc1035.com Mon May 6 11:02:18 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:02:18 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <44C3E2F5-B46D-47F9-A050-5F4E220DDA4D@rfc1035.com> On 6 May 2013, at 09:48, Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu wrote: > But a statement such as "the ITU is supposed to leave Internet Governance alone" is perhaps a bit exaggerated. Andrea, you're reading into what I said something I did not write. So from that perspective, yes, it is a bit exaggerated. I should have said ITU is supposed to keep away from an operational role in Internet governance: for instance by issuing IP addresses or making policy on domain names or defining requirements for key Internet infrastructure such as root and TLD name servers. To pick a few examples at random.... It takes a lot longer to type all of that. So my original remark was somewhat offhand and terse. Just like me... From paf at frobbit.se Mon May 6 11:03:16 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 11:03:16 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <0AA5EFAF-C105-4EF2-9C74-43B7C300F213@frobbit.se> On 6 maj 2013, at 10:48, wrote: > Not that I like too much engaging in the hermeneutics of the Tunis Agenda, but if we quote Paragraph 55, then we should also quote other paragraphs, such as: This is why Tunis Agenda is not to be quoted in part, but as a whole (which was the Swedish opposition against Resolution 3 at WCIT). Patrik From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon May 6 11:11:21 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:11:21 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <0AA5EFAF-C105-4EF2-9C74-43B7C300F213@frobbit.se> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <0AA5EFAF-C105-4EF2-9C74-43B7C300F213@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0876@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear Patrik, >-----Original Message----- >From: Patrik F?ltstr?m [mailto:paf at frobbit.se] >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:03 AM >To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) >Cc: jim at rfc1035.com; cooperation-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva > >On 6 maj 2013, at 10:48, wrote: > >> Not that I like too much engaging in the hermeneutics of the Tunis Agenda, >but if we quote Paragraph 55, then we should also quote other paragraphs, >such as: > >This is why Tunis Agenda is not to be quoted in part, but as a whole (which >was the Swedish opposition against Resolution 3 at WCIT). We are in violent agreement that the Tunis Agenda should preferably not be quoted in part, although from time to time we might need to try and quote at least all parts of it which are relevant to a discussion (unless we want every time to write pages and pages of emails :) Ciao, Andrea From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon May 6 11:15:00 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:15:00 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B08B9@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear Jim, >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:57 AM >To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) >Cc: paf at frobbit.se; cooperation-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva > >On 6 May 2013, at 09:32, > wrote: > >> Why is Internet governance something that the "ITU is supposed to leave >alone"? And when / where was it decided so? > >The WSIS meeting in Tunis. Various ITU meetings and workshops. I'm fairly >sure the last plenipot resolved to stop ITU mission creep on Internet >governance too. Stopping "ITU mission creep" is not the same thing as the ITU "leaving alone" Internet governance. I already replied to Patrik for what concerns the WSIS conclusions. On WCIT-12, the positions are quite clear, so I won't repeat them here. Concerning the last ITU Plenipotentiary (Guadalajara, 2010) the Final Acts, and specifically Resolution 102, state that: "The Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union [...] resolves to explore ways and means for greater collaboration and coordination between ITU and relevant organizations involved in the development of IP-based networks and the future internet, through cooperation agreements, as appropriate, in order to increase the role of ITU in Internet governance so as to ensure maximum benefits to the global community" So, at least the Guadalajara ITU plenipotentiary does not seem to express a consensus that the ITU should cease to be involved in Internet governance - quite the contrary. >IIUC, most Western governments have the view that Internet governance is >best served by an open, multistakeholder institution. [ie Not the ITU.] So >whenever the ITU tries to push for a more active role in this area, there's no >consensus for it. Witness the recent discussion paper on how ITU-T could >become an RIR or the proposals that were put forward at WCIT in Dubai last >year. The latter provokes US Congress to unanimously pass a resolution that >now appears to be a bill: >http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/document >s/Text-HR-Affirm-US-Internet-Governance-2013-4-10.pdf. >ITU is of course free to discuss Internet governance. Just as RIPE could discuss >telephone numbering and tariffs. There doesn't seem to be much point to >either of these things IMO. Before the US started to discuss this Bill, and even before the ITU Plenipotentiary in Guadalajara took place, the European Commission adopted a Communication (a sort of "policy statement") in which it clearly stated its position on the preferred approach to Internet governance. It's COM(2009)277, "Internet governance: the next steps" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0277:FIN:EN:PDF). If you read that document, it will be clear that the European Commission certainly does not support a purely inter-governmental model to handle the many issues which you can put under the umbrella of "Internet governance". Perhaps unnecessary to state, but since I have had experiences of my words being twisted, I prefer to be redundant. However, it seems to me that the fact that the ITU might not have a mandate to deal with certain issues (e.g. allocation of Internet naming and numbering resources) does not mean that the ITU does not have a mandate to deal with other issues, whether in a coordinating role or otherwise, which can be classified as "Internet governance". Again and for the sake of clarity, the fact that the ITU claims that it does have a mandate on certain topics does not automatically mean that everyone, including the European Commission, should or will agree with it. Ciao, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon May 6 11:23:08 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:23:08 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva In-Reply-To: <44C3E2F5-B46D-47F9-A050-5F4E220DDA4D@rfc1035.com> References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <92312538-A693-4E4B-9027-1414A05B7DFD@frobbit.se> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0734@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <44C3E2F5-B46D-47F9-A050-5F4E220DDA4D@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B08FE@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear Jim, Sorry, I saw this email after I reacted to your previous one. >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] >Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:02 AM >To: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) >Cc: paf at frobbit.se; cooperation-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva > >On 6 May 2013, at 09:48, Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu wrote: > >> But a statement such as "the ITU is supposed to leave Internet Governance >alone" is perhaps a bit exaggerated. > >Andrea, you're reading into what I said something I did not write. So from that >perspective, yes, it is a bit exaggerated. I should have said ITU is supposed to >keep away from an operational role in Internet governance: for instance by >issuing IP addresses or making policy on domain names or defining >requirements for key Internet infrastructure such as root and TLD name >servers. To pick a few examples at random.... Thanks for the clarification. It is also the position of the European Commission that the operational aspects of Internet governance would not be well served by a top-down, purely inter-governmental system (see COM(2009) 277, which I mentioned in another email). (Let me however say that I do not believe I "read into what you said something you did not write". You made a clear statement that the ITU is supposed to "leave Internet governance alone". As Internet governance is a very broad notion that encompasses both operational and public policy aspects, this seemed to be rather exaggerated - independently of what my personal opinion on the role of ITU is, the fact remains that both the conclusions of the WSIS and of the Guadalajara Plenipotentiary conference, to mention just two well-known examples, give ITU a mandate to work on "Internet governance".) >It takes a lot longer to type all of that. So my original remark was somewhat >offhand and terse. Just like me... I appreciate that all statements - yours, mine, everyone else's - can be misinterpreted. This is why I asked for clarifications. Thanks for providing them! Ciao, Andrea From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon May 6 11:28:31 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:28:31 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva References: <92E0CF57-9421-4E00-91B6-130A5CAC5218@frobbit.se> <4ACDE7EA-ED59-44B1-B562-D2A125DE7A96@rfc1035.com> <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B065C@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D089600591D2B0963@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear all, Sorry for the extra email ? the last one I hope for today ? but I need to make an important clarification. _____________________________________________ From: GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:15 AM To: 'Jim Reid' Cc: paf at frobbit.se; cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [cooperation-wg] WTPF in Geneva Before the US started to discuss this Bill, and even before the ITU Plenipotentiary in Guadalajara took place, the European Commission adopted a Communication (a sort of "policy statement") in which it clearly stated its position on the preferred approach to Internet governance. It's COM(2009)277, "Internet governance: the next steps" (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0277:FIN:EN:PDF). If you read that document, it will be clear that the European Commission certainly does not support a purely inter-governmental model to handle the many issues which you can put under the umbrella of "Internet governance". Perhaps unnecessary to state, but since I have had experiences of my words being twisted, I prefer to be redundant. I did not mean to imply that anyone on this list has ever twisted my words. This is an experience I unfortunately had in other contexts, which has made me rather prudent and prone to quoting the official positions of the European Commission even when it results in longer emails? Ciao, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 9 17:23:22 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 17:23:22 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Agenda item on electronic identification and trust services Message-ID: <15C72EA0-49E7-4A27-9695-37B373A0BC0A@gmail.com> The European Commission has made a proposal for a Regulation "on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market" - COM(2012) 238 final. I am very pleased that the co-chairs have put this draft regulation on the agenda and that indeed Andrea Servida, who is responsible in DG Connect for the Task Force ?Legislation Team (eIDAS)?, will make a presentation. While I most certainly do not wish to prejudge what Andrea will say I think a bit of "marketing" might be useful - to explain a bit more why I personally think this regulation is of importance to the RIPE community now. So let me start with a bit of "EU 101". At its simplest the Commission proposes legislation, after obviously having consulted and reflected and so on, and it is then for the Council (the member states directly) and the Parliament to possibly modify and then adopt the legislation. There are then three basic instruments open to the Commission. There is the Directive which once agreed at the EU level, is normally transposed into national law. That means further discussion at the national level. There is the Regulation which become EU legislation on adoption. There is the Decision which is directed towards a specific member state or entity. This proposed Regulation is to an extent a follow-on and replacement for a previous Directive - 1999/93/EC on a "Community framework for electronic signatures". It seems agreed that the signatures Directive did not fully deliver. This Regulation will replace that "e-signature Directive" from 1999 - and nullify the previously transposed legislation? In the press release for this proposal European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said "People and businesses should be able to transact within a borderless Digital Single Market, that is the value of Internet. Legal certainty and trust is also essential, so a more comprehensive eSignatures and eIdentification Regulation is needed. ... This proposal will mean you can make the most of your e-ID, if you have one. With mutual recognition of national e-IDs and common standards for trust services and eSignatures, we can prevent a national carve-up of the Internet and online public services and make life easier for millions of businesses and even more citizens. " So the proposal has been made by the Commission and it is currently being discussed in Council and in Parliament. I have had though a variety of conversations recently about the proposal and they have thrown up a number of concerns. The proposal seems complex and different people seem to take quite different things away from it. This is perhaps linked to questions about the scope of the regulation. There are perhaps two main dimensions to regarding the scope. First there are the actors and users. Is it only about the public sector? Is it about the public sector and a particular bit of the private sector or any bit of the private sector, in the EU or elsewhere, that might find it useful? Or will the private sector be specifically precluded from using some of the services? Secondly the range of services. The regulation includes a number of definitions: electronic identification; electronic identification means; electronic identification scheme; signatory; electronic signature; advanced electronic signature; qualified electronic signature; electronic signature creation data; certificate; qualified certificate for electronic signature; trust service; qualified trust service; trust service provider; qualified trust service provider; product; electronic signature creation device; qualified electronic signature creation device; creator of a seal; electronic seal; advanced electronic seal; qualified electronic seal; electronic seal creation data; qualified certificate for electronic seal; electronic time stamp; qualified electronic time stamp; electronic document; electronic delivery service (including proof of sending or receiving the data); qualified electronic deliver service; qualified certificate for website authentication; validation data. There are then articles on notification, coordination and liability, and on supervision, mutual assistance and security requirements, and so on. And all this has to be read keeping in mind that legislators like to have "technology neutral" text and not to refer to specific standards for example. There two other things I would draw to your attention though. One is fairly explicit in the proposal and that is that the regulation when adopted will confer on the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts. This kind of thing is not that unusual. But some see this, in this instance, as adding an additional degree of uncertainty, leaving some things unclear. The other is the issue of "agreed text". Any legislation in the coming years - and that can be 10-15 years or more in this case - and anywhere in the EU will be effectively constrained by these definitions for things like electronic signature and electronic seal and so on. Again this is quite normal. But you need to be aware of it. I hope all that means that many of you will be there for a productive WG session in Dublin with good questions for Andrea after his presentation. I look forward to seeing you there. In the meantime, thanks again to the co-chairs and to Andrea for agreeing to speak. F?ilte go Baile ?tha Cliath, Gordon From paf at frobbit.se Sun May 19 14:15:55 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 14:15:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] My summary of discussion on COM(2012) 238/2 Message-ID: <806BAD04-99F0-4659-B47E-0C38BE2B607C@frobbit.se> My summary of the discussion is positive, although when you read the below it sounds negative. Yes, I am worried personally about the proposed regulation, but that has been the case for months -- and increased worried I am after the meeting Thursday. I am though optimistic the question whether I should be worried, or no longer, can be resolved as many people said they will now help looking at the proposal. So yes, concerned, very concerned, but also happy finally discussion starts. So, discussions related to the proposed regulation COM(2012) 238/2 has started also in the organisations and areas which develop protocol and operational practices for the Internet. This happened previous week at the RIPE meeting that took place in Dublin. After some discussions with the EU Commission it was clear they could not participate on site, but on video. Quite irritating I must say that Commission that do issue (basis for) legislation that is quite specific without participating directly in the multi stakeholder discussions that exists on these topics. Last time I had this kind of discussion with COM it was related to the future of E.164 numbers in Europe. You can see a summary of the discussion including exchange of letters here: Last time I find COM did participate actively on technical matters was when Per Blixt did come to a RIPE meeting and not only participated but also listened. Andrea Glorioso, Linda Corugedo Steneberg and others have participated in discussions related to Internet Governance of course, although as much in the RIPE community as elsewhere (ICANN, EuroDIG for example). So COM did not send a person this time either, but Andrea Servida that is one of the main persons related to the proposed regulation participated via a video conference. He presented and also responded to questions. Which of course was better than nothing. My view of the situation *before* the meeting you can find here . You can find slides used for the cooperation working group here . The ones interesting are the ones from Andrea Servida and the one from Patrik F?ltstr?m named "Article 5". At you can see video, transcripts and more. In short, Andrea in my eyes confirmed the proposed regulation is not only about e-ID but much more general and related to all different kind of validation of who one communicate with. Not only e-ID but also "what web site one communicate with". This in turn to many in the room have impact on the models built for Internet at the moment using technologies like RPKI and DNSSEC which are directions there is broad consensus about. Due to the discussions RIPE NCC has decided to investigate whether it is true that the regulation MIGHT have impact on DNSSEC, RPKI or federated identity systems. The review will be done in a number of steps, all so that incremental results can be delivered as there is a lack of time regarding sending feedback to the European Parliament and Council where the proposal is currently discussed. Several country representatives (in a broad meaning), including SE, UK, DE and USA has contacted me and asked what my position is, and as a non-lawyer of course I can not say definitely. The good thing is that finally people do connect this proposed regulation with Internet. Something I claim COM has not done. Because the largest problem is once again that COM has developed a text without participating in the processes that exists for technical development. This implies people do not disagree with the over all problem statement, but to the proposed solution of the problem. When then objecting, it is as if one disagree with the problem existing. A summary of the situation is that the solution that is proposed is that in a combination of Brussels and Member States it is explicitly decided who are to be trust providers, and further that those trust providers must be trusted for various services that require among other things age, citizenship, residency and more (once again, according to Brussels/Member States). A different solution, which is more "modern" and also deployed, is that different systems do require different levels and kind of security. In some areas those are called "federations". Then for each such federation there is a combined certification and accreditation process by which the providers can be approved. Parties can then trust whoever they want as long as they have passed this audit. Decision of trust stays with whoever takes the risk. And here we have not started looking at the questions on the sovereignty member states of EU has in relationship with each other, and the built in contradiction between this and the interest in free movement of goods and services. Or the fact the proposed regulation define for example the following terms (as found by Gordon -- thanks): electronic identification; electronic identification means; electronic identification scheme; signatory; electronic signature; advanced electronic signature; qualified electronic signature; electronic signature creation data; certificate; qualified certificate for electronic signature; trust service; qualified trust service; trust service provider; qualified trust service provider; product; electronic signature creation device; qualified electronic signature creation device; creator of a seal; electronic seal; advanced electronic seal; qualified electronic seal; electronic seal creation data; qualified certificate for electronic seal; electronic time stamp; qualified electronic time stamp; electronic document; electronic delivery service (including proof of sending or receiving the data); qualified electronic deliver service; qualified certificate for website authentication; validation data. I have no idea whether anyone have checked the definition of these terms to see how they match or not match the general view in the world, and for example matches the definitions used in for example trade discussions between EU and USA, within OECD and/or WTO. Anyway, at last the discussion has started, and the first answers on the landscape should come from RIPE NCC that time should have read the document with a lawyers eyes. And we can know whether we should continue to be worried, or whether this is something that indeed is not impacting what is happening on the Internet. 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 Mon May 20 20:19:54 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 20:19:54 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for expressions of interest - Network and Information Security Message-ID: <82C632C6-96CF-49CD-A42D-611C614B8F09@gmail.com> The Commission will launch the Network and Information Security (NIS) Public-Private Platform on 17 June 2013. The output of the platform will feed into the Commission recommendations on cybersecurity across the value chain to be adopted in 2014. Interested stakeholders are invited to express their interest in participating in the platform before 24 May 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-?-call-expression-interest From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Tue May 21 10:09:54 2013 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:09:54 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for expressions of interest - Network and Information Security In-Reply-To: <82C632C6-96CF-49CD-A42D-611C614B8F09@gmail.com> References: <82C632C6-96CF-49CD-A42D-611C614B8F09@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Gordon, Thanks, I think this is important. I expressed interest to participate earlier as it was announced that the European Public-Private Partnership for Resilience (EP3R) will cease to exist, i.e. it will be subsumed in this NIS platform. I received a thank you and was told: 'As specified in the notice published on our website the Commission will select the platform participants with a view to ensuring a balanced and manageable representation of the different stakeholders.' Whatever that means... And regarding the follow-up: 'After 24 May deadline for expression of interest, the selected participants will be notified in advance of the first meeting of the NIS platform.' Regards, -Bastiaan On May 20, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > The Commission will launch the Network and Information Security (NIS) Public-Private Platform on 17 June 2013. The output of the platform will feed into the Commission recommendations on cybersecurity across the value chain to be adopted in 2014. Interested stakeholders are invited to express their interest in participating in the platform before 24 May 2013. > > http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-?-call-expression-interest > > > > From paf at frobbit.se Tue May 21 10:55:17 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:55:17 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for expressions of interest - Network and Information Security In-Reply-To: References: <82C632C6-96CF-49CD-A42D-611C614B8F09@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5840CC1D-A7EF-4951-B836-46B902FA184A@frobbit.se> Gordon, What is the relationship between this and the NIS directive? The NIS-directive that Sweden have objected to. Does the objection of the NIS directive from Sweden lead to anything? Patrik On 21 maj 2013, at 10:09, Bastiaan Goslings wrote: > Hi Gordon, > > Thanks, I think this is important. > > I expressed interest to participate earlier as it was announced that the European Public-Private Partnership for Resilience (EP3R) will cease to exist, i.e. it will be subsumed in this NIS platform. > > I received a thank you and was told: > > 'As specified in the notice published on our website the Commission will select the platform participants with a view to ensuring a balanced and manageable representation of the different stakeholders.' > > Whatever that means... > > And regarding the follow-up: > > 'After 24 May deadline for expression of interest, the selected participants will be notified in advance of the first meeting of the NIS platform.' > > Regards, > -Bastiaan > > On May 20, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> The Commission will launch the Network and Information Security (NIS) Public-Private Platform on 17 June 2013. The output of the platform will feed into the Commission recommendations on cybersecurity across the value chain to be adopted in 2014. Interested stakeholders are invited to express their interest in participating in the platform before 24 May 2013. >> >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/nis-public-private-platform-?-call-expression-interest >> >> >> >> > > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue May 21 15:14:17 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:14:17 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for expressions of interest - Network and Information Security In-Reply-To: <5840CC1D-A7EF-4951-B836-46B902FA184A@frobbit.se> References: <82C632C6-96CF-49CD-A42D-611C614B8F09@gmail.com> <5840CC1D-A7EF-4951-B836-46B902FA184A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <2D7FB385-588C-4A74-8957-62577716998C@gmail.com> As far as DG CONNECT is concerned I would suggest that such questions could most usefully be put to Paul Timmers, the Director responsible for the "Sustainable and Secure Society" directorate. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/blog/how-build-trust-digital-world Or perhaps Giuseppe Abbamonte, the Head of Unit for "Trust and Security". Gordon On 21 May, 2013, at 10:55, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Gordon, > > What is the relationship between this and the NIS directive? The NIS-directive that Sweden have objected to. Does the objection of the NIS directive from Sweden lead to anything? > > Patrik From chrisb at ripe.net Mon May 27 09:51:58 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:51:58 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on the ITU WTPF-13 References: <450EFB26-5773-4747-BDF3-2E90D02354B5@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4C5A32E0-061F-4F06-90FB-1D40EAF2BDCD@ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicates] Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a report on the recent ITU World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-13): https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-report-on-the-itu-wtpf-13 Any comments or questions are welcome on the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From patrik at frobbit.se Tue May 28 09:42:59 2013 From: patrik at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:42:59 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg Message-ID: <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F@frobbit.se> All, As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod started to work much more operationally with Internet related issues. This includes many things covered by the cooperation wg, like immediate proposed legislative things. But this change have had impact on the amount of time I have on administrative issues, and the time I have I must primarily spend on my position as chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN. This does not imply any kind of decrease in Netnod support of, and my participation in, RIPE processes, and I do notice explicitly you did like the coffee in the breaks in Dublin :-) I have mentioned this upcoming decision of mine to my co-chair Maria H?ll, and also to the contact persons at RIPE NCC, so I hope they are not (too) surprised. So, you will still see me around, first with a report from me and Athina related to the proposed regulation that was presented and discussed in Dublin. I hope we will be ready early next week. Regards, Patrik From roland at perry.co.uk Wed May 29 16:18:08 2013 From: roland at perry.co.uk (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:18:08 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg In-Reply-To: <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F@frobbit.se> References: <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F@frobbit.se> Message-ID: In message <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F at frobbit.se>, at 09:42:59 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Patrik F?ltstr?m remarked: >As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod And Maria also moved jobs, so now's the time for the RIPE community to decide if this government/industry WG should be recruiting new talent. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a criticism of Maria's move, nor her personal capabilities, but I think the WG should have a co-chair who is still on the government (ministry/regulator) side of the fence. People move jobs, they change their responsibilities; we should recognise that. -- Roland Perry From michele at blacknight.com Wed May 29 17:44:00 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon :: Blacknight) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:44:00 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg In-Reply-To: <20130529153750.CBFB55A4010@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F@frobbit.se>, <20130529153750.CBFB55A4010@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Well it would be helpful to know who is actually in this group to start with Also I'd be wary of setting restrictions on who should / shouldn't be chair / co-chair, as participation levels in general are usually pretty low .. -- 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 Roland Perry [roland at perry.co.uk] Sent: 29 May 2013 15:18 To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg In message <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F at frobbit.se>, at 09:42:59 on Tue, 28 May 2013, Patrik F?ltstr?m remarked: >As some of you know I have in my move of jobs from Cisco to Netnod And Maria also moved jobs, so now's the time for the RIPE community to decide if this government/industry WG should be recruiting new talent. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a criticism of Maria's move, nor her personal capabilities, but I think the WG should have a co-chair who is still on the government (ministry/regulator) side of the fence. People move jobs, they change their responsibilities; we should recognise that. -- Roland Perry From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 29 17:46:53 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:46:53 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Resignation as co-chair of he cooperation wg In-Reply-To: References: <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F@frobbit.se>, <20130529153750.CBFB55A4010@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: On 29 maj 2013, at 17:44, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote: > Well it would be helpful to know who is actually in this group to start with > > Also I'd be wary of setting restrictions on who should / shouldn't be chair / co-chair, as participation levels in general are usually pretty low .. FWIW, I have not just run away...I have talked with a few people in or connected to governments but so far I have not managed to get anyone really interested in being a co-chair. So, we definitely need one new person replacing me, and I agree getting one working for a government or very very close to one, would be preferred. But I agree with Michele, that having "rules" would not be good. We should evaluate people on whether we think they would be good co-chairs. Patrik From jim at rfc1035.com Wed May 29 18:03:42 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:03:42 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] a new co-chair for the wg In-Reply-To: References: <42C4053A-41B4-4CEA-B03A-EBA94A36729F@frobbit.se>, <20130529153750.CBFB55A4010@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: <031CC663-A5B8-4BFE-BEBB-930A89A17D22@rfc1035.com> On 29 May 2013, at 16:44, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote: > Also I'd be wary of setting restrictions on who should / shouldn't be chair / co-chair To be fair, I doubt Roland was suggesting that. IMO he's right: it would be best if the vacancy was filled by someone who is on the government side of the fence. That's of course for the WG to decide. And it's no reflection on Maria or her new job either. Since this WG's mostly about co-operation with goverment, someone who is from the government side would be an ideal choice to complement Maria's experience and excellent range of contacts. We are trying to bring these people into RIPE and facilitate dialogue. A new co-chair who isn't up to speed on how government/regulators work would probably not help that approach.