From chrisb at ripe.net Tue Oct 1 15:44:13 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 16:44:13 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European Union. It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals regarding electronic identification (eID) and network and information security (NIS): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We also look forward to further discussion of these issues at the upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Oct 1 22:37:21 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 22:37:21 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent. But we may also need now to consider the "Connected Continent" package. For pointers to the proposed regulation, the press release and more, see: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs There was already a roundtable in the Parliament on the "network neutrality" aspects last week. Gordon On 1 Oct, 2013, at 15:44, Chris Buckridge wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European Union. It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals regarding electronic identification (eID) and network and information security (NIS): > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process > > As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We also look forward to further discussion of these issues at the upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Oct 2 10:25:45 2013 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:25:45 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 16:44 01/10/2013 +0300, Chris Buckridge wrote: I have viewed the RIPE Labs as a technical lab for new and leading edge systems in the realm of networking and routing. Using it to distribute and discuss policy (even related to technical issues) diminishes and dilutes the focus of the RIPE Labs. Perhaps some other section of RIPE would be a more appropriate venue? -Hank >Dear colleagues, > >We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's >general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European Union. >It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals regarding >electronic identification (eID) and network and information security (NIS): >https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process > >As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the Cooperation >Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We also look forward >to further discussion of these issues at the upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation >Working Group session. > >Best regards, >Chris Buckridge >External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Wed Oct 2 10:38:12 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:38:12 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: On 2 Oct 2013, at 09:25, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > I have viewed the RIPE Labs as a technical lab for new and leading edge systems in the realm of networking and routing. Using it to distribute and discuss policy (even related to technical issues) diminishes and dilutes the focus of the RIPE Labs. Perhaps some other section of RIPE would be a more appropriate venue? Good point, Hank. If RIPE Labs is to be re-purposed, this should happen transparently, and by neither mission creep nor stealth. ?0,02 /Niall From arnold.nipper at de-cix.net Wed Oct 2 10:52:38 2013 From: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net (Arnold Nipper) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:52:38 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <524BDED6.3030902@de-cix.net> On 02.10.2013 10:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > > On 2 Oct 2013, at 09:25, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> I have viewed the RIPE Labs as a technical lab for new and leading >> edge systems in the realm of networking and routing. Using it to >> distribute and discuss policy (even related to technical issues) >> diminishes and dilutes the focus of the RIPE Labs. Perhaps some >> other section of RIPE would be a more appropriate venue? > > Good point, Hank. > > If RIPE Labs is to be re-purposed, this should happen transparently, > and by neither mission creep nor stealth. > > ?0,02 /Niall > +1 Arnold -- Arnold Nipper CTO/COO e-mail: arnold.nipper at de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH mobile: +49 172 2650958 Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln phone: +49 69 1730 902 22 Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mir at ripe.net Wed Oct 2 11:51:49 2013 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:51:49 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <524BECB5.1080500@ripe.net> Hi Hank, Hi all, Thanks for your input. I am happy to hear that you see RIPE Labs as platform for leading edge technical information. And it will certainly not become a policy blog. However, RIPE Labs was not only set up for technical topics. The scope was meant to be very broad as you can see in the About RIPE Labs section: https://labs.ripe.net/about/all-about-ripe-labs It is basically a platform to share ideas with others in the community. Especially if policy or other developments are potentially affecting the technical community, we feel that it is important to inform our community about these matters. And RIPE Labs is a place where we can explain background information and timely topics in some more detail than on www.ripe.net or in an email. Since its inception we have quite regularly posted non-technical articles. However, the vast majority of RIPE Labs content has always been technical in nature, and we expect this to remain the case moving forward. I hope this responds to your concern. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE Labs Community Builder RIPE NCC On 2/10/13 10:25 AM, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 16:44 01/10/2013 +0300, Chris Buckridge wrote: > > I have viewed the RIPE Labs as a technical lab for new and leading edge > systems in the realm of networking and routing. Using it to distribute > and discuss policy (even related to technical issues) diminishes and > dilutes the focus of the RIPE Labs. Perhaps some other section of RIPE > would be a more appropriate venue? > > -Hank > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's >> general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European >> Union. It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals >> regarding electronic identification (eID) and network and information >> security (NIS): >> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process >> >> As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the >> Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We >> also look forward to further discussion of these issues at the >> upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session. >> >> Best regards, >> Chris Buckridge >> External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > From nick at inex.ie Wed Oct 2 11:46:03 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 10:46:03 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.2.20131002112143.05135c38@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <524BEB5B.1020705@inex.ie> On 02/10/2013 09:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > If RIPE Labs is to be re-purposed, this should happen transparently, > and by neither mission creep nor stealth. as far as I know, the ripe ncc doesn't have a blog site - labs.ripe.net is the nearest thing. This looks like the sort of article that fits well on a blog site because they are explicitly soliciting feedback, but no doubt if the NCC set up a dedicated blogging site, people would start complaining that there was duplication and resource wastage and all that. Can't win. Can't even break even. Does anyone (other than Gordon) have any comments on the content of the posting? I think this is probably more important than getting bogged down in discussing the mechanism used to reach out to the community and membership. Nick From chrisb at ripe.net Wed Oct 16 15:43:33 2013 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:43:33 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Draft RIPE NCC submission on EU NIS Directive Message-ID: Dear colleagues, As noted in the recent RIPE Labs article on European Union (EU) engagement, the RIPE NCC has been working with representatives of the RIPE community to address the European Commission's proposed EU Directive on network and information security (NIS). This proposed Directive is currently under consideration by the European Parliament and is available online at: http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_directive_en.pdf The aim of this Directive is "to ensure a high common level of network and information security (NIS) across the EU", specifically through the establishment of national Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), improved information sharing between national authorities and required reporting on risk levels and security incidents by providers of "information society services". RIPE community members and RIPE NCC staff have identified several areas of concern with the current draft of the Directive, and these concerns form the basis of the draft response below. We would like to invite feedback from this working group on whether there is support for the position(s) taken in the statement, whether there is support for the RIPE NCC engaging Members of the European Parliament on this issue, and any other thoughts. There will also be a discussion of this issue in the RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session, which takes place on Thursday, 17 October, 16:00-17:30 local time (UTC+3). You can follow and contribute to this session either on-site in Athens or remotely at: https://ripe67.ripe.net/live/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC -------------------------- The RIPE NCC welcomes the European Commission's efforts in the area of network and information security (NIS), premised on the need for closer international cooperation to meet the global nature of network security issues. We also welcome the Directive's acknowledgement of the need for all stakeholder groups to participate in developing solutions to NIS challenges. Drawing on discussions with members of the RIPE community and internally, the RIPE NCC would like to raise a general concern with the current draft. While the proposed Directive recognises the importance of "informal cooperation mechanisms", we believe that there is an important and formal role for multi-stakeholder mechanisms and processes in refining the implementation details of the Directive. Recognition of such a role would be particularly useful in relation to the following specific aspects of the Directive: 1. Scope The RIPE NCC believes that there is a need to clarify the scope of the Directive, particularly with regard to the following terms: - "information society services which enable the provision of other information society services" - "significant impact" (in relation to security incidents) In line with the purpose and the legal basis of the Directive (i.e. ensuring the functioning of the Internal Market according to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), we believe that the Directive should be clearly limited to organisations or security incidents that directly impact the Internal Market. Clear criteria should be developed via transparent, multi-stakeholder processes to identify those incidents or organisations covered by the Directive. 2. Establishment of security requirements The Directive aims to establish security requirements for market operators and public administrations, and to this end it empowers the Commission to: - Draw up a list of standards by means of implementing acts [1] - Adopt delegated acts concerning the definition of circumstances in which public administrations and market operators are required to notify incidents The Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union notes the role of multi-stakeholder, bottom-up procedures in developing and maintaining security standards. We believe it would be appropriate that the specification of such standards and definitions in the context of this Directive should also be the outcome of such formal, multi-stakeholder processes. This would help to ensure the inclusion of input from all relevant stakeholders and the flexibility and responsiveness that is required in an online environment. [1] Definitions of "implementing acts" and "delegated acts": http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/lisbon_treaty/ai0032_en.htm From maria at sunet.se Thu Oct 17 09:38:20 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:38:20 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Nomination of co-chair of Cooperation WG Message-ID: <1238B15D-8178-4DF8-9684-3C19EA8329CB@sunet.se> Dear Coop WG colleagues As you all know Patrik F?ltstr?m has stepped down as co-chair of the Cooperation Working Group. As remaining co-chair I would like to nominate Niall O'Reilly as new co-chair of the WG. Niall will present himself on the list shortly. If any of you have any other person to nominate, just get back to me on the mailing list or bring it up on the agenda item on this issue on the WG session at 16.00 today. _________________________________ Best regards, Maria H?ll CEO/F?rest?ndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria at sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 13:07:15 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:07:15 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission Message-ID: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> This is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and various associated documents, from the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to the community: ** the Commission's view of the sector ** market consolidation ** interconnection ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 14:16:55 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:16:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> References: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> Message-ID: The press release or "memo" provides perhaps an easier way in: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Oct 17 16:12:31 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:12:31 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament Message-ID: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a clear interest in Internet matters. https://www.eifonline.org/members.html There are others of course! Gordon From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Thu Oct 17 16:32:36 2013 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:32:36 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament In-Reply-To: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> References: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4D88DFBB-DF3E-42AB-BB60-B533E24F848F@ams-ix.net> On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a clear interest in Internet matters. > > https://www.eifonline.org/members.html > > There are others of course! Thanks, Gordon - btw do you know which EU parliamentarian 'committee' was being referred to during the Coop session today in Athens? Supposedly this would give one an indication which national MEP(s) to approach re the proposed NIS Directive... Btw I have been talking to the Dutch representative in the Council's working group (hope that is the correct English translation) and learnt that from her perspective nothing has really changed or been done since the initial position/reflection re the proposed Directive went to the Dutch Parliament in in March... (a position btw that states similar concerns as the ones that RIPE NCC mentioned) Bastiaan AMS-IX From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Thu Oct 17 16:26:10 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:26:10 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament In-Reply-To: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> References: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <525FF382.70401@schiefner.de> Thanks, Gordon - ... On 17.10.2013 16:12, Gordon Lennox wrote: > The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a > clear interest in Internet matters. > > https://www.eifonline.org/members.html .. of course! Should have thought about it myself in the first place before asking for it in the current WG session. From meredithrachel at google.com Thu Oct 17 16:55:22 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 17:55:22 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Cooperation WG co-shair self nomination Message-ID: Hello all, I'm interested in working with you to continue to the growth and development of an empirical, technically-founded, data-based voice in policy and governance. I would be taking on this role in my personal capacity, not as a representative of my employer. Bio/soapbox: I'm a Program Manager at Google Research, focusing on Open Source and Open Data (net: how do we provide verifiable data in place of rhetoric and assurances of trustworthiness?). I know many of you (hello!), and those I know have likely heard me monologue about the need for the technical community's input in policymaking. This is my wheelhouse -- in the quest not to totally mess up the Internet, I can think of few things more important. Both because naive political mandates could seriously harm the utility and viability of the most revolutionary engine for human communication since Gutenberg, and because (listen up) these same careless mandates almost certainly take no account of the way networks *actually work,* hampering Operators (your) agency to make sensible decisions and innovations. All that to say, I'd be honored and happy to work with the formidable intellects at RIPE to help develop this technical voice. With some deference to brevity, I'll leave it there. Please ask me any questions. Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wim at centr.org Thu Oct 17 18:33:46 2013 From: wim at centr.org (Wim Degezelle) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:33:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament In-Reply-To: <4D88DFBB-DF3E-42AB-BB60-B533E24F848F@ams-ix.net> References: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> <4D88DFBB-DF3E-42AB-BB60-B533E24F848F@ams-ix.net> Message-ID: <037301cecb56$aded2930$09c77b90$@org> Hi All, The leading Committee in EP on the NIS Directive is IMCO (Internal Market) with Andreas Schwab as Rapporteur. Where there is a so-called 'shared competence' the ITRE Committee and LIBE Committee take the lead. Procedure file: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&refere nce=COM%282013%290048 Best, Wim CENTR > -----Original Message----- > From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Bastiaan Goslings > Sent: donderdag 17 oktober 2013 16:33 > To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > > > The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a > clear interest in Internet matters. > > > > https://www.eifonline.org/members.html > > > > There are others of course! > > > Thanks, Gordon - btw do you know which EU parliamentarian 'committee' > was being referred to during the Coop session today in Athens? > Supposedly this would give one an indication which national MEP(s) to > approach re the proposed NIS Directive... > > Btw I have been talking to the Dutch representative in the Council's > working group (hope that is the correct English translation) and learnt > that from her perspective nothing has really changed or been done since > the initial position/reflection re the proposed Directive went to the > Dutch Parliament in in March... > > (a position btw that states similar concerns as the ones that RIPE NCC > mentioned) > > Bastiaan > AMS-IX > > > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri Oct 18 08:55:59 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:55:59 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: References: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6B37143C-A4EC-4639-B92F-377C647C0F2C@gmail.com> From the European Parliament web-site: <> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html From nick at inex.ie Sat Oct 19 16:39:52 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:39:52 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> References: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> Message-ID: <526299B8.2050708@inex.ie> On 17/10/2013 14:07, Gordon Lennox wrote: > ** interconnection > > ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services Hi Gordon, Could you expand on their positions on interconnection, or at least provide some pointers to URLs. I started to look at some of the urls on the europa web site, but got a massive case of verbosititis and ran scared. Probably I'm not the only person who is interested in the interconnection stuff (maybe the connect bof people too?) Nick From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Sun Oct 20 16:36:48 2013 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 14:36:48 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament In-Reply-To: <037301cecb56$aded2930$09c77b90$@org> References: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> <4D88DFBB-DF3E-42AB-BB60-B533E24F848F@ams-ix.net> <037301cecb56$aded2930$09c77b90$@org> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE26AC2222@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Just to make sure that everyone is clear on the division of responsibilities: * ITRE has SOLE competence on: o Article 1 (3) - reference to the electronic communications Directive o Article 3.1(a) - as above o Article 7 - CERTS o Recitals 5, 11, 23 - which covered the above issues *ITRE has SHARED competence with IMCO on: o Article 1(2) (Subject matter and scope); o Article 3(1)(b-c); Article 3(2-4), (6-7), (11) (Definitions); o Article 8 (Cooperation network); o Article 9 (Secure information-sharing system); o Article 10 (Early warnings); o Article 11 (Coordinated response); o Article 12 (Union NIS cooperation plan); o Article 14 (Security requirements and incident notification); o Article 15 (Implementation and enforcement); o Article 18 (Exercise of the delegation); o Article 19 (Committee procedure); o Recitals 12-20, 22, 24-31, 34-36. In the case of shared competence, it is possible that IMCO and ITRE will coordinate and try to reach common opinions. If not, ITRE can re-table its amendments when the discussion goes into plenary. There are two other committees with competence: LIBE and SEDE. If I understand correctly, these are exclusive competence, so their input should be accepted directly by IMCO. However, some of this is disturbing (liability of software producers, for example). Best Martin -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wim Degezelle Sent: 17 October 2013 23:34 To: 'Bastiaan Goslings'; 'Gordon Lennox' Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament Hi All, The leading Committee in EP on the NIS Directive is IMCO (Internal Market) with Andreas Schwab as Rapporteur. Where there is a so-called 'shared competence' the ITRE Committee and LIBE Committee take the lead. Procedure file: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&refere nce=COM%282013%290048 Best, Wim CENTR > -----Original Message----- > From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg- > bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Bastiaan Goslings > Sent: donderdag 17 oktober 2013 16:33 > To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Gordon Lennox > > wrote: > > > The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a > clear interest in Internet matters. > > > > https://www.eifonline.org/members.html > > > > There are others of course! > > > Thanks, Gordon - btw do you know which EU parliamentarian 'committee' > was being referred to during the Coop session today in Athens? > Supposedly this would give one an indication which national MEP(s) to > approach re the proposed NIS Directive... > > Btw I have been talking to the Dutch representative in the Council's > working group (hope that is the correct English translation) and > learnt that from her perspective nothing has really changed or been > done since the initial position/reflection re the proposed Directive > went to the Dutch Parliament in in March... > > (a position btw that states similar concerns as the ones that RIPE NCC > mentioned) > > Bastiaan > AMS-IX > > > From maria at sunet.se Mon Oct 21 16:03:30 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:03:30 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE26AC2222@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <65A48399-BE82-47F6-876C-23A196285E0E@gmail.com> <4D88DFBB-DF3E-42AB-BB60-B533E24F848F@ams-ix.net> <037301cecb56$aded2930$09c77b90$@org> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE26AC2222@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Thx a lot for valuable info all of you! /Maria chair Cooperation WG _________________________________ Best regards, Maria H?ll CEO/F?rest?ndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria at sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se 20 okt 2013 kl. 16:36 skrev Martin Boyle : > Just to make sure that everyone is clear on the division of responsibilities: > > * ITRE has SOLE competence on: > o Article 1 (3) - reference to the electronic communications Directive > o Article 3.1(a) - as above > o Article 7 - CERTS > o Recitals 5, 11, 23 - which covered the above issues > *ITRE has SHARED competence with IMCO on: > o Article 1(2) (Subject matter and scope); > o Article 3(1)(b-c); Article 3(2-4), (6-7), (11) (Definitions); > o Article 8 (Cooperation network); > o Article 9 (Secure information-sharing system); > o Article 10 (Early warnings); > o Article 11 (Coordinated response); > o Article 12 (Union NIS cooperation plan); > o Article 14 (Security requirements and incident notification); > o Article 15 (Implementation and enforcement); > o Article 18 (Exercise of the delegation); > o Article 19 (Committee procedure); > o Recitals 12-20, 22, 24-31, 34-36. > > In the case of shared competence, it is possible that IMCO and ITRE will coordinate and try to reach common opinions. If not, ITRE can re-table its amendments when the discussion goes into plenary. > > There are two other committees with competence: LIBE and SEDE. If I understand correctly, these are exclusive competence, so their input should be accepted directly by IMCO. However, some of this is disturbing (liability of software producers, for example). > > Best > > Martin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Wim Degezelle > Sent: 17 October 2013 23:34 > To: 'Bastiaan Goslings'; 'Gordon Lennox' > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament > > Hi All, > The leading Committee in EP on the NIS Directive is IMCO (Internal Market) with Andreas Schwab as Rapporteur. Where there is a so-called 'shared competence' the ITRE Committee and LIBE Committee take the lead. > > Procedure file: > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&refere > nce=COM%282013%290048 > > Best, > Wim > CENTR > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg- >> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Bastiaan Goslings >> Sent: donderdag 17 oktober 2013 16:33 >> To: Gordon Lennox >> Cc: Bastiaan Goslings; cooperation-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Parliament >> >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Gordon Lennox >> >> wrote: >> >>> The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a >> clear interest in Internet matters. >>> >>> https://www.eifonline.org/members.html >>> >>> There are others of course! >> >> >> Thanks, Gordon - btw do you know which EU parliamentarian 'committee' >> was being referred to during the Coop session today in Athens? >> Supposedly this would give one an indication which national MEP(s) to >> approach re the proposed NIS Directive... >> >> Btw I have been talking to the Dutch representative in the Council's >> working group (hope that is the correct English translation) and >> learnt that from her perspective nothing has really changed or been >> done since the initial position/reflection re the proposed Directive >> went to the Dutch Parliament in in March... >> >> (a position btw that states similar concerns as the ones that RIPE NCC >> mentioned) >> >> Bastiaan >> AMS-IX >> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 12:55:35 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:55:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission Message-ID: 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 From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Oct 22 13:01:38 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:01:38 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Neelie Kroes calls for a serious global debate on Internet Governance Message-ID: <9A891A5E-8ABF-4858-ACD1-FB0E9B455D79@gmail.com> Worth an attentive listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzB8gyq43k From mir at ripe.net Wed Oct 23 10:51:39 2013 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:51:39 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] =?windows-1252?q?New_on_RIPE_Labs=3A_How_=93Nati?= =?windows-1252?q?onal=94_is_the_Dutch_Critical_IP_Infrastructure=3F?= Message-ID: <52678E1B.3020805@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Razvan C. Oprea's presentation during the MAT-WG at the recent RIPE Meeting in Athens, we put a summary report on RIPE Labs: How ?National? is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/benno_overeinder/dutch-critical-ip-infrastructure This is a contribution by Benno Overeinder, Fahimeh Alizadeh and Razvan C. Oprea. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From avangaev at gmail.com Fri Oct 25 20:16:39 2013 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:16:39 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG Message-ID: Dear all, During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European Institutions and other governmental organisations. Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I could lend a hand. I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ Therefore ? if the RIPE community approves ? I would like to introduce my candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. With kind regards, Alain Van Gaever -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat Oct 26 11:25:42 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:25:42 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidates Message-ID: If I understand well we now have four (possible) candidates for co-chair: Alain van Gaever Erika Hersaeus Meredith Whittaker Niall O'Reilly This is great! Four good people - yet with quite different backgrounds and skills. It really shows the interest if the WG. And there is a lot of important work to be done. Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. Not on a people level and not on a work level. Among other things we in the EU will be beginning the transition to a new Parliament and a new Commission around then. So what should be the plan? Best, Gordon From jim at rfc1035.com Sat Oct 26 11:49:53 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:49:53 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] appointing a new co-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9BA2F891-EE3F-47F2-BE5E-07D37090BCBE@rfc1035.com> On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:25, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. +1. Let's get this done quickly and with the minimum of fuss. > So what should be the plan? IMO the current chair(s) should pick who they think is the best candidate, explain why and ask the WG to endorse that decision. [For this exercise we could assume Patrik hasn't resigned until his replacement is in place.] Keep the appointment process simple and lightweight. FWIW my preference would be to have someone who has a regulatory/government background rather than a mostly Internet person. The former should have a wider set of contacts with the people and organisations we'd like to bring in to the WG as well as a better understanding of what goes on in government/regulatory circles. Perhaps others here could say which characteristics they want (or don't want) from the new co-chair? That would help Maria (and Patrik?) choose the candidiate most likely to get widest endorsement form the WG. I'm sure whoever gets chosen would of course get that endorsement. From denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl Sat Oct 26 12:12:44 2013 From: denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl (Wout de Natris) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:12:44 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jim?s suggestions make a lot of sense. +1 from me. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:00:03 +0200 > > 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. Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG > (Alain Van Gaever) > 2. Candidates (Gordon Lennox) > 3. appointing a new co-chair (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:16:39 +0100 > From: Alain Van Gaever > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE > Cooperation WG > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dear all, > > > During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the > RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European > Institutions and other governmental organisations. > > > Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I > could lend a hand. > > > I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on > the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO > office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more > background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: > uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ > > > Therefore ? if the RIPE community approves ? I would like to introduce my > candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. > > > With kind regards, > > > Alain Van Gaever > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131025/40ad2893/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:25:42 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidates > To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > If I understand well we now have four (possible) candidates for co-chair: > > Alain van Gaever > Erika Hersaeus > Meredith Whittaker > Niall O'Reilly > > This is great! Four good people - yet with quite different backgrounds and skills. It really shows the interest if the WG. And there is a lot of important work to be done. > > Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. Not on a people level and not on a work level. Among other things we in the EU will be beginning the transition to a new Parliament and a new Commission around then. > > So what should be the plan? > > Best, > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:49:53 +0100 > From: Jim Reid > Subject: [cooperation-wg] appointing a new co-chair > To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: <9BA2F891-EE3F-47F2-BE5E-07D37090BCBE at rfc1035.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:25, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. > > +1. Let's get this done quickly and with the minimum of fuss. > > > So what should be the plan? > > IMO the current chair(s) should pick who they think is the best candidate, explain why and ask the WG to endorse that decision. [For this exercise we could assume Patrik hasn't resigned until his replacement is in place.] Keep the appointment process simple and lightweight. > > FWIW my preference would be to have someone who has a regulatory/government background rather than a mostly Internet person. The former should have a wider set of contacts with the people and organisations we'd like to bring in to the WG as well as a better understanding of what goes on in government/regulatory circles. > > Perhaps others here could say which characteristics they want (or don't want) from the new co-chair? That would help Maria (and Patrik?) choose the candidiate most likely to get widest endorsement form the WG. I'm sure whoever gets chosen would of course get that endorsement. > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 > ********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Oct 26 12:27:48 2013 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:27:48 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] appointing a new co-chair In-Reply-To: <9BA2F891-EE3F-47F2-BE5E-07D37090BCBE@rfc1035.com> References: <9BA2F891-EE3F-47F2-BE5E-07D37090BCBE@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <145DB5ED-EF85-4C3C-A81F-AB47430A8B2B@frobbit.se> On 26 okt 2013, at 11:49, Jim Reid wrote: > FWIW my preference would be to have someone who has a regulatory/government background rather than a mostly Internet person. The former should have a wider set of contacts with the people and organisations we'd like to bring in to the WG as well as a better understanding of what goes on in government/regulatory circles. I agree with you Jim that it is preferable that the co-chair(s) include at least one that have direct insight in public sector activities. The other should have deep understanding of it, if not direct experience. The Internet- and RIPE-skills the rest of us have plenty of knowledge we can share. :-) Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Oct 27 10:27:03 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 10:27:03 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Barroso on ICTs Message-ID: <8FFE7A84-0049-4355-BA5D-AE16BCF85097@gmail.com> http://ec.europa.eu/news/pdf/131024_en.pdf From malcolm at linx.net Sun Oct 27 18:49:42 2013 From: malcolm at linx.net (Malcolm Hutty) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:49:42 +0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If we have two positions vacant,it strikes me we should strive to get the best of both worlds: someone with a background in government crossing over into the tech community, and someone with a background in the tech community crossing over into the world of policy. Malcolm. From nick at inex.ie Sun Oct 27 22:04:30 2013 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 21:04:30 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <526D7FDE.8060709@inex.ie> On 27/10/2013 17:49, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > If we have two positions vacant,it strikes me we should strive to get > the best of both worlds: someone with a background in government > crossing over into the tech community, and someone with a background in > the tech community crossing over into the world of policy. this seems like a good suggestion to me. Nick From maria at sunet.se Tue Oct 29 09:23:25 2013 From: maria at sunet.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Maria_H=E4ll?=) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:23:25 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7E221F51-44C8-4316-9981-D96FF9372BA8@sunet.se> Hi all I'm pleased to see that we have several good candidates! Appreciated! Of course we now need a good and transparent process on how to proceed and I agree with Gordon that this should not wait until Warsaw meeting. We have a bunch of stuff to deal with in near future. I have seen some feedback on mailing list. Very good! I'll very soon come back with some suggestions how to move fwd and some questions where I need your feedback! Best, Maria co-chair Cooperation WG 26 okt 2013 kl. 11:25 skrev Gordon Lennox : > > If I understand well we now have four (possible) candidates for co-chair: > > Alain van Gaever > Erika Hersaeus > Meredith Whittaker > Niall O'Reilly > > This is great! Four good people - yet with quite different backgrounds and skills. It really shows the interest if the WG. And there is a lot of important work to be done. > > Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. Not on a people level and not on a work level. Among other things we in the EU will be beginning the transition to a new Parliament and a new Commission around then. > > So what should be the plan? > > Best, > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se Tue Oct 29 12:28:39 2013 From: Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se (Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:39 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to introduce myself regarding the nomination as co-chair of the Cooperation WG. For those of you who don?t know me, I?m Erika Hersaeus and I work at the Swedish NRA - The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS, since several years. I?m interested in enhancing the cooperation and dialogue between the EU Commission, governments, authorities, and the technical community! I would be taking on the role as a representative of my employer. PTS recognize the importance of taking part of the existing processes on Internet Governance, for instance the RIPE meetings and the PDP, and to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community. I?ve experience from e.g. regulation, cooperation and promoting Network and Information Security in Sweden. I?ve been attending RIPE meetings since 2008 in order to follow and take part in the development and discussions within the community?s area since PTS is the Swedish sector authority for electronic communications and we need to be updated on what?s going on. For instance I?ve been working with promoting the deployment of IPv6 and DNSSEC in public bodies in Sweden - also in enhanced cooperation. We also have experience from when there has been a lack of dialogue, which did not result in successful regulation, wherefore I?m an advocate of enhanced dialogue between governments and the technical community. I?ve also experience from arranging Swedish Cooperation fora since 2007. PTS is the host for RGIG, Reference Group on Internet Governance, where representatives from different ministries, authorities, the private sector and the Internet community, meet three times per year. We use an email list between the meetings in order to distribute information about accurate issues, for instance EU directives, ITU resolutions, information from RIPE, articles etc. I would be glad to make an effort in having more representatives from the regulation side, governments, NRA, etc. taking part of the RIPE Community and enhancing the dialogue! If you have any questions, please don?t hesitate to contact me. Regards, Erika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Oct 29 21:37:24 2013 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission References: Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0@gmail.com> While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... Begin forwarded message: > From: Wouter van Hulten > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > To: Gordon Lennox , "connect-bof at ripe.net" , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > > 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 >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wouter at vanhulten.com Tue Oct 29 18:32:09 2013 From: wouter at vanhulten.com (Wouter van Hulten) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:32:09 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl Wed Oct 30 09:49:55 2013 From: denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl (Wout de Natris) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:49:55 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Reading Gordon's comments, observations and the invitation to speak e.g. with Marietje Schaaken, I reiterate my comment made in Athens two weeks ago, that the RIPE community must seriously contemplate whether it can afford to go without an at minimum semi-permanent person aimed at following and lobbying the European Commission and Parliament. Why? Policies, whether national or at EU level, are years in the making. The earlier representatives from interested parties speak with the civil servants appointed to work on a policy, the greater the odds that messages come across and positions are understood. Once the wording is more or less set in stone, like when a text is presented to the European Parliament, the civil servants have done most of their work. Lobbying them is then too late and the rest indirect. The window of opportunity at the drafting stage is closed. Industry lobbies Brussels extensively and at times very successfully. In its own direct interest. The internet related organisations do not. If this is important, and the topics discussed in Athens suggested to me that it is, the conclusion is that an organisation like RIPE can not afford to ignore politics. Only being there from the start gives influence in the drafting and thinking process. Recent actions from e.g. I* show that positions and actions change, but perhaps not rigorously enough. Internet has become a very political topic. For the internet related organisations the consequence is that politics can no longer be ignored. Hence my advice: Be there from the start from now on and match the more selfish lobbying from corporations with and for the common good. Being there means knowing which fights to pick and the right moment to step in and knowing the right people; efficiency. The side effect is positive also. The right people get to know RIPE (NCC) and hence will show up at roundtables and meetings more to discuss and participate and learn. Best, Wout > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by > European Commission > To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Wouter van Hulten > > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > > To: Gordon Lennox , "connect-bof at ripe.net" , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > > > > 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 > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131029/986d79ee/attachment.html > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14 > ********************************************** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 22, Issue 14 > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:30 +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. Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG > (Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se) > 2. Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:39 +0000 > From: > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE > Cooperation WG > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear all, > > > I would like to introduce myself regarding the nomination as co-chair of the Cooperation WG. For those of you who don?t know me, I?m Erika Hersaeus and I work at the Swedish NRA - The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS, since several years. > > I?m interested in enhancing the cooperation and dialogue between the EU Commission, governments, authorities, and the technical community! I would be taking on the role as a representative of my employer. > > > > PTS recognize the importance of taking part of the existing processes on Internet Governance, for instance the RIPE meetings and the PDP, and to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community. > > > > I?ve experience from e.g. regulation, cooperation and promoting Network and Information Security in Sweden. I?ve been attending RIPE meetings since 2008 in order to follow and take part in the development and discussions within the community?s area since PTS is the Swedish sector authority for electronic communications and we need to be updated on what?s going on. For instance I?ve been working with promoting the deployment of IPv6 and DNSSEC in public bodies in Sweden - also in enhanced cooperation. We also have experience from when there has been a lack of dialogue, which did not result in successful regulation, wherefore I?m an advocate of enhanced dialogue between governments and the technical community. > > > > I?ve also experience from arranging Swedish Cooperation fora since 2007. PTS is the host for RGIG, Reference Group on Internet Governance, where representatives from different ministries, authorities, the private sector and the Internet community, meet three times per year. We use an email list between the meetings in order to distribute information about accurate issues, for instance EU directives, ITU resolutions, information from RIPE, articles etc. > > > > I would be glad to make an effort in having more representatives from the regulation side, governments, NRA, etc. taking part of the RIPE Community and enhancing the dialogue! > > > > > > If you have any questions, please don?t hesitate to contact me. > > > > > > Regards, > > Erika > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131029/4600b7a9/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by > European Commission > To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Wouter van Hulten > > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > > To: Gordon Lennox , "connect-bof at ripe.net" , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > > > > 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 > >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131029/986d79ee/attachment.html > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14 > ********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Wed Oct 30 11:27:33 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:27:33 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: 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 Begin forwarded message: > From: Niall O'Reilly > Date: 30 October 2013 10:16:26 GMT > To: bind-check at telenet.be > Cc: bind-users at lists.isc.org > Subject: Re: use bind 9.8 as caching server and authoritative nameserver > message-id: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9 at ucd.ie> > > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 13:10, bind-check at telenet.be wrote: > >> Recently our government obligated all ISP's to block access to child-porn, illegal betting sites, illegal file share sites etc... >> I have been asked now to implement this on our caching DNS servers (serve a custom zone to all of our customers that points to an IP from the government that hosts a block-page) > > You probably understand that this approach is of limited effectiveness, > and has arguably significant disadvantages. > > It may be of interest for you to read the report mentioned at either of > the following URIs (in French, English respectively). > > http://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/6573/show/le-conseil-scientifique-de-l-afnic-partage-sur-le-filtrage-internet-par-dns.html > 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 > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > Member of AFNIC's Conseil Scientifique > > PS. I wan't a significant contributor to this report. > Credit for that belongs to the colleagues who did the work. /Niall > From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Oct 30 11:48:20 2013 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:48:20 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the > wider French Internet community. Indeed. However I'm unsure if this WG is the place for that as it probably won't reach that wider French(?) Internet community. Or those who are responsible for making regulations and laws in this area. The OP on bind-users had a Belgian email address BTW. 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. From ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de Wed Oct 30 12:10:23 2013 From: ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:10:23 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <5270E91F.7020202@schiefner.de> Jim, Niall & all - On 30.10.2013 11:48, Jim Reid wrote: > On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:27, Niall O'Reilly > wrote: > >> I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and >> certain parts of the wider French Internet community. > > Indeed. However I'm unsure if this WG is the place for that as it > probably won't reach that wider French(?) Internet community. Or > those who are responsible for making regulations and laws in this > area. The OP on bind-users had a Belgian email address BTW. > > 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. one indeed can only wonder why such approaches that do *NOT* solve the underlying problmes keep popping up ever again. And why even worse these approaches are still turned into binding regulation and/or legislation despite their effectlessness. It's like fighting poverty by putting up foldings screens around the homeless: out of sight, problem solved. We have had the same discussion in Germany inlcuding a law that the new coalition (after the 2009 federal elections) asked for it not to be applied before the law got finally cancelled in December 2011. *) In particular eco, Germany's ISP association, fought it heavily for obvious reasons. I'd assume that the arguments brought forward three years ago are still very vaild and could form a basis for the suggested document. Best, -C. *) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Wed Oct 30 13:14:57 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:14:57 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:48, 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. Absolutely. That's the kind of thing I had in mind, and felt it didn't need spelling out. Some of the work has been done by the French colleagues. This WG should take advantage of that. ATB /Niall From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Wed Oct 30 14:41:38 2013 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:41:38 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <201310301341.r9UDfcmL074351@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:48, Jim Reid wrote: > That said, it would be worthwhile for this WG to try to develop something that explains the advantag es 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. Absolutely. That's the kind of thing I had in mind, and felt it didn't need spelling out. Some of the work has been done by the French colleagues. This WG should take advantage of that. If you do that, one should also look at the "SSAC Advisory on Impacts of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System", SAC056 . jaap From rlb at ipv.sx Wed Oct 30 15:50:05 2013 From: rlb at ipv.sx (Richard Barnes) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:50:05 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: <201310301341.r9UDfcmL074351@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <201310301341.r9UDfcmL074351@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:48, Jim Reid wrote: > > > That said, it would be worthwhile for this WG to try to develop > something that explains the advantag es 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. > > Absolutely. > That's the kind of thing I had in mind, and felt it didn't > need spelling out. > > Some of the work has been done by the French colleagues. > This WG should take advantage of that. > > If you do that, one should also look at the "SSAC Advisory on Impacts > of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System", SAC056 > . > > jaap > > Also, the IAB's draft "Technical Considerations for Internet Service Blocking and Filtering" covers DNS-based as well as other types of filtering. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Wed Oct 30 17:38:55 2013 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:38:55 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Nomination of co-chair of Cooperation WG In-Reply-To: <1238B15D-8178-4DF8-9684-3C19EA8329CB@sunet.se> References: <1238B15D-8178-4DF8-9684-3C19EA8329CB@sunet.se> Message-ID: <78A50096-C455-46B7-9C89-D43CD838C0F2@ucd.ie> Dear members of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, On 17 Oct 2013, at 10:38, Maria H?ll wrote: > As you all know Patrik F?ltstr?m has stepped down as co-chair of the Cooperation Working Group. > As remaining co-chair I would like to nominate Niall O'Reilly as new co-chair of the WG. > Niall will present himself on the list shortly. That seemed to draw a flurry of other nominations, which I see as a healthy sign. I feel privileged that Maria nominated me, and congratulate the other nominees on seizing the initiative to self-nominate. It's time that I introduced myself too. As some of you will know already, I work in the IT Services Unit at University College Dublin (Ireland's largest university). I have been engaged in the RIPE Community since 1990 [1] and have been Chair or Co-Chair in two RIPE Working Groups which are now no longer active: TLD [2] and ENUM [3]. I am familiar with the RIPE Policy Development Process, both from the oversight side and, more recently, as a policy proposer. While responsible for the IE top-level domain, I was one of the co-founders of CENTR, which grew from the work of the RIPE TLD WG. I am still involved in the TLD scene, as a member of AFNIC's Scientific Council [4]. I see the Cooperation WG, and especially item 3 of its Charter [5], as having growing significance, reflecting the increasing attention which civil society is now having to give to the impact of the technology which RIPE once had to promote and foster. I look forward to Maria's "suggestions how to move fwd" with choosing co-chairs for the WG and, whatever the outcome, will be glad to support the leadership of the WG in any way I can. Best regards, Niall [1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-3/attendee-list [2] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/inactive-working-groups/tld [3] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/enum [4] http://www.afnic.fr/en/expertise/r-d/a-scientific-council-open-to-the-internet-community-2.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/coop From dburk at burkov.aha.ru Thu Oct 31 19:04:26 2013 From: dburk at burkov.aha.ru (Dmitry Burkov) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:04:26 +0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> Message-ID: <68A4BAE4-1EB8-4A14-B509-3DC39958ED0F@burkov.aha.ru> we wrote something on this theme this year in Russian http://rkn.gov.ru/docs/Analysys_and_recommendations_comments_fin.pdf http://rkn.gov.ru/press/speech/news19960.htm based mostly on IETF draft approach, previous discussoins and partly OFCOM paper On 30 Oct 2013, at 14:48, Jim Reid wrote: > On 30 Oct 2013, at 10:27, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > >> I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the >> wider French Internet community. > > Indeed. However I'm unsure if this WG is the place for that as it probably won't reach that wider French(?) Internet community. Or those who are responsible for making regulations and laws in this area. The OP on bind-users had a Belgian email address BTW. > > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu Oct 31 23:16:30 2013 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:16:30 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Regulation proposed by European Commission In-Reply-To: <526299B8.2050708@inex.ie> References: <96E1C687-AF61-4687-91E4-3DD129064729@gmail.com> <526299B8.2050708@inex.ie> Message-ID: +1 to Nick's point -- I can look around my realm for a distillation, if needed. In the meantime, Gordon et al. if you have a pointer to intelligible summaries, along with particularly vague and/or problematic sections, I think that would help anchor commentary during the short time we have left. Cheers, Meredith On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 17/10/2013 14:07, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > ** interconnection > > > > ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services > > Hi Gordon, > > Could you expand on their positions on interconnection, or at least provide > some pointers to URLs. I started to look at some of the urls on the europa > web site, but got a massive case of verbosititis and ran scared. Probably > I'm not the only person who is interested in the interconnection stuff > (maybe the connect bof people too?) > > Nick > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: