From mike at smashing.net Fri Nov 1 18:51:19 2013 From: mike at smashing.net (Mike Hughes) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:51:19 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 29 October 2013 17:32, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you > are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not > mistaken. > Any more news on this? Cheers, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chrisb at ripe.net Mon Nov 4 15:02:19 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:02:19 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF Message-ID: <3F77A545-FB65-4D94-86EB-D5A756ABB2F4@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this year?s theme of ?Building Bridges ? Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.? Several members of the RIPE NCC?s staff and Senior Management attended, along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as speakers in a number of the workshops. Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised together with Netnod): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource Organisation): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organisation): http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 Anne-Rachel Inn?, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis for the secretariat and future meetings. The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC?s participation at the IGF in 2014 via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. Best regards Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From michele at blacknight.com Mon Nov 4 15:39:34 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:39:34 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF In-Reply-To: <20131104140214.97D8133C34D@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131104140214.97D8133C34D@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Chris Thanks for the update Regards Michele On 4 Nov 2013, at 14:02, Chris Buckridge wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this year?s theme of ?Building Bridges ? Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development.? > > Several members of the RIPE NCC?s staff and Senior Management attended, along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. > > Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as speakers in a number of the workshops. > > Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: > > Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised together with Netnod): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 > > IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 > > Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 > > Anne-Rachel Inn?, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis for the secretariat and future meetings. > > The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC?s participation at the IGF in 2014 via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. > > Best regards > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions ? Hosting & Domains ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.co http://blog.blacknight.com/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From meredithrachel at google.com Mon Nov 4 20:15:44 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:15:44 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on the 2013 IGF In-Reply-To: <3F77A545-FB65-4D94-86EB-D5A756ABB2F4@ripe.net> References: <3F77A545-FB65-4D94-86EB-D5A756ABB2F4@ripe.net> Message-ID: Chris, thanks so much for the rundown. I was also at IGF, and can attest to the meaningful contribution of the RIPE folks on the ground. IGF is an odd event, but it's also one of the few (or, the only?) places of its kind, a place where government, civil society, and the technical community show up and attempt a debate on very tricky issues. What has been missing in the past (in my assessment) has been a clearer voice from the research and technical community. This year's IGF was heartening in that there was more open dialog, and more input from people who understood the technology implicated by specific policies, and more openness to hear this input. Thanks agin to RIPE and the other technical folks for this. Implied, I would love to see RIPE and others continue to balance the debate with data and research from the people who know the Internet as a complex system, not as a "series of fluffy clouds." As next year approaches, I'd love to work with Chris and others to see what we can do to expand what RIPE's already doing, bringing more science, more data, more facts to IGF :) Cheers, Meredith On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Chris Buckridge wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > The eighth Internet Governance Forum (IGF) took place in Bali, Indonesia > from 22-25 October 2013. The event brought together more than 1,500 people > from 111 countries to discuss the future of Internet governance under this > year?s theme of ?Building Bridges ? Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Cooperation > for Growth and Sustainable Development.? > > Several members of the RIPE NCC?s staff and Senior Management attended, > along with two members of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. Working in close > cooperation with the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), we > participated in workshops on IXPs, security, measurements, regional > cooperation and IPv4 transfer markets. > > Additionally, the RIPE NCC sponsored two members of the RIPE community, > Merike Kaeo and Nick Hilliard, to travel to Bali and participate as > speakers in a number of the workshops. > > Reports and session transcripts for the three workshops the RIPE NCC was > involved in organising can be found on the IGF website: > > Internet Security Through Multi-stakeholder Cooperation (organised > together with Netnod): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=63 > > IPv4 Markets and Legacy Space (organised by the Number Resource > Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=49 > > Importance of Regional Cooperation in Internet Governance (Organised by > the Number Resource Organisation): > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/report_view.php?xpsltipq_je=50 > > Anne-Rachel Inn?, AFRINIC COO, spoke at the closing ceremony on behalf of > the Internet technical community. Looking back at a successful event, she > noted that there is a further need for enhanced cooperation between > different stakeholders at both the global and regional levels. She also > highlighted the importance of the IGF as a place to discuss important and > delicate issues amongst the different stakeholder groups. Hoping to > maintain the open and collaborative spirit of Internet cooperation, she > stressed the need to further strengthen the IGF, and called on all > stakeholders to help in providing a stable and sustainable financial basis > for the secretariat and future meetings. > > The next IGF will be held in early September 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey. We > welcome any input regarding the RIPE NCC?s participation at the IGF in 2014 > via the Cooperation Working Group mailing list. > > Best regards > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 00:50:36 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:50:36 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> <526299B8.2050708@inex.ie> Message-ID: <6BAAC1B1-7842-4192-9FA7-F36DD7090BFD@gmail.com> Here is a pointer to some work that is being done elsewhere: https://wiki.netzfreiheit.org/w/Net_neutrality_regulation_amendments Regards, Gordon From maria at sunet.se Tue Nov 5 16:40:26 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:40:26 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Cooperation WG co-chairs - proposal Message-ID: <49B0609D-BB4F-4E5A-8201-17D2432E1332@sunet.se> Dear Colleagues, Firstly, let me apologise for not sending a message of action on this issue. I have not been fully online due to a sad situation in my family where a young family member unexpectedly passed away some days ago. As a current co-Chair of this working group, I have reviewed the messages sent to the Coop WG list and I am very pleased to see that we have four wonderful candidates that have expressed their interest to serve as co-Chair. Each Candidate has sent an introduction mail explaining their reasons for standing as a co-Chair. We have the following candidates confirmed: Alain van Gaever, Ofcom Erika Hersaeus, The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS Meredith Whittaker, Google Niall O'Reilly, IT Services Unit at University College Dublin To date, there is no set procedure to select working group Chairs, this is open to the working group to decide. I would like to have the co-Chairs installed as soon as possible (before the Warsaw meeting) that means that a consensus decision needs to be made on this list. I believe this is possible without the overhead of organising an online voting process. For efficiency reasons I think that this WG should not have more than three co-chairs. That would be sufficient in case one of us would not be able to physically attend a meeting as well as for continuity of this WG in case one of us would step down. Please remember that the bulk of the work needs to be done by the actual working group participants and not only the co-Chairs. And that is also the way things have been working before and still do. Moving forward, I propose that we select two new co-chairs to be a reflection of the broader community in RIPE. As I noted from discussions on the list, I see support for co-chairs coming from a government and industry background that would complement me, with my current affiliation to academia. After considering all the candidates? backgrounds, sector affiliation, country diversity and experience in the Internet Governance space, I propose to this working group to have Alain van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker to be the co-chairs and ask for your full support in this proposal. In a moment, I will send a separate, more formal, mail to this list asking the WG to formally show their support to approve these candidates. I thank all of you for your enthusiasm and commitment to this WG and hope that we continue the productive discussions and exchange of information and identify areas where this WG and the RIPE community can contribute. Warm Regards, Maria H?ll co-chair RIPE Cooperation WG CEO 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 maria at sunet.se Tue Nov 5 16:45:56 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:45:56 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposal - co-chairs RIPE Cooperation Working Group Message-ID: <16FED6CD-99D9-4661-AB96-4CB56A001D95@sunet.se> Dear Colleauges, As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. Regards, Maria H?ll co-chair Cooperation WG CEO 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 gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 16:59:21 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 16:59:21 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: <6BAAC1B1-7842-4192-9FA7-F36DD7090BFD@gmail.com> References: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> <526299B8.2050708@inex.ie> <6BAAC1B1-7842-4192-9FA7-F36DD7090BFD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3417F62C-3298-4A2A-8971-3900CE36303F@gmail.com> Another view: "Help: EU Net Neutrality Consultation Closes Today Published 08:15, 05 November 13 As you may recall, back in September the European Commission finally came out with its proposals for net neutrality, part of its larger "Connected Continent" package designed to complete the telecoms single market. I learned yesterday that the European committee responsible for this area,ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy), has launched something of a stealth consultation on these proposals. Stealth, because neither I nor anyone else that I know covering this area, was aware of them, which is pretty bizarre. Unfortunately, that consultation closes at the end of business today. That means we have very little time to comment, although speaking to the people running the consultation, I get the impression that they won't apply the deadline too strictly if you let them know that something will be coming through a little late. There is no formal document outlining the terms of the consultation - just bring up the points you think important. Submissions should be sent to elina.kaartinen at europarl.europa.eu and/or peter.traung at europarl.europa.eu. Here's what I've written: ...." http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/11/please-help-eu-net-neutrality-consultation-closes-today/index.htm From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Tue Nov 5 20:29:11 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:29:11 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposal - co-chairs RIPE Cooperation Working Group In-Reply-To: <16FED6CD-99D9-4661-AB96-4CB56A001D95@sunet.se> References: <16FED6CD-99D9-4661-AB96-4CB56A001D95@sunet.se> Message-ID: <00B76794-A20D-41F9-9F7B-0F5BC05CD763@ucd.ie> On 5 Nov 2013, at 15:45, Maria H?ll wrote: > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. I support this proposal. Niall O'Reilly From rhe at nosc.ja.net Tue Nov 5 21:34:36 2013 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 12:34:36 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposal - co-chairs RIPE Cooperation Working Group In-Reply-To: <16FED6CD-99D9-4661-AB96-4CB56A001D95@sunet.se> References: <16FED6CD-99D9-4661-AB96-4CB56A001D95@sunet.se> Message-ID: <5279565C.2020307@nosc.ja.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Maria, > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus > on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs > of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed > candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. With no reflection on the candidates that didn't make it other than their experience and involvement overlaps with yours, whereas the successful candidates complement it, I support this. Regards, Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSeVZSAAoJEMV8176q01J4k/cIAKMePe6hDxnQHG8yrt6RGY9L uilf4pLF4tgNBcYF+xLuulVsAWEZJD2+X1rNuHEIcofbexP+zLtGh+4qMDHCB//v VlAT3dtemOfs0d1H1YKNdxiVGMT7Tu/zc56mARkjsrkb0Hhi2/NhUC8XckDO8REA BR9E/DMy9hPoBziK66rulz8d21JA5QyDZz1Sbz3jT1VT30/h7ZPDq1DpbrzLFV6S +ccAbLJEoMkp7S/eFaMPxUWvxCxuP+2b5WTF6gplUvHBp+O/TU9erDrvSyO5WGh9 NVX2h6khUUiBz9T8sCIBUKkDkt3ozRJx42V0MtG8josK9G3DBk+/+rWHmPexNdA= =RQ+Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 17:26:32 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 17:26:32 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF Message-ID: I have been sharing this Internet draft by Pete Resnick with various people and getting very positive feed-back which has encouraged me to share more widely: Title : On Consensus and Humming in the IETF Author(s) : Pete Resnick Filename : draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-10-04 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/msg53974.html The text is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 It is a useful read for anyone who is looking for consensus in our kind of environment. Regards, Gordon @ Vancouver From rlb at ipv.sx Wed Nov 6 18:03:18 2013 From: rlb at ipv.sx (Richard Barnes) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 09:03:18 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. --Richard On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I have been sharing this Internet draft by Pete Resnick with various > people and getting very positive feed-back which has encouraged me to share > more widely: > > Title : On Consensus and Humming in the IETF > Author(s) : Pete Resnick > Filename : draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2013-10-04 > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i-d-announce/current/msg53974.html > > The text is available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 > > It is a useful read for anyone who is looking for consensus in our kind of > environment. > > Regards, > > Gordon @ Vancouver > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at inex.ie Wed Nov 6 18:04:54 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:04:54 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. > In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? -n From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Nov 6 20:01:32 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:01:32 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> References: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> Message-ID: On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) From nihb at netflix.com Wed Nov 6 22:01:30 2013 From: nihb at netflix.com (Nina Bargisen) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 22:01:30 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi there I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other participants? Rgds Nina Bargisen Netflix European Network Strategy mobile: +45 21287438 email: nihb at netflix.com Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten : > Thanks for this clear summary. > > I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. > > Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. > > Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package > Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. > > Wouter > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > For more information on the proposal consult EC website > > > > On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" wrote: > >> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. >> >> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. >> >> ------- >> >> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. >> >> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! >> >> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. >> >> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. >> >> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. >> >> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. >> >> So now we have a new proposed regulation. >> >> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. >> >> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: >> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? >> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? >> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? >> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services >> ** ... and so on >> >> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm >> >> But the "communication" is probably better: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 >> >> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single >> >> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. >> >> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs >> >> ------ >> >> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: >> >> Brussels, 11.9.2013 >> COM(2013) 627 final >> 2013/0309 (COD) >> >> Proposal for a >> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL >> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic >> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives >> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) >> No 531/2012 >> >> <> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half >> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of >> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, >> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This >> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to >> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast >> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers >> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, >> and one spectrum policy.>> >> >> <> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new >> types of online services.>> >> >> <> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with >> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and >> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the >> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting >> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider >> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based >> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in >> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster >> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A >> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore >> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply >> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> >> >> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made >> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP >> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network >> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the >> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified >> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> >> >> >> ----- >> >> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. >> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! >> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. >> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? >> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. >> >> ----- >> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: >> >> <> >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. >> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. >> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >> >> ---- >> >> So suggestions. >> >> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. >> >> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. >> >> I think a discussion here would be much better. >> >> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: >> >> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. >> >> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. >> >> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. >> >> Enough for now? >> >> Gordon >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect-bof mailing list >> connect-bof at ripe.net >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof >> > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rlb at ipv.sx Wed Nov 6 22:30:52 2013 From: rlb at ipv.sx (Richard Barnes) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:30:52 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF > consensus. > >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? > > I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) Before this gets too meta... the document has passed IETF last call, and I believe is currently in the process of resolving comments. --Richard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu Wed Nov 6 19:24:23 2013 From: Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu (Leaning, Richard) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 18:24:23 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) Message-ID: As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. Regards, Maria H?ll co-chair Cooperation WG CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria at sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se Dear Maria, Both these nominations have my support. Cheers Dick Richard leaning Cyber Community Engagement European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) Europol Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu +31 638769131 ******************* DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. ******************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wouter at vanhulten.com Thu Nov 7 08:03:41 2013 From: wouter at vanhulten.com (Wouter van Hulten) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 07:03:41 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You?re very welcome to join. For now, it?s Alain, Joy, and Wouter. From: Nina Bargisen > Date: Wednesday 6 November 2013 23:01 To: Wouter van Hulten > Cc: Gordon Lennox >, "connect-bof at ripe.net" >, "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission Hi there I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other participants? Rgds Nina Bargisen Netflix European Network Strategy mobile: +45 21287438 email: nihb at netflix.com Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten >: Thanks for this clear summary. I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. Wouter http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. For more information on the proposal consult EC website On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" > wrote: Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. ------- The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. So now we have a new proposed regulation. I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm But the "communication" is probably better: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs ------ So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: Brussels, 11.9.2013 COM(2013) 627 final 2013/0309 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 <> <> <> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> ----- So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. The second point says an awful lot in a few words! The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. ----- Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: <> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html ---- So suggestions. I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. I think a discussion here would be much better. If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. ** or a community input with the help of NCC. One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. Enough for now? Gordon _______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof at ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof _______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof at ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Thu Nov 7 09:19:49 2013 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:19:49 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79B07B57-7007-451F-873C-4645616E1324@ams-ix.net> Unless there are others with a more direct stake here, I'd like to volunteer and attend the meeting. Thanks, and with regards Bastiaan -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 16 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > You?re very welcome to join. > For now, it?s Alain, Joy, and Wouter. > > > From: Nina Bargisen > Date: Wednesday 6 November 2013 23:01 > To: Wouter van Hulten > Cc: Gordon Lennox , "connect-bof at ripe.net" , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Hi there > > I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other participants? > > Rgds > > Nina Bargisen > > Netflix > European Network Strategy > mobile: +45 21287438 > email: nihb at netflix.com > > > Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten : > >> Thanks for this clear summary. >> >> I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. >> >> Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. >> >> Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package >> Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent >> >> What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. >> That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. >> >> Wouter >> >> >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >> Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website >> >> >> >> On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" wrote: >> >>> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. >>> >>> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. >>> >>> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! >>> >>> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. >>> >>> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. >>> >>> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. >>> >>> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. >>> >>> So now we have a new proposed regulation. >>> >>> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. >>> >>> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: >>> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? >>> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? >>> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? >>> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services >>> ** ... and so on >>> >>> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm >>> >>> But the "communication" is probably better: >>> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 >>> >>> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: >>> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single >>> >>> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. >>> >>> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: >>> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: >>> >>> Brussels, 11.9.2013 >>> COM(2013) 627 final >>> 2013/0309 (COD) >>> >>> Proposal for a >>> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL >>> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic >>> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives >>> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) >>> No 531/2012 >>> >>> <>> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half >>> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of >>> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, >>> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This >>> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to >>> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast >>> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers >>> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, >>> and one spectrum policy.>> >>> >>> <>> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new >>> types of online services.>> >>> >>> <>> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with >>> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and >>> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the >>> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting >>> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider >>> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based >>> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in >>> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster >>> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A >>> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore >>> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply >>> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> >>> >>> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made >>> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP >>> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network >>> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the >>> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified >>> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. >>> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! >>> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. >>> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? >>> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. >>> >>> ----- >>> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: >>> >>> <>> >>> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. >>> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >>> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. >>> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> >>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> So suggestions. >>> >>> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. >>> >>> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. >>> >>> I think a discussion here would be much better. >>> >>> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: >>> >>> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. >>> >>> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. >>> >>> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. >>> >>> Enough for now? >>> >>> Gordon >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect-bof mailing list >>> connect-bof at ripe.net >>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect-bof mailing list >> connect-bof at ripe.net >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof > > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > connect-bof at ripe.net > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof From paf at frobbit.se Thu Nov 7 10:08:07 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:08:07 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <143B0D0C-6E00-40F6-9D04-4552FAE4EB1A@frobbit.se> I support. Patrik On 6 nov 2013, at 19:24, Leaning, Richard wrote: > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > Regards, > > Maria H?ll > co-chair Cooperation WG > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > Email: maria at sunet.se > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > Web: www.sunet.se > > > Dear Maria, > > Both these nominations have my support. > > Cheers > > Dick > > Richard leaning > Cyber Community Engagement > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > Europol > > Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu > +31 638769131 > > ******************* > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > ******************* -------------- 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 nihb at netflix.com Thu Nov 7 10:14:38 2013 From: nihb at netflix.com (Nina Bargisen) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:14:38 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <143B0D0C-6E00-40F6-9D04-4552FAE4EB1A@frobbit.se> References: <143B0D0C-6E00-40F6-9D04-4552FAE4EB1A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: +1 Nina On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > I support. > > Patrik > > On 6 nov 2013, at 19:24, Leaning, Richard < > Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu> wrote: > > > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on > appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE > Cooperation WG. > > > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed > candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > > > Regards, > > > > Maria H?ll > > co-chair Cooperation WG > > > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > > Email: maria at sunet.se > > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > > Web: www.sunet.se > > > > > > Dear Maria, > > > > Both these nominations have my support. > > > > Cheers > > > > Dick > > > > Richard leaning > > Cyber Community Engagement > > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > > Europol > > > > Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu > > +31 638769131 > > > > ******************* > > > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for > the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not > use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents > or rely upon the information contained in it. > > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant > e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by > Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > > > ******************* > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Thu Nov 7 10:26:02 2013 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 10:26:02 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <143B0D0C-6E00-40F6-9D04-4552FAE4EB1A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: +1from me too -Bastiaan On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Nina Bargisen wrote: > +1 > > Nina > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > I support. > > Patrik > > On 6 nov 2013, at 19:24, Leaning, Richard wrote: > > > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > > > Regards, > > > > Maria H?ll > > co-chair Cooperation WG > > > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > > Email: maria at sunet.se > > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > > Web: www.sunet.se > > > > > > Dear Maria, > > > > Both these nominations have my support. > > > > Cheers > > > > Dick > > > > Richard leaning > > Cyber Community Engagement > > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > > Europol > > > > Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu > > +31 638769131 > > > > ******************* > > > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. > > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > > > ******************* > > From nick at inex.ie Thu Nov 7 10:56:05 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:56:05 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <527B63B5.5060008@inex.ie> Looks good to me. Nick On 06/11/2013 18:24, Leaning, Richard wrote: > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on > appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE > Cooperation WG. > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed > candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > Regards, > > Maria H?ll > co-chair Cooperation WG > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > Email: maria at sunet.se > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > Web: www.sunet.se > > > Dear Maria, > > Both these nominations have my support. > > Cheers > > Dick > > Richard leaning > Cyber Community Engagement > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > Europol > > Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu > +31 638769131 > > ******************* > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for > the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not > use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents > or rely upon the information contained in it. > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant > e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by > Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > ******************* -- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick at inex.ie From Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se Thu Nov 7 14:56:09 2013 From: Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se (Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:56:09 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <143B0D0C-6E00-40F6-9D04-4552FAE4EB1A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Dear all, Both have my support! Kind regards, Erika -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr?n: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] F?r Bastiaan Goslings Skickat: den 7 november 2013 10:26 Till: Nina Bargisen Kopia: Bastiaan Goslings; cooperation-wg at ripe.net; Leaning, Richard; Patrik F?ltstr?m ?mne: Re: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) +1from me too -Bastiaan On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Nina Bargisen wrote: > +1 > > Nina > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > I support. > > Patrik > > On 6 nov 2013, at 19:24, Leaning, Richard wrote: > > > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > > > Regards, > > > > Maria H?ll > > co-chair Cooperation WG > > > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > > Email: maria at sunet.se > > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > > Web: www.sunet.se > > > > > > Dear Maria, > > > > Both these nominations have my support. > > > > Cheers > > > > Dick > > > > Richard leaning > > Cyber Community Engagement > > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > > Europol > > > > Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu > > +31 638769131 > > > > ******************* > > > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. > > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > > > ******************* > > From gert at space.net Thu Nov 7 13:44:37 2013 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:44:37 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF In-Reply-To: References: <527A76B6.5010600@inex.ie> Message-ID: <20131107124437.GS81676@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:01:32PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. > >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? > I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) We'll go along with it anyway! Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Thu Nov 7 16:00:30 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:00:30 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> All - anyone willing to take the lead for this? Best, -C. On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > Hello. > > Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" > and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message > below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the > wider French Internet community. > > > Best regards, > Niall O'Reilly From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 19:29:09 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:29:09 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / human rights. Gordon On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > All - > > anyone willing to take the lead for this? > > Best, > > -C. > > On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" >> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message >> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the >> wider French Internet community. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Niall O'Reilly > From paf at frobbit.se Thu Nov 7 20:35:24 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:35:24 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> May I for domain blocking with the help of DNS also recommend reading of SSAC document SAC-050 and SAC-056: Patrik F?ltstr?m SSAC Chair On 7 nov 2013, at 19:29, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / human rights. > > Gordon > > On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > >> All - >> >> anyone willing to take the lead for this? >> >> Best, >> >> -C. >> >> On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" >>> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message >>> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the >>> wider French Internet community. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Niall O'Reilly >> > > -------------- 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 meredithrachel at google.com Thu Nov 7 21:53:38 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:53:38 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> Message-ID: A bit +1 to Niall's call for sharing more technical clarity with policymakers (and the world). This seems like a very positive direction for this group. An overall suggestion -- I think it would make sense to frame such as document as an examination of content blocking (pertinent social issue whose importance is clear to people who may not know what DNS is). After announcing the scope, we then enumerate the technical issues (explain DNS!) and methods and concerns. I.e. create a technical guide to a politically/socially relevant issue, making it easier for non-experts to recognize its importance, and recognize how to profitably connect the information contained to pending decisions (etc.). With that, I would be happy to help whoever leads pull together a draft, but I don't have the expertise to lead drafting. Cheers, Meredith On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > May I for domain blocking with the help of DNS also recommend reading of > SSAC document SAC-050 and SAC-056: > > > > Patrik F?ltstr?m > SSAC Chair > > On 7 nov 2013, at 19:29, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in > Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / > human rights. > > > > Gordon > > > > On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner > wrote: > > > >> All - > >> > >> anyone willing to take the lead for this? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> -C. > >> > >> On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >>> Hello. > >>> > >>> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue > between governments and the technical community" > >>> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder > whether the report I mention in the message > >>> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the > DNS technical community and certain parts of the > >>> wider French Internet community. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Niall O'Reilly > >> > > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Fri Nov 8 00:05:01 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:05:01 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> Message-ID: > On 7 Nov 2013, at 20:53, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > An overall suggestion -- I think it would make sense to frame such as document as an examination of content blocking (pertinent social issue whose importance is clear to people who may not know what DNS is). After announcing the scope, we then enumerate the technical issues (explain DNS!) and methods and concerns. I.e. create a technical guide to a politically/socially relevant issue, making it easier for non-experts to recognize its importance, and recognize how to profitably connect the information contained to pending decisions (etc.). Good idea! I suggest starting by examining the documents already mentioned (by Dima, Patrik, Jaap and me), one or more of which may already match the need, or come close. I know that the AFNIC doc was prepared with a view to being accessible to policy-makers rather than just technical experts. I have to confess that I am not yet familiar with the others. Let's not invent more of this wheel than we have to! VBR Niall From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 00:08:08 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:08:08 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72D63713-7BBD-4BAF-A400-3AAEFD32B422@gmail.com> EU Parliament threat to knife new telecoms rules Monica Horten Published on 07 November 2013 Not quite murder on the dance floor, but murder in the committees, according to one observer. It looks like the European Parliament could take a knife to parts of the proposed Telecoms Regulation (Connected Continent) if not its entirety.Iptegrity has followed the discussion in two committees this week ? IMCO and ITRE - and it was abundantly clear that the Parliament does not like this proposal. Not quite murder perhaps, but elements of the proposal could be killed off. The Parliament is accusing the Commission of failing to consult, rushing the timing, and overall making something of dogs breakfast, the full title of which is the 'Proposal on a European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent'l. One target for removal is the Commission?s attempt at what looks market consolidation. ..... http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/telecoms-package/net-neutrality/918-eu-parliament-threat-to-knife-new-telecoms-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl Fri Nov 8 07:42:01 2013 From: denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl (Wout de Natris) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 07:42:01 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 (or actually +2) from me, Wout - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - De Natris Consult Raaphorst 33 Tel: +31 648388813 2352 KJ Leiderdorp Skype: wout.de.natris denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl http://www.denatrisconsult.nl Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com > From: cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 9 > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:53:45 +0100 > > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: (no subject) (Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se) > 2. Re: [connect-bof] On Consensus and Humming in the IETF > (Gert Doering) > 3. Re: DNS-based filtering (Carsten Schiefner) > 4. Re: DNS-based filtering (Gordon Lennox) > 5. Re: DNS-based filtering (Patrik F?ltstr?m) > 6. Re: DNS-based filtering (Meredith Whittaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:56:09 +0000 > From: > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) > To: , > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net, Richard.Leaning at europol.europa.eu, > paf at frobbit.se > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear all, > > Both have my support! > > Kind regards, > Erika > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr?n: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] F?r Bastiaan Goslings > Skickat: den 7 november 2013 10:26 > Till: Nina Bargisen > Kopia: Bastiaan Goslings; cooperation-wg at ripe.net; Leaning, Richard; Patrik F?ltstr?m > ?mne: Re: [cooperation-wg] (no subject) > > +1from me too > > -Bastiaan > > > On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Nina Bargisen wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Nina > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > I support. > > > > Patrik > > > > On 6 nov 2013, at 19:24, Leaning, Richard wrote: > > > > > As explained in my previous email, I would like to reach consensus on appointing Alan van Gaever and Meredith Whittaker as co-Chairs of the RIPE Cooperation WG. > > > > > > Please respond with your support or any objections for the proposed candidates no later than 3 weeks from the date of this email. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Maria H?ll > > > co-chair Cooperation WG > > > > > > CEO SUNET - Swedish University Network > > > Email: maria at sunet.se > > > Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 > > > Web: www.sunet.se > > > > > > > > > Dear Maria, > > > > > > Both these nominations have my support. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > Richard leaning > > > Cyber Community Engagement > > > European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3) > > > Europol > > > > > > Richard.leaning at europol.europa.eu > > > +31 638769131 > > > > > > ******************* > > > > > > DISCLAIMER : This message is sent in confidence and is only intended for the named recipient. If you receive this message by mistake, you may not use, copy, distribute or forward this message, or any part of its contents or rely upon the information contained in it. > > > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the relevant e-mails from any computer. This message does not constitute a commitment by Europol unless otherwise indicated. > > > > > > ******************* > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:44:37 +0100 > From: Gert Doering > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] On Consensus and Humming > in the IETF > To: Jim Reid > Cc: Richard Barnes , "connect-bof at ripe.net" > , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > > Message-ID: <20131107124437.GS81676 at Space.Net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:01:32PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 6 Nov 2013, at 17:04, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > > > On 06/11/2013 17:03, Richard Barnes wrote: > > >> One thing to keep in mind: This document does not yet have IETF consensus. > > >> In fact, opinions I've heard are pretty varied. > > > > > > yes, have they been adequately addressed by the author? > > I'm not sure if there's consensus on that. :-) > > We'll go along with it anyway! > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 826 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131107/9f0eb7be/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 16:00:30 +0100 > From: Carsten Schiefner > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <527BAB0E.5020305 at schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > All - > > anyone willing to take the lead for this? > > Best, > > -C. > > On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > Hello. > > > > Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" > > and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message > > below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the > > wider French Internet community. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 19:29:09 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering > To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Cc: Carsten Schiefner > Message-ID: <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / human rights. > > Gordon > > On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > > > All - > > > > anyone willing to take the lead for this? > > > > Best, > > > > -C. > > > > On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >> Hello. > >> > >> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" > >> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message > >> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the > >> wider French Internet community. > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Niall O'Reilly > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:35:24 +0100 > From: Patrik F?ltstr?m > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering > To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" , Carsten > Schiefner > Message-ID: <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C at frobbit.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > May I for domain blocking with the help of DNS also recommend reading of SSAC document SAC-050 and SAC-056: > > > > Patrik F?ltstr?m > SSAC Chair > > On 7 nov 2013, at 19:29, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / human rights. > > > > Gordon > > > > On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > > > >> All - > >> > >> anyone willing to take the lead for this? > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> -C. > >> > >> On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >>> Hello. > >>> > >>> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" > >>> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message > >>> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the > >>> wider French Internet community. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Niall O'Reilly > >> > > > > > > -------------- 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 : https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131107/6bcb6cd8/attachment-0001.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:53:38 -0500 > From: Meredith Whittaker > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering > To: Patrik F?ltstr?m > Cc: Gordon Lennox , Carsten Schiefner > , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > A bit +1 to Niall's call for sharing more technical clarity with > policymakers (and the world). This seems like a very positive direction for > this group. > > An overall suggestion -- I think it would make sense to frame such as > document as an examination of content blocking (pertinent social issue > whose importance is clear to people who may not know what DNS is). After > announcing the scope, we then enumerate the technical issues (explain DNS!) > and methods and concerns. I.e. create a technical guide to a > politically/socially relevant issue, making it easier for non-experts to > recognize its importance, and recognize how to profitably connect the > information contained to pending decisions (etc.). > > With that, I would be happy to help whoever leads pull together a draft, > but I don't have the expertise to lead drafting. > > Cheers, > Meredith > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > > May I for domain blocking with the help of DNS also recommend reading of > > SSAC document SAC-050 and SAC-056: > > > > > > > > Patrik F?ltstr?m > > SSAC Chair > > > > On 7 nov 2013, at 19:29, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > > > I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in > > Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / > > human rights. > > > > > > Gordon > > > > > > On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner > > wrote: > > > > > >> All - > > >> > > >> anyone willing to take the lead for this? > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> -C. > > >> > > >> On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > >>> Hello. > > >>> > > >>> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue > > between governments and the technical community" > > >>> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder > > whether the report I mention in the message > > >>> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the > > DNS technical community and certain parts of the > > >>> wider French Internet community. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Niall O'Reilly > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131107/a6dc2283/attachment.html > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 23, Issue 9 > ********************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marcoh at ripe.net Fri Nov 8 07:53:26 2013 From: marcoh at ripe.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:53:26 +0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <96818975-0902-453C-9B28-043633EB209E@ripe.net> Hi Meredith, Just to chime in, that would certainly be a very useful document to have. As I am sure a lot of you are aware, but for those who are not. The IAB/IETF is currently also looking into this topic, with a draft document that looks at all the technical considerations for filtering, the text of which can be found at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-filtering-considerations Grtx, MarcoH On Nov 8, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > A bit +1 to Niall's call for sharing more technical clarity with policymakers (and the world). This seems like a very positive direction for this group. > > An overall suggestion -- I think it would make sense to frame such as document as an examination of content blocking (pertinent social issue whose importance is clear to people who may not know what DNS is). After announcing the scope, we then enumerate the technical issues (explain DNS!) and methods and concerns. I.e. create a technical guide to a politically/socially relevant issue, making it easier for non-experts to recognize its importance, and recognize how to profitably connect the information contained to pending decisions (etc.). > > With that, I would be happy to help whoever leads pull together a draft, but I don't have the expertise to lead drafting. > > Cheers, > Meredith > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > May I for domain blocking with the help of DNS also recommend reading of SSAC document SAC-050 and SAC-056: > > > > Patrik F?ltstr?m > SSAC Chair > > On 7 nov 2013, at 19:29, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> I have already been talking to folk in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on this, among other things. Their focus is on cross-border / human rights. >> >> Gordon >> >> On 7 Nov, 2013, at 16:00, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> >>> All - >>> >>> anyone willing to take the lead for this? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -C. >>> >>> On 30.10.2013 11:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" >>>> and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message >>>> below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the >>>> wider French Internet community. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Niall O'Reilly >>> >> >> > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Fri Nov 8 08:57:17 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:57:17 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering: Sources In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <527C995D.8070405@schiefner.de> Morning, all - On 08.11.2013 00:05, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > Let's not invent more of this wheel than we have to! let's see what we have so far: Niall / AFNIC: http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/6584/show/the-afnic-scientific-council-shares-its-report-on-dns-based-internet-filtering.html Jaap, paf / SSAC: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-056-en.pdf Richard, Marco / IAB: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-04 Dima: http://rkn.gov.ru/docs/Analysys_and_recommendations_comments_fin.pdf http://rkn.gov.ru/press/speech/news19960.htm [both in Russian] Carsten / eco, German ISPA: [yet to be dug up] Best, -C. From dburk at burkov.aha.ru Fri Nov 8 10:19:40 2013 From: dburk at burkov.aha.ru (Dmitry Burkov) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:19:40 +0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering: Sources In-Reply-To: <527C995D.8070405@schiefner.de> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> <527C995D.8070405@schiefner.de> Message-ID: On 08 Nov 2013, at 11:57, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Morning, all - > > On 08.11.2013 00:05, Niall O'Reilly wrote: >> Let's not invent more of this wheel than we have to! > > let's see what we have so far: > > Niall / AFNIC: > http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/6584/show/the-afnic-scientific-council-shares-its-report-on-dns-based-internet-filtering.html > > Jaap, paf / SSAC: > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-056-en.pdf > > Richard, Marco / IAB: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-filtering-considerations-04 this text should be updated - a lot of editor's mistakes > > Dima: > http://rkn.gov.ru/docs/Analysys_and_recommendations_comments_fin.pdf > http://rkn.gov.ru/press/speech/news19960.htm > [both in Russian] ofcom analysys document can be used but carefully - I can't agree with some points http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/foi/2011/october/1-186872101-attachment1.pdf > > Carsten / eco, German ISPA: > [yet to be dug up] > > Best, > > -C. > From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Fri Nov 8 14:55:33 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:55:33 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering: Sources In-Reply-To: <527C995D.8070405@schiefner.de> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <527BAB0E.5020305@schiefner.de> <5C08C362-0AD6-426A-A2B5-51E277B2A05A@gmail.com> <6FAFA412-FB21-4738-8B82-9472593D0D3C@frobbit.se> <527C995D.8070405@schiefner.de> Message-ID: <527CED55.3020305@schiefner.de> All, On 08.11.2013 08:57, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Carsten / eco, German ISPA: > [yet to be dug up] no URLs, but PDFs - please find them attached. Best, -C. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20100521 Backgrounder_Blocking EU_ENGPartII.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 106752 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20100521 Backgrounder_Blocking_Techniken_ENG_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 83818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wim at centr.org Mon Nov 11 08:00:19 2013 From: wim at centr.org (Wim Degezelle) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:00:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [cooperation-wg] CENTR opinion on the NIS Directive Message-ID: <032501cedeab$b28fb760$17af2620$@org> Dear All CENTR has published its opinion on the Draft Directive concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union (NIS Directive): http://www.centr.org/CENTR_opinion_on_EU_NIS_directive The opinion welcomes the focus of the draft Directive on enabling a culture of security and trust but expresses concern that the text moves away from enabling the development of a security framework, in favour of a prescriptive, regulatory environment. Draft Directive on NIS http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_directive_en.pdf The draft Directive is currently being discussed by the European Parliament and the Member States' Representatives in Brussels. Parliament and Council are expected to finalise their opinions by the first months of 2014. If there is agreement between both opinions, the new legislation could still be accepted before next year's European elections, and in such a scenario, has to be transposed into national law by 2016. Kind Regards Wim signature2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 15818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From patrik at frobbit.se Mon Nov 11 12:49:43 2013 From: patrik at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:49:43 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Swedish Parliament decision on one unified market for telecom Message-ID: <9B4E5B58-EC24-4605-9D2A-5AF70F54DF4A@frobbit.se> The Swedish Parliament Thursday last week decided that they do believe the suggested regulation do go too far related to the subsidiary principle and will send a letter to Brussels regarding the matter. In Swedish: Longer background, also in Swedish: Patrik From avangaev at gmail.com Tue Nov 12 09:43:40 2013 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:43:40 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Debriefing of meeting with Members of the European Parliament on 11/11/13 Message-ID: Yesterday, on the 11th of November we went to the European Parliament to discuss the proposed Single Market Regulation (COM(2013) 627 final ) and meet with 2 Members of the European Parliament, namely: - Pilar Del Castillo and http://www.pilardelcastillo.es - Marietje Schaake http://www.marietjeschaake.eu Present from our side: ? Wouter van Hulten, wouter at vanhulten.com ? Alain Van Gaever, co-chair-elect RIPE Cooperation WG, avangaev at gmail.com ? Bastiaan Goslings, bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net ? Gordon Lennox gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com ? Joy Marino, chair Milan Internet Exchange j.marino at mix-it.net ? Nina Bargisen, nihb at netflix.com ? Innocenzo Gemma, inno at innogenna.it (observer) On the agenda: the following items related to the Single Market Regulation were discussed - Assured Service Quality (ASQ) ? proposal - Net Neutrality - Depeering practices - Engagement with the community of IP experts (Link to the draft Regulation: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single ) Most relevant Articles: Art.19, Art.23, Art.24 Short debriefing of the meeting: 1. ASQ: we expressed our concerns that the introduction of the Assured Service Quality is a ?solution in search of a problem?. That it is not needed. And that this ASQ-proposal would be harmful to the evolution and innovative power of the Internet. MEP Del Castillo informed us that the ASQ-related articles would be removed in the draft she would send for translation next Thursday. 2. Net Neutrality: we expressed our concerns that given the importance of this topic it should not be rushed through. While a consensus could not be achieved (given the difficulty of the topic and the short time frame available this is hardly surprising) MEP Del Castillo seemed to suggest that she would strengthen the ?non discriminatory ? principle in the Regulations. 3. De-peering: The importance of peering and the European model of IXPs was highlighted. Concerns were expressed regarding the situation in Italy where Telecom Italia is de-peering. It was noted that ?de-peering? is an issue which is more relevant in other legislative/regulatory instruments and is not part of the proposed Single Market Regulation (relevant instruments are: Review of Relevant markets, DG Comp investigations). We explained that the European model of peering is currently being copied in the US, under the Open-IX initiative. MEP Del Castillo mentioned she would highlight this issue with her colleague MEP Trautmann. Further information would be welcomed. 4. We stressed the importance of engaging with the EU institutions, including of course the European Parliament, and our collective willingness to do so. It is important that the Internet community is heard when proposed regulation, which affects the functioning of the Internet, is being developed and discussed. Next Steps: 1. MEP Del Castillo?s text will go to translation this Thursday 14 November. Suggestions are still welcome. If you will submit feedback, please ensure you provide them in the form of proposed modifications to the current text, and with a justification why this change is needed. For those who want to engage individually, the MEP contact details can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96945/MARIETJE_SCHAAKE_home.htmland http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28390/PILAR_DEL+CASTILLO+VERA_home.html Moving forward / Recommendations 1. This time we were faced with particularly short time-frames between proposed legislation ?leaving? the Commission and then being debated in Council and Parliament. It is however also more difficult in general correcting many things once they have been drafted and agreed by the Commission. We should therefore try and engage sooner in the legislative process. This means ideally before any legislation is actually proposed (i.e. talking directly to the European Commission). It is believed that Commission officials would welcome views from the Internet community. We should therefore start to establish a list of interlocutors and contacts so we could provide appropriate expertise. We should also seek to establish a view on what the Commission is going to do - in terms of their own forward planning. 2. Feedback and comment on any and all of this is most welcome on the list mailto:cooperation-wg at ripe.net Alain Van Gaever -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat Nov 16 13:52:54 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:52:54 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> "The European Commission's proposal on harmonising electronic communications services across the EU will unduly limit internet freedom, says the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). In his Opinion, the EDPS welcomes the inclusion of the principle of net neutrality - the impartial transmission of information on the internet ? in the text, but also said that it is devoid of substance because of the almost unlimited right of providers to manage internet traffic. " https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/PressNews/Press/2013/EDPS-2013-10_eComms_EN.pdf https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2013/13-11-14_Electronic_Communications_EN.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Nov 17 18:23:14 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:23:14 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance Message-ID: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> A sort of conversation seem to be starting and I am not sure where it will take us. It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council. You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: "What is the situation we have decided to change: The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, will present an EU vision for Internet governance as part of the overall internet strategy. The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables. The complexity of the current multi stakeholder approach to Internet Governance has to be further developed in a comprehensible manner so as to ensure inclusiveness of all actors. The establishment of GIPO will contribute to this. ..." http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/connect/en/content/international-internet-governance-and-management-eu So they want to reform the multi-stakeholder set-up? And by the way I am intrigued by the mention of "enhanced coordination". That always had a special EU meaning and that was not what people, perhaps naively, thought. Meanwhile ICANN is also busy. Steve Crocker writes: "As anyone who has followed the global discourse on Internet governance knows, the multistakeholder model is under threat. Some governments have expressed a clear interest in putting multilateral organizations in charge of Internet policymaking. As the Internet has taken on a larger role in the economy and society, some governments have grown increasingly uncomfortable with their perceived lack of control. More recently, ICANN has received requests to expand its remit to address issues beyond the coordination of the Internet?s unique identifiers. This we will not do. The ICANN Board recognizes that the single, open, global, interoperable Internet is under threat of failing due to emerging pressures on multistakeholder governance. As a consequence, the Board gave the ICANN CEO a mandate to work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition to evaluate and participate in the formation a movement or initiative for an Internet cooperation agenda. We are pleased with his initial engagement with the Internet organizations and the broader multistakeholder community. ..." http://blog.icann.org/2013/11/icanns-mandate-to-preserve-and-enhance-multistakeholder-internet-cooperation/ Watch this space? Gordon From nick at inex.ie Sun Nov 17 19:01:52 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 18:01:52 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote: re: DG CONNECT's statement: > The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and > streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory > Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in > producing concrete deliverables. the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF meeting in Bali in October. I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view. So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety of valid and important points of view. This allows the people who are tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions. There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum will be lost. Nick From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Nov 17 20:51:58 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:51:58 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853 at gmail.com>, at 18:23:14 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and >Council. > >You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: > >"What is the situation we have decided to change: > >The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all >actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. That says to me "we don't understand it, can someone please explain it better". Keeping the same staff on the job for more than year or two might help, of course. >We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced >coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. I'm not aware that anyone is actively seeking to prevent their participation, or even actively seeking to prevent a greater participation. -- Roland Perry From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Nov 17 20:55:45 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:55:45 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> Message-ID: In message <52890490.4040205 at inex.ie>, at 18:01:52 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard writes >the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF >meeting in Bali in October. > >I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make >any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart >thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the >attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, >etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to >approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of >people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view. That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all. -- Roland Perry From nick at inex.ie Mon Nov 18 00:03:00 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:03:00 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> Message-ID: <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie> On 17/11/2013 19:55, Roland Perry wrote: > That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's > understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before > they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all. I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in practice. Nick From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Nov 18 09:06:55 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:06:55 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie> Message-ID: In message <52894B24.2060309 at inex.ie>, at 23:03:00 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard writes >> That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's >> understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed before >> they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all. > >I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing >something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in practice. I have a "general theory of big meetings" that the first one (of any particular flavour) you go to unprepared is always a bit of a surprise, and you spend much of the time finding out how it all works, who is in charge, and what the mechanisms are for making a meaningful contribution. Quite a bit of that experience can be passed on to future novices, and thanks for doing so. -- Roland Perry From meredithrachel at google.com Mon Nov 18 21:21:51 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:21:51 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie> Message-ID: Thanks for sharing. I would echo and amplify Nick's statement. While those acclimated to the "big meeting multi-stakeholder Internet governance model" have a clear grasp on its utility, and its boundaries, this isn't well understood even a few feet outside this world. As in, I recently explained it to a number of veteran engineers who, while familiar with NANOG and other such venues, had no real knowledge or understanding of IGF, ITU, et al.. This experience has been repeated enough that I take it to be indicative of a broader lack of understanding. Illuminating this more clearly, even if it's repetition, could only help. As a first step, it would make sense to highlight how governments (EC, here) can participate. And not simply how, but that their participation is crucial and incredibly valuable. What I read here (and in many similar statements) is a concern that there are areas of policy "that we're as government are supposed to control." There's a worry that by legitimizing some vague process they cede control, and this threatens the relevance of office and (of course) dreams of personal success. This may seem "touchy-feely," but I believe it's fundamental to understanding the stakes, and how to influence. I think it would also be salutary to shift framing a bit: emphasizing that "multistakeholderism" (a term that has got to go, btw) isn't simply a series of large meetings that cost a lot of money to attend and whose impact can't be easily quantified. M'holderism is *a model for engagement that recognizes a foundational truth about the Internet: it doesn't' work in a way that serves the world without the participation of a number of disparate constituents. O*perators, governments, end-users, software developers, standards bodies...on and on...all of them must have a voice in order to ensure productive decision making. Engaging all of these parties in discussion and debate is messy and unprecedented, but without engagement we risk decisions that, through ignorance or malice or both, misunderstand fundamental properties and thus endanger what we're all working to preserve. Gordon, do you have a sense of who is already working with the commission to raise these and similar concerns, and whether (and where) added input from the RIPE community could be helpful? Cheers, Meredith On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <52894B24.2060309 at inex.ie>, at 23:03:00 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013, > Nick Hilliard writes > > That has been the IGF mission statement, and everyone involved's >>> understanding, since 2006. I'm sorry no-one brought you up to speed >>> before >>> they sent you to Bali. I hope it didn't hamper your mission at all. >>> >> >> I knew well in advance, but there's a huge difference between knowing >> something in theory and realising first-hand how important it is in >> practice. >> > > I have a "general theory of big meetings" that the first one (of any > particular flavour) you go to unprepared is always a bit of a surprise, and > you spend much of the time finding out how it all works, who is in charge, > and what the mechanisms are for making a meaningful contribution. > > Quite a bit of that experience can be passed on to future novices, and > thanks for doing so. > -- > Roland Perry > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nurani at netnod.se Tue Nov 19 08:24:41 2013 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:24:41 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> Message-ID: <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> On 17 nov 2013, at 19:01, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 17/11/2013 17:23, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > re: DG CONNECT's statement: > >> The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and >> streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory >> Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in >> producing concrete deliverables. > > the RIPE NCC kindly sponsored travel/hotel expenses for me to go to the IGF > meeting in Bali in October. > > I was initially puzzled that there was an explicit intention not to make > any decisions there, but it quickly became clear that this was a very smart > thing to do. The result was an unusually open atmosphere considering the > attendee spread - civil society, lawmakers, regulatory people, politicians, > etc. Pretty much everyone was on equal footing, and that made it easy to > approach people or to be approached. Most importantly, the majority of > people were enthusiastic about understanding other peoples' points of view. > > So although the IGF does not produce concrete deliverables - I assume this > means anything ranging from policy documents to legal agreements - it > produces something much more valuable, namely a better quality > understanding of the issues surrounding internet governance from a variety > of valid and important points of view. This allows the people who are > tasked by our societies to create laws and regulations, to do so on a much > more informed basis from a wider cross-section of opinions. > > There is no doubt in my mind that if the IFG meeting is changed to create a > requirement for "concrete deliverables", this critical feature of the forum > will be lost. Hear hear. It would also mean that it puts governments in the position of negotiating the outcome of the IGF which has several implications. It takes away the open-ended nature of the discussions and the free and open exchange of ideas. Governments (and in part the rest of us too) will have to defend their positions as the outcomes of the IGF will have to be considered or even implemented in their countries. Once you have agreed text, a country can't just decide that they want to ignore it. It also moves the discussions away from focusing on real issues, to negotiating paragraphs and words. I have been in those types of UN meetings, and believe me, it is not a particularly satisfying process. (Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the thought of such negotiations.) While I can see that in some international negotiations (say peace negotiations?), the slowness of that process can be a feature, I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better and making things work on the Internet. Nurani *Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets... > > Nick > > From nurani at netnod.se Tue Nov 19 08:44:44 2013 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:44:44 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E3o_Paulo_will_host_internation?= =?iso-8859-1?q?al_conference_on_Internet_governance?= Message-ID: <9BA1BC33-453C-4ED0-A359-05C5FC09B6D2@netnod.se> For those of you who haven't seen the press release yesterday. Google translate: http://goo.gl/TSESH8 Nurani S?o Paulo will host international conference on Internet governance Scheduled for 23 and April 24, the meeting will address topics such as network security, espionage and cyber crimes Brasilia, 11/18/2013 - Sao Paulo will host on 23 and 24 April 2014, an international conference to discuss the new model of global governance of the Internet. The Federal Government's proposal was announced on the morning of Monday the Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo. From left to right, Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo The idea for the meeting came from the speech of President Dilma Rousseff at the opening of the UN General Assembly, prompted by revelations that the U.S. government spied authorities and Brazilian companies. According to Bernardo, the event will have a "nongovernmental nature" and will require a call very wide. "Governments are invited to participate, but will be mostly a multisectoral meeting also involving representatives of civil society and the private sector," he said. The Foreign Minister said that the aim of the meeting is to hold a broad debate with all concerned sectors. "The idea is to build international governance that can above all ensure individual freedom and protecting human rights in order to use to the fullest the new media with the internet as its centerpiece," he said. Already the Minister of Science and Technology cited the Brazilian model participatory and democratic governance of the internet's Internet Steering Committee (CGI), created in 1995 and brings together 20 members. "This proposal of S?o Paulo meeting came a beautiful experience that Brazil has in the field of Internet governance. There are representatives from all major sectors of society. The Decalogue which guides their actions is already recognized worldwide. So Brazil has a leading position in this sector, "he said. The Minister Paulo Bernardo said that the proposed meeting is broader than the project of Marco Civil Internet being discussed in Congress. According to him, some assignments of Internet control should be maintained with the third sector. "What we found is that governments should act where it is necessary, as in cases of cyber crime, terrorism, espionage and pedophilia. Our March calendar has principles that can be replicated, but does not deal with international issues that still need to be addressed, "he added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Mesa_MG_2635.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 95632 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nurani at netnod.se Tue Nov 19 08:46:45 2013 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:46:45 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E3o_Paulo_will_host_internation?= =?iso-8859-1?q?al_conference_on_Internet_governance?= In-Reply-To: <9BA1BC33-453C-4ED0-A359-05C5FC09B6D2@netnod.se> References: <9BA1BC33-453C-4ED0-A359-05C5FC09B6D2@netnod.se> Message-ID: <687A4971-9BD9-4622-8633-A2F94F189207@netnod.se> And of course, the ISOC statement on the High-Level Panel to Address Future of Internet Governance: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/11/global-panel-address-future-internet-governance Nurani On 19 nov 2013, at 08:44, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: > For those of you who haven't seen the press release yesterday. > Google translate: > http://goo.gl/TSESH8 > > Nurani > > > S?o Paulo will host international conference on Internet governance > > Scheduled for 23 and April 24, the meeting will address topics such as network security, espionage and cyber crimes > > Brasilia, 11/18/2013 - Sao Paulo will host on 23 and 24 April 2014, an international conference to discuss the new model of global governance of the Internet. The Federal Government's proposal was announced on the morning of Monday the Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo. > > > From left to right, Ministers of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, Science and Technology Marco Antonio Raupp, and Foreign Affairs, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo > > The idea for the meeting came from the speech of President Dilma Rousseff at the opening of the UN General Assembly, prompted by revelations that the U.S. government spied authorities and Brazilian companies. > > According to Bernardo, the event will have a "nongovernmental nature" and will require a call very wide. "Governments are invited to participate, but will be mostly a multisectoral meeting also involving representatives of civil society and the private sector," he said. > > The Foreign Minister said that the aim of the meeting is to hold a broad debate with all concerned sectors. "The idea is to build international governance that can above all ensure individual freedom and protecting human rights in order to use to the fullest the new media with the internet as its centerpiece," he said. > > Already the Minister of Science and Technology cited the Brazilian model participatory and democratic governance of the internet's Internet Steering Committee (CGI), created in 1995 and brings together 20 members. "This proposal of S?o Paulo meeting came a beautiful experience that Brazil has in the field of Internet governance. There are representatives from all major sectors of society. The Decalogue which guides their actions is already recognized worldwide. So Brazil has a leading position in this sector, "he said. > > The Minister Paulo Bernardo said that the proposed meeting is broader than the project of Marco Civil Internet being discussed in Congress. According to him, some assignments of Internet control should be maintained with the third sector. "What we found is that governments should act where it is necessary, as in cases of cyber crime, terrorism, espionage and pedophilia. Our March calendar has principles that can be replicated, but does not deal with international issues that still need to be addressed, "he added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Nov 19 09:53:52 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:53:52 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: In message <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814 at netnod.se>, at 08:24:41 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno writes >(Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings >where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the >thought of such negotiations.) Actually, I think it works very well, especially the square brackets part, because it allows you to park an area of disagreement (possibly sending it off to a spin-off working group to resolve amongst those who care the most) while the meeting can get on with the remainder of the document, and not losing sight of the 'big picture'. For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus. >I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a >bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better Probably does when debating "Standards" (or should that be "standards" - I know let's put the word in square brackets). >*Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first >round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by >someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets... Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt. -- Roland Perry From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Nov 19 09:59:47 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:59:47 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <52894B24.2060309@inex.ie> Message-ID: In message , at 15:21:51 on Mon, 18 Nov 2013, Meredith Whittaker writes > who is already working with the commission to raise these and similar >concerns I always found the EIF to be a very good "speed dating" venue for making contact in Brussels. Although the members appear to be mainly industry and Parliamentarians, there were always several relevant individuals from the Commission participating as well. Several "usual suspects" are to be found in the Associate Member list. https://www.eifonline.org/members.html -- Roland Perry From nurani at netnod.se Tue Nov 19 10:23:31 2013 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:23:31 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: On 19 nov 2013, at 09:53, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814 at netnod.se>, at 08:24:41 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno writes > >> (Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings >> where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the >> thought of such negotiations.) > > Actually, I think it works very well, especially the square brackets part, because it allows you to park an area of disagreement (possibly sending it off to a spin-off working group to resolve amongst those who care the most) while the meeting can get on with the remainder of the document, and not losing sight of the 'big picture'. > > For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus. I completely disagree with the comparison. Consensus is not about spending more time finding the right wording that everyone can agree on for that particular detail in that particular paragraph. Consensus is a lot more pragmatic than that. But let's not get into a long discussion about what consensus is. > >I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a >bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better > > Probably does when debating "Standards" (or should that be "standards" - I know let's put the word in square brackets). Not just standards. I think it's served us well in the RIR community too - creating policies that manage Internet resources. Policies that change, as the Internet changes. Policy affects operations and vice versa. The Internet changes as we speak. If we take several years to debate wording for a particular policy, chances are that the Internet has changed so much in the meantime that the policy describes an Internet that is long gone. >> *Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the first >> round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by >> someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets... > > Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt. No comment. All I'll say is that I have seen this happen many times in that context. Nurani > -- > Roland Perry > From sm at resistor.net Tue Nov 19 14:17:23 2013 From: sm at resistor.net (SM) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:17:23 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20131119050451.0d830b40@resistor.net> At 00:53 19-11-2013, Roland Perry wrote: >For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in >respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's >protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or >"migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to >agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word >has, yes I'll use the word, consensus. At 01:23 19-11-2013, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: >I completely disagree with the comparison. Consensus is not about >spending more time finding the right wording that everyone can agree >on for that particular detail in that particular paragraph. >Consensus is a lot more pragmatic than that. But let's not get into >a long discussion about what consensus is. I'll rewrite the first (quoted) paragraph as: For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, [consensus]. Regards, -sm From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 17:05:10 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:05:10 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> References: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Two draft opinions from EP committees: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-522.939&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-522.810&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01 Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 18:56:42 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:56:42 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just in case some people have missed one or more of these: An initial appraisal of the Commission's impact assessment is here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/514071/IPOL-JOIN_NT(2013)514071_EN.pdf BEREC's views are here: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/opinions/?doc=2922 You can find the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor here: https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/Consultation/OpinionsC Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 23:15:38 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:15:38 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: <3B74C8E3-5A6A-49BE-8B62-AE3862CDF9C0@gmail.com> Message-ID: And now the Committee of the Regions: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_COR-13-103_en.htm?locale=en http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Documents/A_CDR5960-2013_00_00_TRA_PAC_en.pdf Gordon From patrik at frobbit.se Wed Nov 20 13:14:18 2013 From: patrik at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:14:18 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Swedish Parliament decision on one unified market for telecom In-Reply-To: <9B4E5B58-EC24-4605-9D2A-5AF70F54DF4A@frobbit.se> References: <9B4E5B58-EC24-4605-9D2A-5AF70F54DF4A@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <062BD02E-A8AC-4D29-9161-2FFB4E96A469@frobbit.se> The actual letter can be found in Swedish here: Patrik On 11 nov 2013, at 08:49, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > The Swedish Parliament Thursday last week decided that they do believe the suggested regulation do go too far related to the subsidiary principle and will send a letter to Brussels regarding the matter. > > In Swedish: > > > > Longer background, also in Swedish: > > > > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Nov 21 15:41:19 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:41:19 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: In message , at 10:23:31 on Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno writes >>> (Anyone who is not a professional diplomat, who has been in meetings >>> where a whole document ends up in *square brackets, shivers at the >>> thought of such negotiations.) >> >> Actually, I think it works very well, especially the square brackets part, because it allows you to park an area of disagreement (possibly >>sending it off to a spin-off working group to resolve amongst those who care the most) while the meeting can get on with the remainder of the >>document, and not losing sight of the 'big picture'. >> >> For example, a meeting can agree the need for policy objectives in respect of rolling out IPv6, but could get derailed if there's protracted >>disagreement about whether to call it "deployment" or "migration". So put that word in square brackets and move on to agree the broad >>principles, while a subgroup works out which word has, yes I'll use the word, consensus. > >I completely disagree with the comparison. Consensus is not about spending more time finding the right wording that everyone can agree on for >that particular detail in that particular paragraph. Consensus is a lot more pragmatic than that. It's entirely appropriate to have consensus on small details, as well as the bigger picture. >> >I am certain that when it comes to the Internet, that slowness is a >bug. Rough consensus and running code works a lot better >> >> Probably does when debating "Standards" (or should that be "standards" - I know let's put the word in square brackets). > >Not just standards. I think it's served us well in the RIR community too - creating policies that manage Internet resources. Policies that >change, I regard those policies as "standards for the issuing and approved use of IP addresses". Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time). >as the Internet changes. If you don't build in the possibility of changes with circumstances, whatever you are doing is doomed. >Policy affects operations and vice versa. The Internet changes as we speak. If we take several years to debate wording for a particular policy, >chances are that the Internet has changed so much in the meantime that the policy describes an Internet that is long gone. Happens all the time. >>> *Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the >>>first >>> round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by >>> someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets... >> >> Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the >>document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt. > >No comment. >All I'll say is that I have seen this happen many times in that context. "No comment". Then a comment? Can we please at least observe the niceties of debate, here. -- Roland Perry From nick at inex.ie Thu Nov 21 15:53:47 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:53:47 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie> On 21/11/2013 14:41, Roland Perry wrote: > Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to > have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some > considerable time). that particular policy bug was fixed in the summer of 2001. In the 12.5 years since then, I think we can reasonably claim that the RIPE community has built up a vibrant interest in actively managing its addressing policies using bottom up principals. Nick From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Nov 21 16:52:34 2013 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 07:52:34 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Roland, Roland Perry wrote: [...] > Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right > to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some > considerable time). I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time." ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6 Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100 allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy. It was an experiment. At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points." I've not searched through the lir-wg list archives but I don't remember the policy discussion being particularly contentious or long drawn out. The community rapidly recognised the technical need for PI space for IXP peering LANs and agreed language that is substantially the same as is used in the current policy document, ripe-451. Regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Nov 21 17:40:53 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:40:53 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B at EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, at 07:52:34 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda writes >> Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right >> to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some >> considerable time). > >I have to disagree. I don't think there was any "considerable time." > >ripe-196 was published in mid-1999 and documented the "Provisional IPv6 >Assignment and Allocation Policy." It was called the "bootstrap" policy at >the time and was intended as a 'shakedown' to allow the first 100 >allocations across all three RIR regions (this was before LACNIC and then >AFRINIC achieved recognition, in-line with ICP-2). The idea was to find >out what was good and what needed to change for a more permanent policy. >It was an experiment. > >At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been >developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, it >did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks later, >with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 >Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points." I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000. But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF (and other technical) jargon. -- Roland Perry From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Nov 21 17:53:39 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 16:53:39 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie> Message-ID: In message <528E1E7B.60000 at inex.ie>, at 14:53:47 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Nick Hilliard writes >> Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to >> have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some >> considerable time). > >that particular policy bug was fixed in the summer of 2001. In the 12.5 >years since then, I think we can reasonably claim that the RIPE community >has built up a vibrant interest in actively managing its addressing >policies using bottom up principals. And I don't dispute that for a moment. Currently I'm particularly interested in getting the "underbottom" (that's users and their representatives, rather than typically the layer above, their connectivity suppliers) more involved in that process. It's a bit like "civil society, but without the anticensorship flavour". -- Roland Perry From meredithrachel at google.com Thu Nov 21 18:05:53 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:05:53 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie> Message-ID: at the risk of derailing the thread, what *does* anticensorship taste like? (stated more plainly: I don't follow.) On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <528E1E7B.60000 at inex.ie>, at 14:53:47 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, > Nick Hilliard writes > > Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to >>> have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some >>> considerable time). >>> >> >> that particular policy bug was fixed in the summer of 2001. In the 12.5 >> years since then, I think we can reasonably claim that the RIPE community >> has built up a vibrant interest in actively managing its addressing >> policies using bottom up principals. >> > > And I don't dispute that for a moment. > > Currently I'm particularly interested in getting the "underbottom" (that's > users and their representatives, rather than typically the layer above, > their connectivity suppliers) more involved in that process. It's a bit > like "civil society, but without the anticensorship flavour". > -- > Roland Perry > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu Nov 21 18:48:58 2013 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:48:58 -0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D46@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Roland, Roland Perry wrote: [...] > >At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had been > >developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As you note, > >it > >did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about six weeks > >later, > >with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which documented "IPv6 > >Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points." > > I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000. I expect it was, although don't remember specific discussions. The bootstrap policy was always intended as a short term experiment to find out what was needed in the longer term. Not discussing IXPs' needs would have been odd. > But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick > run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, > the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and > capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF > (and other technical) jargon. As I see it, running code is a synonym for "things that work" and developing things that work generally requires prototyping, testing and revision. I think this is a good example of a process that tested a policy, found where it needed to be improved for the general case (ISP use) and also came up with other policies that supported edge cases, like IXPs and root DNS servers (ripe-223). If that is a hard concept to explain, a comparison that might work could be writing a novel. You start with an idea, develop a draft and then work with an editor to sand down the rough edges before it is ready to go to press. Regards, Leo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Nov 22 17:02:38 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:02:38 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <528E1E7B.60000@inex.ie> Message-ID: <1U$03uUeA4jSFAcd@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 12:05:53 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Meredith Whittaker writes >at the risk of derailing the thread, what does?anticensorship taste >like? (stated more plainly: I don't follow. It's a metaphor harking back to 'ingredients' in cooking. -- Roland Perry From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Nov 22 17:18:18 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:18:18 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D46@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D2B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D46@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: In message <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B19681060D46 at EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>, at 09:48:58 on Thu, 21 Nov 2013, Leo Vegoda writes >> >At the end of June 2002, ripe-246 documented the policy that had >> >been developed based on the experience gained through ripe-196. As >> >you note, it did not cater to IXPs but that problem was solved about >> > later, with the publication ripe-256 in early August, which >> >documented "IPv6 Address Space Policy for Internet Exchange Points." >> >> I remember this being an issue at RIPE meetings in 2000. > >I expect it was, although don't remember specific discussions. The >bootstrap policy was always intended as a short term experiment to find >out what was needed in the longer term. Not discussing IXPs' needs would >have been odd. They were discussed, but getting acceptance of the concept that IXPs are neutral, with the idea of a single "upstream" not really applying, was a struggle. We at the IXPs could see it, obviously. >> But aside from the fog over the timescale, can you give us a quick >> run-down of the relevance to this issue of "running code"? After all, >> the purpose of this list (and the WG) is to foster co-operation and >> capacity building with other stakeholder groups not familiar with IETF >> (and other technical) jargon. > >As I see it, running code is a synonym for "things that work" and >developing things that work generally requires prototyping, testing and >revision. I think this is a good example of a process that tested a >policy, found where it needed to be improved for the general case (ISP >use) and also came up with other policies that supported edge cases, like >IXPs and root DNS servers (ripe-223). "Things that work" is a good alternative description, because it doesn't quite so much imply you have to make a physical working prototype (which several people I've spoken to assume is the case) to test the concept - debating it in the abstract is good enough. -- Roland Perry From maria at sunet.se Fri Nov 22 18:08:51 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:08:51 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs Cooperation Working Group Message-ID: Dear Coop WG colleagues We are happy to announce that the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, in line with earlier co-chair's proposal (almost) three weeks ago, have the following co-chairs: Meredith Whittaker, Google Alan van Gaever, Ofcom Maria H?ll, SUNET Thanks a lot, Coop WG members, for your support! We have had our first teleconf meeting this afternoon. Early upcoming week we will send a proposal to Coop WG mailing list on topics to focus on and how to do that etc. We are very much looking forward to work together in the Coop WG, with RIPE NCC and the rest of the RIPE Community. Best, Meredith, Alain and Maria co-chairs Cooperation Working Group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nurani at netnod.se Fri Nov 22 20:34:43 2013 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:34:43 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: > On 21 nov 2013, at 15:41, Roland Perry wrote: > Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some considerable time). Leo and Nick addressed this, and I agree with their assessment of the events at the time. >>>> *Square brackets are used in UN contexts to mark text that cannot be agreed on. When I was in the UN CSTD WG on IGF improvements, in the >>>> first >>>> round, we failed miserably as a group to agree on anything. Text was being thrown up on the screen, only to immediately be protested by >>>> someone, and consequently being put in square brackets. At the end of the meeting, the whole document was in square brackets... >>> >>> Of course, the idea is to remove the square brackets, or delete the bracketed text before the end of the meeting. If more than 10% of the >>> document ever gets (temporarily) in square brackets the whole basis of the meeting, or the motives of the attendees, is thrown into doubt. >> >> No comment. >> All I'll say is that I have seen this happen many times in that context. > > "No comment". Then a comment? Can we please at least observe the niceties of debate, here. If there was any sarcasm detected in my tone, it was not aimed at you. It was aimed at those attendees whose motives you question (as do I). Maybe I've been unlucky in the meetings I've attended, but I've seen this happen several times, resulting in the discussions collapsing, not leaving me with much faith in that process. But we're digressing. Nurani > -- > Roland Perry > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 14:13:53 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:13:53 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] London Message-ID: Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content ? such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon From michele at blacknight.com Sun Nov 24 14:21:48 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:21:48 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Gordon London for what exactly? regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:13 To: connect-bof at ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] London Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content ? such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Nov 24 14:35:29 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:35:29 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From michele at blacknight.com Sun Nov 24 14:52:31 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:52:31 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: <20131124133544.79B4A59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20131124133544.79B4A59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Gordon ICANN has been held in far more restrictive environments without any filters or traffic shaping .. (and it's on in London next year) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:35 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: connect-bof at ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] London Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From will at harg.net Sun Nov 24 15:08:39 2013 From: will at harg.net (Will Hargrave) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:08:39 -0500 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 Nov 2013, at 08:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-providers-offer-data-free-risks-for-terrorists-and-criminals.html > > So how will Wifi access be organised in London? This article is a sales pitch for a wifi service provider who would love to collect people's personal data. It is not an accurate representation of the law in this area. I have and will continue to run events in the UK with open or semi-open wifi (UKNOF, EMFCamp, etc) without the need to invasively snoop on users and retain their personal data. -- Will Hargrave +44 114 303 4444 From randy at psg.com Sun Nov 24 15:43:56 2013 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:43:56 +0900 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] London In-Reply-To: References: <20131124131423.BE8FD59C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: > And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... and they live in which fantasy land? From bs at stepladder-it.com Mon Nov 25 12:42:58 2013 From: bs at stepladder-it.com (Benedikt Stockebrand) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:42:58 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: (Gordon Lennox's message of "Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:13:53 +0100") References: Message-ID: <874n70d7wd.fsf@stepladder-it.com> Hi everybody, Gordon Lennox writes: > "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals I didn't expect these "terrorists and criminals" to be that stupid---we can offer them risks without having to provide them data? Maybe we can convince them to get into the social networking and search engine business instead. > When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must > be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs > visited. As Will pointed out already, this is a rather shameless marketing plug. Let's just hope that this article drives away more customers than it actually wins them... > So how will Wifi access be organised in London? I suggest a checkbox on the registration form: Are you a terrorist and criminal? ( )Yes ( )No People clicking "yes" should then receive a popup stating that We are sorry to inform you that due to legal requirements you are not permitted to use our free Wifi. We do however provide a separate SSID "terrorists_and_criminals_only" with all the latest logging and monitoring features for you. On second thought, maybe we could integrate this with the "job title" field. What really drives me mad with this sort of article is the way this kind of misinformation aimed at the uninitiated masses is used by unscrupulous marketing people. The good news in this case however is the side effect that it may make people aware of the state of legislation when it comes to privacy. Cheers, Benedikt -- Business Grade IPv6 Consulting, Training, Projects Benedikt Stockebrand, Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Nov 25 14:54:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:54:08 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <7F9C57A3-5813-4B3B-AB2B-8AE6245AA853@gmail.com> <52890490.4040205@inex.ie> <3FD9D0A6-EB07-4579-AA74-6A7EBCADE814@netnod.se> Message-ID: In message , at 20:34:43 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Nurani Nimpuno writes >> Where is the "running code" when it come to (eg) denying IXPs the right to have provider-independent IPv6 addresses (as was the case for some >>considerable time). > >Leo and Nick addressed this, and I agree with their assessment of the events at the time. Which differs from the perception of those running IXPs. [Square bracket issues] >Maybe I've been unlucky in the meetings I've attended, but I've seen this happen several times, resulting in the discussions collapsing, not >leaving me with much faith in that process. Perhaps that's because you have observer-bias towards discussions in subgroups rather than the plenary. I've been to enough meetings where the plenary *must* craft a deliverable (which is I think where we started vis-vis the IGF) to know that by the end of the meeting all the square brackets *must* have been removed. Even if an arguably dysfunctional sub-group less familiar with the process couldn't manage it earlier in the process. -- Roland Perry From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Nov 25 18:21:46 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:21:46 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 14:13:53 on Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Gordon Lennox writes >Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the >Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. > >When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Only if they've been instructed to do that. Otherwise any such responsibility is with the upstream (who may or may not have been so instructed also). -- Roland Perry From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Nov 25 19:50:40 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:50:40 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] reheated press releases and RIPA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0C00CD30-AF5E-4E90-B2D0-83081C36EE59@rfc1035.com> On 24 Nov 2013, at 13:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. Hmmm. If it's in the Torygraph and on the interwebs it must be true, mustn't it? The article is interesting Gordon. But perhaps not in the way you thought. IMO, the article is a good example of churnalism: a press release given a cursory makeover by a lazy reporter to turn it into "news". There's no reasonable attempt to report the detail or check the facts. My understanding is that RIPA obligations (and the rest) apply to Communications Service Providers: essentially the main telcos and ISPs based in the UK. It's highly unlikely those requirements would be directly imposed on someone providing Internet access for an IETF or RIPE or ICANN meeting. So money launderers, pornographers, drug dealers and terrorists will still be able to attend and get connectivity just like the rest of us when they show up. :-) I'm sure the RIPE meeting team will be aware of what needs to be done about compliance, if anything, since much of that legislation was in place for RIPE49. From pc.chiodi at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 20:37:07 2013 From: pc.chiodi at gmail.com (Pier Carlo Chiodi) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 20:37:07 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <5294F863.6080506@gmail.com> Hello, On 30/10/2013 11:48, Jim Reid wrote: > > That said, it would be worthwhile for this WG to try to develop something that explains the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to traffic/content blocking: eg DNS tricks, various forms of blacklisting, DPI, etc, etc. There are laws and regulations on this topic popping up all over the RIPE service region and IMO it would be good if we could produce a document for legislators, law enforcement, IPR lawyers, etc. > 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]. In the text he says: 82. It should be ensured that the blocking measure is specifically aimed at the origin of the violation and there is no risk to block access to licit content. 86. It is not excluded that a full implementation of the ban in question is impossible from a purely practical point of view. (rough translation from the Italian version) IMO this document and Cruz Villal?n's opinions may be used as a good starting point to underline failures of many blocking measures and to get ideas for any technical document this WG would produce. Best regards, 1) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=144944&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=305207 2) http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/europe-suggests-more-restrictions-for-web-blocking/ -- Pier Carlo Chiodi http://about.me/piercarlo.chiodi From maria at sunet.se Sat Nov 30 17:19:14 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:14 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Proposed Workplan Coop-WG Message-ID: Dear Coop-WG colleagues It's great to see the active discussions and debates on mailing list! :-) Facilitating this kind of open and inclusive dialogue between different stakeholders, both on mailing list and at the Coop-WG meetings etc, is one of the key roles of our WG! Without changing this approach for Coop-WG we think it could be fruitful to agree on a work plan and also have have a list of topics we can focus on. See the proposed work plan below. Please get back to us with comments and feedback! Have a nice weekend! Best, Alain, Meredith and Maria co-chairs Coop-WG Proposed Workplan for the Cooperation Working Group (Coop-WG) The description of the Coop-WG can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/coop In line with this description and mission of the Coop-WG we suggest the following process forward. The co-chairs discussed, and agreed that the mission of the Coop-WG could be briefly summarized as follows. We believe that this short-form mission is useful in focusing our work to achieve the greatest impact. Mission: To improve decision-making and mutual understanding by providing technical expertise to policy makers and the non-technical public. To inform the RIPE community on relevant public policy-related developments and governance processes. 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. As a starting point, we have provided a list of topics that we recognize to be important and within the scope of RIPE community expertise. We would like your feedback. Some of the topics are already discussed in other working groups, but we believe it useful to have these discussions brought to the Coop-WG as well. We ask you to consider the following questions while reviewing the proposed topic list: 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed topics? 2. Where are you seeing these (or other proposed topics) discussed? 3. Per topic, what are your ideas on specific modes of engagement to have maximum impact? Suggested topics: 1. IP Interconnection (soon to have an established RIPE WG) This topic is of increasing political interest and therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with the proposed Interconnection-WG. Defining and explaining its technical functioning and underlying business logic. a. What is sending/calling party pays? What is the difference and how do they relate to current standards and practices? b. What are IXPs and why are they important for the functioning of the Internet? c. What is an ideal peering ecosystem, and why? What are the ways this can go wrong? 2. Security and Privacy of Networks (is this discussed in some other WG?) This topic is of an increasing political interest therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with other relevant WG:s. a. How and why does infrastructure and network policy impact security and privacy? b. What would a secure network look like? What are the gaps between a secure network and what we have now? c. How can security and privacy be enhanced in the short-term (practical steps)? What are the long term efforts underway to enhance security and privacy? 3. Characteristics of the global Internet a. How does routing, addressing, etc. work? b. What are the dangers of attempting to create bounded (in many cases national) ?Internets?? 4. Interrelationships of physical infrastructure a. What are the different physical-layer technologies that make up ?the Internet? as we know it? For example, what is the difference between fiber, coax, et al.? What is the impact of e.g. deploying fiber if last mile networks still have only copper, or cable (etc.)? 5. IPv6 (already discussed in the IPv6 WG) a. Why does it really matter that it gets deployed? What are the technical issues related to IPv6? What impact does it make on e-government and e-society development? b. What is the risk of deploying CGNs 6. Roles and responsibilities for intermediaries Proposed guidelines for engagement to best fulfil this mission: Concrete steps the Coop-WG can engage in to move forward: ? Assemble technical experts on a variety of important topics, upon request. These would be volunteers from the community, and they would be asked to engage with governments, regulatory bodies, policy-making bodies, international organisations, NGOs and others that request or could benefit from a better understanding of the technical details of a given topic. The Coop-WG would provide a bridge between these experts and those who can benefit from their counsel. Coop-WG should also offer expertise in the policy-making field to other WGs in RIPE as well as the RIPE NCC. ? Explain technology, but avoid taking positions on specific policies/regulation (or other politicized topics). The Coop-WG is not a lobbying organization. The focus should be on illuminating how the technology works and highlight discussions and fact-based concerns raised in the Coop-WG. This approach allows the Coop-WG to engage a large community hailing from separate sectors, some of whom disagree with each other. It also allows the Coop-WG to remain credible, and provide clear factual information to those who can use it to improve the content of policy and regulation. ? Develop an understanding of areas where RIPE?s expertise can add value. ? What are the policy areas that governments, policy makers, and others doing advocacy work are currently working on, and on which of those areas could we assist to improve their technical understanding? With the RIPE community, we should continually work to gather questions and topics of interest to which we can contribute. ? Work with the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to understand the policy areas relevant to the RIPE community. The Coop-WG can be a useful forum for the RIPE community to share information on trends and developments in government policy ? especially those that affect the operational community. ? The Coop-WG can support RIPE NCC to prepare position statements or papers for public consultations and general white papers that increase knowledge on technologies/operational procedures relevant to the RIPE community. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: