From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 22:15:37 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 22:15:37 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation Message-ID: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> The mood in Brussels today seemed to be that amendments in favour of network neutrality will be adopted. The text as agreed in the ITRE Committee can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2014-0190&language=EN On the same page, near the top you will see links to pdf files containing amendments 234-246. Those are the plenary amendments tabled by the political groups. Amendments 234-236 are those tabled by Ms Schaake on behalf of the ALDE Group. So tomorrow, Wednesday, we have the debate and then on Thursday the vote. That though is just the first reading. Then we have to see what the Council delivers. There seems to be less clarity there. Then institutional negotiations and then second reading. Gordon From inno at innogenna.it Wed Apr 2 02:45:22 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 02:45:22 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> Hello, I understood that the votation in the EP could be anticipated, it could happen already today in the early afternoon. Big operators are rumourosly moving against the NN reform in its entirety: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/01/battle-lines-drawn-over-net-neutrality-in-europe/ Kroes just wrote a letter to all MEPs: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/open-letter-members-european-parliament I wrote a short post contesting her assumptions: http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-confused-meaning-of-open-internet-in-the-european-net-neutrality-debate-my-5-cents/ Cheers, Inno ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 01/apr/2014, alle ore 22:15, Gordon Lennox ha scritto: > The mood in Brussels today seemed to be that amendments in favour of network neutrality will be adopted. > > The text as agreed in the ITRE Committee can be found here: > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2014-0190&language=EN > > On the same page, near the top you will see links to pdf files containing amendments 234-246. Those are the plenary amendments tabled by the political groups. Amendments 234-236 are those tabled by Ms Schaake on behalf of the ALDE Group. > > So tomorrow, Wednesday, we have the debate and then on Thursday the vote. That though is just the first reading. > > Then we have to see what the Council delivers. There seems to be less clarity there. > > Then institutional negotiations and then second reading. > > Gordon > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 10:43:50 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:43:50 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> Message-ID: I liked your comment: "Unified in rejecting, confused in proposing." Unfortunately the "confusion" is fairly widespread! And no signs of it getting better anytime soon. Gordon On 2 Apr, 2014, at 02:45, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > Hello, > > I understood that the votation in the EP could be anticipated, it could happen already today in the early afternoon. > Big operators are rumourosly moving against the NN reform in its entirety: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/01/battle-lines-drawn-over-net-neutrality-in-europe/ > Kroes just wrote a letter to all MEPs: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/open-letter-members-european-parliament > I wrote a short post contesting her assumptions: http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-confused-meaning-of-open-internet-in-the-european-net-neutrality-debate-my-5-cents/ > > Cheers, > > Inno > > ----------------------------------------- > Innocenzo Genna > Genna Cabinet Sprl > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > Skype: innonews > Twitter: @InnoGenna > Email: inno at innogenna.it > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:04:12 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 17:04:12 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> Message-ID: So we have had the vote in Parliament. See: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26865869 and elsewhere. Now we wait for Council. Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:07:11 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 17:07:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> Message-ID: By the way not everybody is happy. See: "The electronic communications industry is highly concerned about the recent developments of the open internet debate at European level. Whilst we support an open internet, a set of misconceptions about our industry, together with a rushed legislative process and a lack of technical analysis, risk transforming the Connected Continent Regulation into an anti-innovation and anti-consumer choice legislation." http://www.cable-europe.eu/joint-e-communications-industry-statement-on-the-open-internet-debate/ Gordon From patrik at frobbit.se Thu Apr 3 19:30:46 2014 From: patrik at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 19:30:46 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> Message-ID: <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> Pretty bold statement: > The electronic communications industry I have so far only heard negative views from ETNO and these guys, CableEurope. Not the whole electronic communications industry. Patrik On 3 apr 2014, at 17:07, Gordon Lennox wrote: > By the way not everybody is happy. > > See: > > "The electronic communications industry is highly concerned about the recent developments of the open internet debate at European level. Whilst we support an open internet, a set of misconceptions about our industry, together with a rushed legislative process and a lack of technical analysis, risk transforming the Connected Continent Regulation into an anti-innovation and anti-consumer choice legislation." > > http://www.cable-europe.eu/joint-e-communications-industry-statement-on-the-open-internet-debate/ > > Gordon > > -------------- 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 inno at innogenna.it Fri Apr 4 01:01:11 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 01:01:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> GSMA and ECTA are also against the position taken by the EP Euroispa is silent (different positions amongst members) ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 03/apr/2014, alle ore 19:30, Patrik F?ltstr?m ha scritto: > Pretty bold statement: > >> The electronic communications industry > > I have so far only heard negative views from ETNO and these guys, CableEurope. > > Not the whole electronic communications industry. > > Patrik > > On 3 apr 2014, at 17:07, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> By the way not everybody is happy. >> >> See: >> >> "The electronic communications industry is highly concerned about the recent developments of the open internet debate at European level. Whilst we support an open internet, a set of misconceptions about our industry, together with a rushed legislative process and a lack of technical analysis, risk transforming the Connected Continent Regulation into an anti-innovation and anti-consumer choice legislation." >> >> http://www.cable-europe.eu/joint-e-communications-industry-statement-on-the-open-internet-debate/ >> >> Gordon >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Apr 6 09:09:35 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 09:09:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] eIDAS Regulation Message-ID: <54584D95-AAF7-4311-B7B7-04963BFECA60@gmail.com> On Thursday, the EP also apparently voted positively on the eIDAS Regulation. The Commission's proposal for this was presented at the RIPE meeting in Dublin. Following community discussion a letter, detailing concerns and specific suggestions for edits to the text of the Regulation, was sent to relevant Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), European Commission staff and government officials. Gordon From nick at inex.ie Tue Apr 8 11:09:04 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:09:04 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful Message-ID: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> > http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf enjoy. Nick From paf at frobbit.se Tue Apr 8 11:39:00 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 11:39:00 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> Message-ID: On 8 apr 2014, at 11:09, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf > > enjoy. Exactly what both opponents and proponents of the directive wanted. This will be messy... 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 mariann at nomatic.org Tue Apr 8 12:24:18 2014 From: mariann at nomatic.org (mariann unterluggauer) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:24:18 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> Message-ID: <44CB6215-DD2E-4048-822E-7A74B1D014D3@nomatic.org> patrik, can you be more specific?? thanks! mariann On Apr 8, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > On 8 apr 2014, at 11:09, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >>> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf >> >> enjoy. > > Exactly what both opponents and proponents of the directive wanted. > > This will be messy... > > Patrik > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From inno at innogenna.it Tue Apr 8 13:47:35 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:47:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> Message-ID: My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/the-annulment-of-the-data-retention-directive-and-the-messy-consequences-on-national-legislations/ ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 08/apr/2014, alle ore 11:09, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: >> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf > > enjoy. > > Nick > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Apr 8 14:28:02 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:28:02 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: <44CB6215-DD2E-4048-822E-7A74B1D014D3@nomatic.org> References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <44CB6215-DD2E-4048-822E-7A74B1D014D3@nomatic.org> Message-ID: We should remember that the Directive is in reality an exception to the base rule that is that information MUST be deleted when it is not needed anymore. Neither the ones that want more data retained nor the ones that is against data to be retained like the Directive. Opening it can because of that be viewed as a success for both(!) sides. The ones being AGAINST the directive, they see an ability to make it more clear what is to be retained and not together with shortening the time data is retained (up to including "quick freeze"). The ones being IN FAVOR of the directive are happy because they see it being possible to include in the new version also other kinds of communication than what is in the directive today. Etc. Patrik On 8 apr 2014, at 12:24, mariann unterluggauer wrote: > patrik, > can you be more specific?? > > thanks! > mariann > > > On Apr 8, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> On 8 apr 2014, at 11:09, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >>>> http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-04/cp140054en.pdf >>> >>> enjoy. >> >> Exactly what both opponents and proponents of the directive wanted. >> >> This will be messy... >> >> Patrik >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 16:17:15 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:17:15 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <44CB6215-DD2E-4048-822E-7A74B1D014D3@nomatic.org> Message-ID: <486A6C9A-463E-46FB-945B-6452F831C3E0@gmail.com> On 8 Apr, 2014, at 14:28, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > that information MUST be deleted when it is not needed anymore Or maybe more: personal information should be deleted or anonymised when it is no longer required for the specific purpose the individual originally agreed too. So no long-term archiving and no re-use for non-related purposes. But yes. This will be messy. Even post-Snoden. And even if we see stories like this: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26936116 On the bright side it could make implementing carrier-grade NATs so much more fun. Gordon See also: http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/european-court-rules-mass-surveillance-of-communications-unlawful/ From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Apr 8 17:18:50 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:18:50 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: <486A6C9A-463E-46FB-945B-6452F831C3E0@gmail.com> References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <44CB6215-DD2E-4048-822E-7A74B1D014D3@nomatic.org> <486A6C9A-463E-46FB-945B-6452F831C3E0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8 Apr 2014, at 15:17, Gordon Lennox wrote: > On the bright side it could make implementing carrier-grade NATs so much more fun. Or perhaps it'll be the tipping point for carriers to deploy IPv6. :-) Says he both ducking for cover and running away... From avangaev at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 22:16:18 2014 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 21:16:18 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] IANA Globalization Progress Message-ID: For those of you who want some more analysis regarding the change in oversight arrangements for the IANA functions, I found the following article a very interesting read: http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/37494/ICANN-policy-final.pdfand a short summary on: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37494/en/icann-reform:-recommendations Alain Van Gaever Co-chair RIPE Coop WG On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Chris Buckridge wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were > made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet > technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight > arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. > > I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments > will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: nick > > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA > Globalization Progress > > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > > To: ripe-list at ripe.net, ncc-announce at ripe.net > > > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for > coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, > ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the > suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > > > Their complete statement can be found here: > > > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress > > > > > > Regards, > > Nick Hyrka > > Communications Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariann at nomatic.org Tue Apr 8 18:25:30 2014 From: mariann at nomatic.org (mariann unterluggauer) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:25:30 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <44CB6215-DD2E-4048-822E-7A74B1D014D3@nomatic.org> <486A6C9A-463E-46FB-945B-6452F831C3E0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <98EDE481-B34E-46AD-9689-7D9B24CBF85D@nomatic.org> hi, patrik thanks! and in case of the "dreams aka visions" of jim and gordon: i would add "must delete", applied to all levels. stored as well as requested data. i mean, i am still able to go to a eu forensic institute today to see pictures of alphonse bertillon. yet, in the 19th century they had a sort of "must delete" law in place, which only was fulfilled in regard to sloppiness in the archive - - - or fire. mariann On Apr 8, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > On 8 Apr 2014, at 15:17, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> On the bright side it could make implementing carrier-grade NATs so much more fun. > > Or perhaps it'll be the tipping point for carriers to deploy IPv6. :-) Says he both ducking for cover and running away... > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 23:12:19 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:12:19 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] ICANN proposal released Message-ID: <0224EE8B-190E-4D9F-BBA4-614A8E3B3C5B@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jordan Carter" Date: Apr 9, 2014 9:37 AM Subject: [IANAxfer] ICANN proposal released To: "ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org" , Cc: Dear ISOC colleagues, ICANN has released its proposal for the transition dialogue re NTIA DNS functions. The page and material is at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm. This page includes the principles and mechanisms and seeks comment on these, as well as a process that involves an ICANN community steering group with an ICANN secretariat to help the discussion along. Scope is set out in a paper linked from this page at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/iana-transition-scoping-08apr14-en.pdf On a very cursory and initial read, the scope appears to not account properly for the broad oversight or stewardship functions of the NTIA in respect of the DNS, and rules out discussion of IANA being operated by ICANN as part of the conversation. best, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan at internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. _______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer From chrisb at ripe.net Thu Apr 10 17:16:32 2014 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:16:32 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Report on ITU WTDC 2014 Message-ID: <6414B91A-203E-4BD9-93E7-D9BBAA8315B3@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has just published a report on the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference 2014, which concluded today in Dubai: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/ipv6-on-the-agenda-at-wtdc-2014 Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 18:40:35 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:40:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> Message-ID: <68F434D9-07BB-4460-995A-E2CA445FEADF@gmail.com> So the headlines looked very positive for net neutrality: << "Today's vote is a great step towards strengthening the telecommunications single market. Parliament wants to abolish retail roaming charges for voice, SMS and data by 15 December 2015 and improve radio spectrum management to develop 4G and 5G throughout Europe", said rapporteur Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP, ES). ?We have achieved further guarantees to maintain the openness of the Internet by ensuring that users can run and provide applications and services of their choice as well as reinforcing the Internet as a key driver of competitiveness, economic growth, jobs, social development and innovation?, she added. Ms del Castillo's report was approved by 534 votes to 25, with 58 abstentions. >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20140331IPR41232/html/Ensure-open-access-for-internet-service-suppliers-and-ban-roaming-fees-say-MEPs However the detail going forward is less clear. There were as is normal a number of earlier votes in plenary on the various amendments. Those votes were often a bit closer. Then of course the big vote was a foregone conclusion? Well who was going to vote against a package with the roaming part in it? So soon we will get a new set of MEPs whose representatives will then negotiate with the Council on the basis of what the Parliament just adopted. Where is the Council on this? Well there are some views on EDRi's web-site: http://edri.org/net-neutrality-happens-next/ The mood in Brussels yesterday - there was yet another net neutrality event - was that this is not over yet by any means. Gordon The text: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0281+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN The votes: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bPV%2b20140403%2bRES-VOT%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN From paf at frobbit.se Fri Apr 11 06:46:00 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 06:46:00 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: <68F434D9-07BB-4460-995A-E2CA445FEADF@gmail.com> References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> <68F434D9-07BB-4460-995A-E2CA445FEADF@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 10 apr 2014, at 18:40, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Then of course the big vote was a foregone conclusion? Well who was going to vote against a package with the roaming part in it? I have seen the amendments regarding net neutrality, but not the text about roaming. Does anyone have that so it is possible to see what it actually says? 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 Fri Apr 11 07:16:06 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:16:06 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> <68F434D9-07BB-4460-995A-E2CA445FEADF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <952C67AB-7B5A-4AF8-8A2C-3B3078CB12B0@gmail.com> My previous post gave a link to the adopted text (amendments, deletions, additions). So there you have the state of play on the whole package. I also supplied a link to the various plenary votes. Happy reading! Gordon PS It would be fun if there was a way to somehow quantify the "distance" between the Commission's proposal and the text the Parliament adopted. On 11 Apr, 2014, at 06:46, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > On 10 apr 2014, at 18:40, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> Then of course the big vote was a foregone conclusion? Well who was going to vote against a package with the roaming part in it? > > I have seen the amendments regarding net neutrality, but not the text about roaming. > > Does anyone have that so it is possible to see what it actually says? > > Patrik > From paf at frobbit.se Fri Apr 11 07:51:21 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:51:21 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: <952C67AB-7B5A-4AF8-8A2C-3B3078CB12B0@gmail.com> References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> <68F434D9-07BB-4460-995A-E2CA445FEADF@gmail.com> <952C67AB-7B5A-4AF8-8A2C-3B3078CB12B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ok, sorry, it was unclear to me what link went where. I will re-read the thread. Patrik On 11 apr 2014, at 07:16, Gordon Lennox wrote: > My previous post gave a link to the adopted text (amendments, deletions, additions). > > So there you have the state of play on the whole package. > > I also supplied a link to the various plenary votes. > > Happy reading! > > Gordon > > PS It would be fun if there was a way to somehow quantify the "distance" between the Commission's proposal and the text the Parliament adopted. > > > On 11 Apr, 2014, at 06:46, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> >> On 10 apr 2014, at 18:40, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> >>> Then of course the big vote was a foregone conclusion? Well who was going to vote against a package with the roaming part in it? >> >> I have seen the amendments regarding net neutrality, but not the text about roaming. >> >> Does anyone have that so it is possible to see what it actually says? >> >> 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 Fri Apr 11 09:49:36 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:49:36 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] eIDAS Regulation In-Reply-To: <54584D95-AAF7-4311-B7B7-04963BFECA60@gmail.com> References: <54584D95-AAF7-4311-B7B7-04963BFECA60@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is the current text on the eID regulation: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0282+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN I believe it is worth even a quick read as it is very wide-ranging. Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat Apr 12 08:59:25 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:59:25 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation In-Reply-To: References: <96B5535E-BA2A-4B12-9CC7-F153FC7DEA2F@gmail.com> <0FE7D4C1-7A7E-4B56-AED7-B254A2B3F35D@innogenna.it> <52A80FEE-A906-43F9-95F9-71C67B41D9D4@frobbit.se> <99554859-08F1-4B4B-8E34-90B6E716E9B2@innogenna.it> <68F434D9-07BB-4460-995A-E2CA445FEADF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <968F5C4F-FD7B-425A-B886-0B2186569E0A@gmail.com> On 11 Apr, 2014, at 06:46, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > On 10 apr 2014, at 18:40, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> Then of course the big vote was a foregone conclusion? Well who was going to vote against a package with the roaming part in it? > > I have seen the amendments regarding net neutrality, but not the text about roaming. > > Does anyone have that so it is possible to see what it actually says? > > Patrik > For those who are interested in who voted for what in the parliament then this can be fun. Colour! Pie-charts! http://www.votewatch.eu/ You can sort on vote, individuals, parties, member state. So you can easily see what the votes were on individual amendments before the final vote on the package. See for example: http://www.votewatch.eu/en/european-parliament-latest-votes.html#/#BOTH/0/2014-04-03/2014-04-03/0 http://www.votewatch.eu/en/european-single-market-for-electronic-communications-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-legislative-r.html http://www.votewatch.eu/en/european-single-market-for-electronic-communications-draft-legislative-resolution-article-23-paragra.html So check out how your MEP did! Gordon From nick at inex.ie Mon Apr 14 15:10:26 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:10:26 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> Message-ID: <534BDE42.1060105@inex.ie> On 08/04/2014 12:47, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. > > There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data > retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: Yes, but it creates an immediate long term problem for all of the national legislation and leaves it all open to be contested in the courts. In the case of Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the High Court to dismiss the opinions of the ECJ, particularly as they believed there was sufficient grounds to refer the original Digital Rights Ireland complaint to the ECJ in the first place. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. Nick From michele at blacknight.com Tue Apr 15 10:30:57 2014 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:30:57 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: <20140414131101.DCC1859C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <20140414131101.DCC1859C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Nick Do you have any idea when the case will be back in the High Court? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:10 PM To: Innocenzo Genna Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful On 08/04/2014 12:47, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. > > There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data > retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: Yes, but it creates an immediate long term problem for all of the national legislation and leaves it all open to be contested in the courts. In the case of Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the High Court to dismiss the opinions of the ECJ, particularly as they believed there was sufficient grounds to refer the original Digital Rights Ireland complaint to the ECJ in the first place. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. Nick From inno at innogenna.it Tue Apr 15 12:51:38 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:51:38 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: <534BDE42.1060105@inex.ie> References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <534BDE42.1060105@inex.ie> Message-ID: yes, I agree on the wave of uncertainty starting from eh ECJ decision, but we cannot do against: the annulment decision of the ECJ does not affect directly the transposing national legislations. The national legislation become ineffective (not void!) as far as they contravene the principles laid down by the ECJ, and this is an evaluation to be made on a case by case basis. Do not forget: the ECJ DID NOT declare that data retention is per se incompatible with EU law. By contrast, ECJ annulled the directive because the way data retention was imposed was not justified. It follows from that thatathat a national legislation may survive as long as it fit the ECJ principles. I assume that most of the national data retention legislation do not fit the principles laid down by the ECJ ruling. Unless the local government or parliament take a prompt initiative (repealing or modifying that legislation), this matter remains uncertain: whether such legislation are not effective any longer, this is a matter to be declared by a national courts. A plenty of scenarios can emerge: - consumers using ISPs because they retian their data in violation of privacy law; - people challenging public authorities taking actions against them on the basis of data retained on the basis of the annulled directive - ISP sued by publci authoriuties because they do not retina data any longer and so on?. By the way, the last news from the wise Nordic countries Telenor, Tele2 in Sweden to delete retained customer data Tuesday 15 April 2014 | 12:16 CET | News Telenor's Swedish unit Bredbandsbolaget and Tele2 Sweden announced separately that they have stopped storing customer data, after the European Court of Justice recently declared the EU Data Protection Directive invalid. Both operators said they would start erasing customer information that they have already saved. Tele2 said it has come to the conclusion that continuing to keep the data would be illegal. It said that it looks forward to discussions with the justice department and other authorities on how it can continue to support law enforcement agencies without compromising its customers' privacy. ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 14/apr/2014, alle ore 15:10, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: > On 08/04/2014 12:47, Innocenzo Genna wrote: >> My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. >> >> There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data >> retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: > > Yes, but it creates an immediate long term problem for all of the national > legislation and leaves it all open to be contested in the courts. In the > case of Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the High Court to dismiss > the opinions of the ECJ, particularly as they believed there was sufficient > grounds to refer the original Digital Rights Ireland complaint to the ECJ > in the first place. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. > > Nick > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Tue Apr 15 12:53:48 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:53:48 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <534BDE42.1060105@inex.ie> Message-ID: <16E7626C-A111-4A0C-A540-28519B82E7FA@innogenna.it> (sorry for the various typos, the mail was sent before revising it, however the substance is correct) ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 15/apr/2014, alle ore 12:51, Innocenzo Genna ha scritto: > yes, I agree on the wave of uncertainty starting from eh ECJ decision, but we cannot do against: the annulment decision of the ECJ does not affect directly the transposing national legislations. The national legislation become ineffective (not void!) as far as they contravene the principles laid down by the ECJ, and this is an evaluation to be made on a case by case basis. Do not forget: the ECJ DID NOT declare that data retention is per se incompatible with EU law. By contrast, ECJ annulled the directive because the way data retention was imposed was not justified. It follows from that thatathat a national legislation may survive as long as it fit the ECJ principles. > > I assume that most of the national data retention legislation do not fit the principles laid down by the ECJ ruling. Unless the local government or parliament take a prompt initiative (repealing or modifying that legislation), this matter remains uncertain: whether such legislation are not effective any longer, this is a matter to be declared by a national courts. A plenty of scenarios can emerge: > > - consumers using ISPs because they retian their data in violation of privacy law; > - people challenging public authorities taking actions against them on the basis of data retained on the basis of the annulled directive > - ISP sued by publci authoriuties because they do not retina data any longer > > and so on?. > > By the way, the last news from the wise Nordic countries > > Telenor, Tele2 in Sweden to delete retained customer data > Tuesday 15 April 2014 | 12:16 CET | News > Telenor's Swedish unit Bredbandsbolaget and Tele2 Sweden announced separately that they have stopped storing customer data, after the European Court of Justice recently declared the EU Data Protection Directive invalid. Both operators said they would start erasing customer information that they have already saved. Tele2 said it has come to the conclusion that continuing to keep the data would be illegal. It said that it looks forward to discussions with the justice department and other authorities on how it can continue to support law enforcement agencies without compromising its customers' privacy. > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > Innocenzo Genna > Genna Cabinet Sprl > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > Skype: innonews > Twitter: @InnoGenna > Email: inno at innogenna.it > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com > > > > Il giorno 14/apr/2014, alle ore 15:10, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: > >> On 08/04/2014 12:47, Innocenzo Genna wrote: >>> My 2 cents on the messy consequences upon nation al legislation. >>> >>> There is no automatic annulment of the national legislation on data >>> retention, it is up to the member states to abrogate or modify their rules: >> >> Yes, but it creates an immediate long term problem for all of the national >> legislation and leaves it all open to be contested in the courts. In the >> case of Ireland, it would be extraordinary for the High Court to dismiss >> the opinions of the ECJ, particularly as they believed there was sufficient >> grounds to refer the original Digital Rights Ireland complaint to the ECJ >> in the first place. It will be interesting to see the final ruling. >> >> Nick >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick at inex.ie Tue Apr 15 14:27:28 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:27:28 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Data Retention Directive considered harmful In-Reply-To: References: <5343BCB0.8090107@inex.ie> <20140414131101.DCC1859C001@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: <534D25B0.3070401@inex.ie> On 15/04/2014 09:30, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: > Do you have any idea when the case will be back in the High Court? nope, doesn't seem to be anything up in the legal diary yet - then again, I've never had much success searching for stuff on courts.ie. Perhaps no date has been set yet? The DRI people should know. Nick From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Apr 15 19:26:14 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:26:14 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > [ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share > with your contacts.* ] > > > > In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will > take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European > Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of > sharing information among stakeholders. > Please note that a summary of the"information sharing" conference call on NETmundial, which the European Commission hosted and chaired on 8.4.2014, is now available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/netmundial-european-commission-facilitate-conference-call-information-sharing-0(scroll down to "Related Documents" and click on "Agenda and Minutes"). All the best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprim?es ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas ?tre assimil?es ? une position officielle de la Commission europ?enne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 16 19:37:45 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:37:45 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: let's get to work Message-ID: [ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times ] Dear all, Concerning the forthcoming Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) which will take place in Sao Paulo (Brazil) on 23-24 April 2014, you might be interested to read the latest blog post of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and member of the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee of NETmundial, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-get-workand reproduced below. +++ NETmundial: let's get to work Published by Neelie KROESon Wednesday, 16/04/2014 I will soon be travelling to Sao Paulo to attend NETmundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. The purpose of NETmundial is to develop principles of Internet governance and a roadmap for the future development of this ecosystem. I have already sharedwith all of you my thoughts on the draft "outcome document" that I and other members of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee of NETmundialreceived on 3 April 2014. In the meantime, the organisers of the conference have published a new version of the outcome documentand are inviting everyone to send their views and comments ? I warmly invite all of you to do so. I did so, too; I have sent an email to the membersof the High Level Multi-stakeholder Committee, to the Chair of the Meeting (Prof. Virgilio Almeida) and to the two co-chairs of the Executive Meeting Committee, Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko. Again, in a spirit of transparency, I would like to share the contents of this message with the broader Internet community.... so please read my letter below. *From: KROES Neelie (CAB-KROES)* *Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:26 PM* *To: 'hlmc at netmundial.br '* *Subject: Proposals for the NETmundial outcome document* Dear colleagues, I am pleased to see that the draft outcome document for NETmundial has been published and that the broader public has now the possibility to intervene in the discussion, before we all meet in Sao Paulo next week. Again, I would like to thank all the members of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, as well as the Chair and the Co-Chairs of the meeting, for their tireless work. As a follow-up to the commentswhich I have already shared with you, I would like to make some further observations. In the same spirit of transparency as my previous communication, I am also posting a copy of this e-mail on my blog . I continue to strongly believe that the outcomes of NETmundial must be concrete and actionable, with clear milestones and with a realistic but ambitious timeline. Several reactions to my comments show that I am not alone in thinking that concreteness is paramount to the success of this important gathering; and even though positions on substance may well differ, I believe that my assessment on the necessity of a "change of pace" in these discussions is shared by a broad range of stakeholders. Read in this light, it is clear me that more work is needed on the latest draft; especially if we consider that a number of public contributions submitted to NETmundial did include concrete and actionable suggestions. Luckily, several passages of the draft outcome document do lend themselves quite well to being turned into more concrete actions ? and we should make full use of this opportunity. I will focus on six specific examples: 1. Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model 2. Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum 3. Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building 4. Globalisation of IANA 5. Globalisation of ICANN 6. Jurisdictional issues on the Internet *(1) Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model* The draft outcome document refers several times to the need to *further improve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model*, to enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, to have clear and transparent processes and procedures (including mechanisms for checks and balances and for review). I completely agree ? in fact, I have said so for a long time. The keywords here are inclusiveness and openness, which must both be real and meaningful, not just theoretical. NETmundial should be the moment to properly connect the debates on Internet governance with the discussions and concrete activities on citizens' engagement and participatory democracy. Europe has been quite active in this field, ranging from EU-funded projects in the ICT field, such as DEMO-NET , Cross Overand D-CENT ; to legal innovations such as the European Citizens Initiative; to national initiatives such as the use of Liquid Democracy in the Germany and the People's Assembly Rahvakoguin Estonia, to name just a few. Brazil, with the inclusive and participatory conception and discussions on the "Marco Civil", is also an inspiration for all of us. And it is purely for reasons of space that I cannot mention all the efforts by many organisations and individuals across the world. In its Communication on Internet Policy and Governanceof 12 February 2014, the European Commission suggested that the *further development of multistakeholder guidelines and the sharing of best practices* would be a good manner to move forward. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include*: - a clear commitment to the *bottom-up and cooperative* development of a "concept paper" to be discussed at the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - this concept paper should identify initial recommendations on how the above mentioned engagement and participatory tools and initiatives could be used in Internet governance debates; it should also propose an initial outline of principles-based guidelines to safeguard accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and independence for multi-stakeholder processes; - the discussions in Istanbul and all other appropriate fora should lead, by the *beginning of 2015*, to a proposal for two "case studies", to examine how we could turn the high-level principles into concrete, operational practices of existing Internet governance organisations and processes; - further discussions and practical experimentation on these cases studies could then result in a *concrete reference paper* to be presented and discussed at the 10th Internet Governance Forum, towards the *end of 2015* ? and of course, to be further refined as need be. *(2) Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum* I referred multiple times to the *Internet Governance Forum* or IGF. The draft outcome document of NETmundial clearly mentions the need for strengthening and improving this most important and unique example of global and multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue. I agree that such improvements should include an extension of the IGF mandate beyond its usual 5-years cycle, without prejudice to any possible adaptation of such mandate as the global community will see fit; I also agree that ensuring stable and predictable funding for the IGF is absolutely essential. I reiterate my invitation for everyone, but especially those organisations which have greatly benefited from the Internet, to become a donor to the IGF ? like the EU, some of its Member States and others from the public and private sector. I believe that NETmundial should also make a clear reference, and if possible provide some practical examples, on how innovative forms of crowd-funding could contribute to this joint effort. The other improvements mentioned in the draft outcome document, namely the need to implement creative ways of providing outcomes / recommendations and the analysis of policy options, and to promote inter-sessional dialogues between the yearly gatherings of the IGF, are also essential and, in my view, closely linked to the need to better connect to existing experiences, expertise and practical tools for inclusive engagement, that I highlighted above. On this basis, *I propose that the NETmundial outcome document should ask the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to present to the global community a clear and realistic assessment of how and when, in their view, these recommendations could be concretely implemented*, at the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*. Members of the MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; I am therefore certain that such assessment would be well informed and inclusive of all opinions. But to be even more concrete: let us not forget that, as the draft outcome document mentions, we already have a very clear set of recommendations to refer to, i.e. the *Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum*(WGIGF) of 2012. Some of these recommendations have been acted upon; some are still lingering; but more in general, I sense that we are missing a sense of the "global picture". Therefore, I would strongly *recommend that one of the concrete outputs of NETmundial should be an assessment ? even if an initial one ? of where we stand in terms of implementation for each recommendation of the WGIGF*, or at the very least a clear commitment that such assessment will be presented at the latest at 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; and that this "state of play" will be duly updated and be open to public input, possibly using participatory tools as I highlighted above. *(3) Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building* As you can certainly see, I strongly believe in the *use of appropriate ICT tools* for better and more inclusive dialogues. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly mentions the need for communication and coordination within the Internet governance ecosystem, including via tools to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing function. I have already highlighted in my previous comments how the European Commission is investing in the *Global Internet Policy Observatory initiative*(GIPO) as a way to experiment with the automated collection, analysis, organisation and visualisation of information on Internet governance discussions and decisions. The European Commission is currently finalising a feasibility assessment of the technological and organisational options for the GIPO, and we will share our conclusions by *mid-2014*, with a view to launch the technological development of GIPO by the *end of 2014*. In the meantime many other organisations, public and private, are either already working or are planning to invest in Internet policy observatories and similar initiatives. We should strive to avoid duplication of efforts. Let me be crystal clear: I do not see any need for a winner-takes-all beauty contest between observatories. Quite the contrary. But we should strive to learn from each other's understanding of the problems and proposed solutions. Ideally, we should also move towards a federation of Internet policy observatories. I therefore suggest that the draft outcome document of NETmundial should *include a clear commitment to have a broad, inclusive and operational roundtable among all "observatory initiatives"* during the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; ideally, this roundtable should lead to the development of an initial "*collaboration roadmap*" by *mid-2015* and identify mechanisms, including via existing meetings and dialogues, to foster cooperation and communication among these various initiatives. *(4) Globalisation of IANA* You already know how important I believe it is to keep the momentum towards a real and effective globalisation of core Internet functions and decisions, including IANA. ICANN has recently shared a draft "scoping paper" and a roadmap that will certainly be helpful in the discussions on the globalisation of IANA. *I believe that the NETmundial outcome document should explicitly recognise this draft proposal by ICANN as an important contribution and explicitly call all stakeholders to express their views on it*. *I also believe that in order for this discussion to be truly meaningful, the NETmundial outcome document should clearly flag that*: - the engagement of the broader public should make full use of *all** existing meetings and fora*, including the global Internet Governance Forum and the regional ones, as appropriate; ICANN should also reach out to organisations across the world which are willing and capable to foster dialogue among citizens, besides and beyond those who are able to attend the meetings of ICANN or other Internet technical organisations; - with due consideration to the criteria which the US Government has presented in its announcement of 14 March 2014, *there should be no artificial limitation in the scope of the discussion*. For example, a consideration of *various organisational options*, as well as of the *opportunity* and the *most appropriate ways to separate policy, operational and oversight activities* should not be "off-limits", if we want the debate on the future of IANA to be seen as truly legitimate at the global level. *(5) Globalisation of ICANN* The CEO of ICANN has recently declaredthat a public dialogue on how to strengthen ICANN?s accountability will soon be launched. In my view, this dialogue cannot be separated from the broader issue of how to make ICANN a truly global organization serving the public interest, as the draft outcome document mentions. I understand that this dialogue will look at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments, and ICANN?s redress mechanisms, as well as exploring new accountability mechanisms where necessary. I am looking forward to further information and details and I expect that ICANN will also provide a clear timeline on the concrete implementation of its globalisation efforts. Accordingly, I *recommend that the NETmundial outcome document clearly invites ICANN to share its concrete proposals* at the 50th ICANN meeting (London, UK, *22-26 June 2014*). *(6) Jurisdictional issues on the Internet* It is natural, when talking about globalisation, to reflect not only on the amazing opportunities brought about by the Internet, but also on the challenges which this inherently cross-border medium raises with respect to the application of laws. The European Commission committedto launching an in-depth review of the risks, at international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and to assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary to solve such conflicts. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly identifies jurisdictional issues and how they relate to Internet governance as "material for further discussion". While I understand and agree that a full debate on this broad topic during NETmundial would be neither desirable nor productive, *we should have a stronger commitment to a phase-by-phase examination of this issue*, with a view to produce "good practice" guidelines as appropriate. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include *an invitation to interested parties to: - develop a "scoping paper" by *July 2014*; - facilitate on-line and off-line engagement opportunities, as appropriate, in the run-up to the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - following these discussions, aim to produce a first draft of "problem statements" and possible recommendations by the *first half of 2015*. Dear colleagues, I thank you for your patience in reading my observations and proposals, which I trust will be useful in further refining the outcome document of NETmundial. Kind regards, Neelie Kroes +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprim?es ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas ?tre assimil?es ? une position officielle de la Commission europ?enne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wim at centr.org Wed Apr 16 22:25:36 2014 From: wim at centr.org (Wim Degezelle) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:25:36 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [cooperation-wg] NETmundial HUB - CENTR Background paper Message-ID: <044b01cf59b2$05ef18c0$11cd4a40$@org> Hi All, CENTR will organise the Brussels Hub for next week?s NETmundial meeting in S?o Paulo. This means that during the meeting all who are interested are welcome to join us in the CENTR office to follow the sessions, discuss and give life input to the meeting in Brazil. If you want to join please RSVP before April 22, noon CET at secretariat at centr.org . (first come first served) Details at https://centr.org/CENTRpaper_NETmundial-April2014 . CENTR has published a background paper (including a tentative agenda for NETmundial). You can download it at https://centr.org/CENTRpaper_NETmundial-April2014 . CENTR will be represented at NETmundial by Peter Van Roste (General Manager), Lise Fuhr (.dk / CENTR Board), Richard Weil (.at/ CENTR Board) and many other members. Kind Regards Wim signature2 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 15818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rendek at ripe.net Thu Apr 17 15:35:13 2014 From: rendek at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:35:13 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Update on the IANA Transition Process References: <6D335523-E3B6-4C6E-980E-48000D5F9C4A@ripe.net> Message-ID: <32707D86-239A-45C8-B006-296713CFA26E@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, As noted in earlier discussions, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has announced that it intends to transfer key Internet domain functions (the IANA functions) to the global multi-stakeholder community. An open process to develop a model for future IANA administration is now underway. The RIPE NCC has published a section on its website that provides background information on the IANA functions, the role of oversight of IANA and the RIPE NCC?s relationship to IANA. The pages also detail the process for development of the future IANA model, and the opportunities for the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership to contribute: http://ripe.net/iana-transition The RIPE NCC would like to highlight several key points to help stimulate community discussion in this area: - The IANA function covers three separate areas: Internet resources, domain names and protocol assignments on behalf of the IETF. The primary concern for the RIPE NCC is ensuring the continued fair, efficient and stable management of Internet number resources in any future model or arrangement. - The RIPE NCC and the other RIRs actually have relatively few interactions with IANA. We receive allocations of Internet number resources according to global policies developed using the same bottom-up processes as in our regional communities. To date, the U.S. Government?s oversight of IANA has never been exercised to affect IANA operations or policy development relating to Internet number resources. - The RIPE community and the RIPE NCC work together using a well-established model of bottom-up, open and inclusive processes. These attributes, which underpin all RIPE NCC and RIPE community activities, are essential elements of a "multi-stakeholder" model, specified by the NTIA as a requirement for any proposal to move forward. - The RIRs have developed their own robust structures to allow for cooperation and coordination on a global level, most notably through the Number Resource Organization (NRO), which represents all five RIRs working cooperatively. The NRO Number Council, which is comprised of members from the five RIR communities (and which also plays the role of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council), currently provides oversight of the global policy development process as it pertains to Internet number resources. It is important that the RIPE NCC membership and the RIPE community's voices are heard in these discussions, as key stakeholders in how the global pool of Internet number resources is managed. Following discussion with the co-chairs of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, we suggest that RIPE community discussion be focused in this working group, both on the mailing list and in RIPE Meeting sessions. This arrangement will allow anyone with an interest to participate or follow discussions, without the need to attend events in person. You can subscribe to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation At RIPE 68 in Warsaw, there will be a discussion on the future of the IANA functions in the Cooperation Working Group session on 15 May (remote participation will be available): https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ There will be opportunities to consider these issues in all RIPE-related venues, including ENOG, MENOG and other regional meetings. The RIPE NCC will also use its Roundtable Meetings to engage with governments and regulators on this topic. Finally, there are channels for global discussion, including the ICANN-hosted mailing list : https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition The RIPE NCC will actively participate in the global development process that is being convened by ICANN. The RIPE NCC will be informed and directed by our community and membership on the best way forward with this transition. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC From paf at frobbit.se Thu Apr 17 16:10:12 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:10:12 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Update on the IANA Transition Process In-Reply-To: <32707D86-239A-45C8-B006-296713CFA26E@ripe.net> References: <6D335523-E3B6-4C6E-980E-48000D5F9C4A@ripe.net> <32707D86-239A-45C8-B006-296713CFA26E@ripe.net> Message-ID: <0AD9FFC8-BAB9-4BFC-9B45-49E166836E68@frobbit.se> Paul, Thanks for this description. Do you think you can more explicitly describe the audit mechanisms that exists today, and what RIRs do view in the future, given the NTIA oversight over IANA is going away? Is the NRO Number Council looking at IANA today (in a similar way as IAB/IETF is), or just the result of the RIR coordination, and do you envision that role increase? It is a bit unclear in your message below. At least for me, and if I am wrong and it is there, my apologies. Regards, Patrik On 17 Apr 2014, at 15:35, Paul Rendek wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > As noted in earlier discussions, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has announced that it intends to transfer key Internet domain functions (the IANA functions) to the global multi-stakeholder community. An open process to develop a model for future IANA administration is now underway. > > The RIPE NCC has published a section on its website that provides background information on the IANA functions, the role of oversight of IANA and the RIPE NCC?s relationship to IANA. The pages also detail the process for development of the future IANA model, and the opportunities for the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership to contribute: > http://ripe.net/iana-transition > > The RIPE NCC would like to highlight several key points to help stimulate community discussion in this area: > > - The IANA function covers three separate areas: Internet resources, domain names and protocol assignments on behalf of the IETF. The primary concern for the RIPE NCC is ensuring the continued fair, efficient and stable management of Internet number resources in any future model or arrangement. > > - The RIPE NCC and the other RIRs actually have relatively few interactions with IANA. We receive allocations of Internet number resources according to global policies developed using the same bottom-up processes as in our regional communities. To date, the U.S. Government?s oversight of IANA has never been exercised to affect IANA operations or policy development relating to Internet number resources. > > - The RIPE community and the RIPE NCC work together using a well-established model of bottom-up, open and inclusive processes. These attributes, which underpin all RIPE NCC and RIPE community activities, are essential elements of a "multi-stakeholder" model, specified by the NTIA as a requirement for any proposal to move forward. > > - The RIRs have developed their own robust structures to allow for cooperation and coordination on a global level, most notably through the Number Resource Organization (NRO), which represents all five RIRs working cooperatively. The NRO Number Council, which is comprised of members from the five RIR communities (and which also plays the role of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council), currently provides oversight of the global policy development process as it pertains to Internet number resources. > > > It is important that the RIPE NCC membership and the RIPE community's voices are heard in these discussions, as key stakeholders in how the global pool of Internet number resources is managed. > > Following discussion with the co-chairs of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, we suggest that RIPE community discussion be focused in this working group, both on the mailing list and in RIPE Meeting sessions. This arrangement will allow anyone with an interest to participate or follow discussions, without the need to attend events in person. You can subscribe to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list at: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation > > At RIPE 68 in Warsaw, there will be a discussion on the future of the IANA functions in the Cooperation Working Group session on 15 May (remote participation will be available): > https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ > > There will be opportunities to consider these issues in all RIPE-related venues, including ENOG, MENOG and other regional meetings. The RIPE NCC will also use its Roundtable Meetings to engage with governments and regulators on this topic. > > Finally, there are channels for global discussion, including the ICANN-hosted mailing list : > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > > The RIPE NCC will actively participate in the global development process that is being convened by ICANN. The RIPE NCC will be informed and directed by our community and membership on the best way forward with this transition. > > Kind regards, > > Paul Rendek > Director of External Relations > RIPE NCC > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rendek at ripe.net Tue Apr 22 19:07:13 2014 From: rendek at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:07:13 +0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Update on the IANA Transition Process In-Reply-To: <0AD9FFC8-BAB9-4BFC-9B45-49E166836E68@frobbit.se> References: <6D335523-E3B6-4C6E-980E-48000D5F9C4A@ripe.net> <32707D86-239A-45C8-B006-296713CFA26E@ripe.net> <0AD9FFC8-BAB9-4BFC-9B45-49E166836E68@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <5356A1C1.2060601@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hello Patrik, Thanks for bringing up this point. In my opinion it is one of the core quesitons the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership need to discuss during the this process and a great place to start. In relation to the specific IANA functions relating to the management of the global Internet number resource pool, the RIPE NCC feels that there is a strong, stable and open process by which policy is made and implemented. This includes a community body, the NRO Number Council, tasked with ensuring that all phases of the regional and global policy development processes have been correctly concluded. In this sense, practical "oversight" of the IANA policy development processes already lies with the community. The NTIA?s statement is an invitation to officially acknowledge its own absence from this process - potentially a straightforward minimal process for the Internet numbers. As we note on the "What is Oversight?" page of our website, however, there is another aspect to "oversight" that is the role of contracting party. In this role, the oversight holder (currently NTIA) has the power to dictate the terms of the IANA functions contract and determine who will be contracted to carry out that role. There has recently been some discussion of this on both the ICANN IANA transition and 1Net mailing lists. The RIPE NCC?s position will be formed by the input of the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership. Our initial discussions, both internally and informally with others have considered the possibility of this oversight responsibility also shifting to the global RIR policy-making community. This could very well see an increased role for the NRO Number Council. While the notion of removing the NTIA oversight is no news inside our community, it is early days in the actual discussion of roles and acountability. I for one am very interested to hear what our community has to say. Your point will be one that will lead us into a discussion I feel we need to have. Building a strong, solid position for the RIPE NCC will depend on the active and informed input of our community. So at this point, we welcome any thoughts on this or any other issues related to the NTIA transition to be sent to this list. I look forward to our discussion here on the list and at the upcoming Cooperation WG session in Warsaw. Cheers, Paul On 4/17/14 6:10 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Paul, > > Thanks for this description. > > Do you think you can more explicitly describe the audit mechanisms that exists today, and what RIRs do view in the future, given the NTIA oversight over IANA is going away? Is the NRO Number Council looking at IANA today (in a similar way as IAB/IETF is), or just the result of the RIR coordination, and do you envision that role increase? > > It is a bit unclear in your message below. At least for me, and if I am wrong and it is there, my apologies. > > Regards, Patrik > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 15:35, Paul Rendek wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> As noted in earlier discussions, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has announced that it intends to transfer key Internet domain functions (the IANA functions) to the global multi-stakeholder community. An open process to develop a model for future IANA administration is now underway. >> >> The RIPE NCC has published a section on its website that provides background information on the IANA functions, the role of oversight of IANA and the RIPE NCC?s relationship to IANA. The pages also detail the process for development of the future IANA model, and the opportunities for the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership to contribute: >> http://ripe.net/iana-transition >> >> The RIPE NCC would like to highlight several key points to help stimulate community discussion in this area: >> >> - The IANA function covers three separate areas: Internet resources, domain names and protocol assignments on behalf of the IETF. The primary concern for the RIPE NCC is ensuring the continued fair, efficient and stable management of Internet number resources in any future model or arrangement. >> >> - The RIPE NCC and the other RIRs actually have relatively few interactions with IANA. We receive allocations of Internet number resources according to global policies developed using the same bottom-up processes as in our regional communities. To date, the U.S. Government?s oversight of IANA has never been exercised to affect IANA operations or policy development relating to Internet number resources. >> >> - The RIPE community and the RIPE NCC work together using a well-established model of bottom-up, open and inclusive processes. These attributes, which underpin all RIPE NCC and RIPE community activities, are essential elements of a "multi-stakeholder" model, specified by the NTIA as a requirement for any proposal to move forward. >> >> - The RIRs have developed their own robust structures to allow for cooperation and coordination on a global level, most notably through the Number Resource Organization (NRO), which represents all five RIRs working cooperatively. The NRO Number Council, which is comprised of members from the five RIR communities (and which also plays the role of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council), currently provides oversight of the global policy development process as it pertains to Internet number resources. >> >> >> It is important that the RIPE NCC membership and the RIPE community's voices are heard in these discussions, as key stakeholders in how the global pool of Internet number resources is managed. >> >> Following discussion with the co-chairs of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, we suggest that RIPE community discussion be focused in this working group, both on the mailing list and in RIPE Meeting sessions. This arrangement will allow anyone with an interest to participate or follow discussions, without the need to attend events in person. You can subscribe to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list at: >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation >> >> At RIPE 68 in Warsaw, there will be a discussion on the future of the IANA functions in the Cooperation Working Group session on 15 May (remote participation will be available): >> https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ >> >> There will be opportunities to consider these issues in all RIPE-related venues, including ENOG, MENOG and other regional meetings. The RIPE NCC will also use its Roundtable Meetings to engage with governments and regulators on this topic. >> >> Finally, there are channels for global discussion, including the ICANN-hosted mailing list : >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> >> The RIPE NCC will actively participate in the global development process that is being convened by ICANN. The RIPE NCC will be informed and directed by our community and membership on the best way forward with this transition. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Paul Rendek >> Director of External Relations >> RIPE NCC >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTVqHBAAoJEIKZcoseoDWxuqsH/j8lWWBM/VYufqfCtT58e01l uOt2I6kr76PE1geSzSmpKxxJVdqa9d/0QXXUqiuBKQQkKLfB1A1sJUOFF/tcz9gL 1rlcMEWnjJze4g9EZ2H+wtfyaE6Q0xUqaLQEBY3IBVlgHIeFCDc7Bdvw2A3Ko6oX acNvkKLy6s4aOp6vqAUlhOd6hex5papdsNCmDIVo4YzZetjWt3qAqB4vLZM376j1 uMdCXaUtlNiPW2jdvZRoJT80dnvlrqyEDK3z6BYa49ZHUPwpCjzvefPhZHA21oIG qYJfS6gjQ8Lnr7SDusQpMTG958HT8/RbCHtPo9+t72XTT1ovN7naQ16GglRmUkE= =o9yg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From paf at frobbit.se Wed Apr 23 07:53:24 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:53:24 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Update on the IANA Transition Process In-Reply-To: <5356A1C1.2060601@ripe.net> References: <6D335523-E3B6-4C6E-980E-48000D5F9C4A@ripe.net> <32707D86-239A-45C8-B006-296713CFA26E@ripe.net> <0AD9FFC8-BAB9-4BFC-9B45-49E166836E68@frobbit.se> <5356A1C1.2060601@ripe.net> Message-ID: Thanks Paul, Patrik On 22 apr 2014, at 19:07, Paul Rendek wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hello Patrik, > > Thanks for bringing up this point. In my opinion it is one of the core > quesitons the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership need to discuss > during the this process and a great place to start. > > In relation to the specific IANA functions relating to the management of > the global Internet number resource pool, the RIPE NCC feels that there > is a strong, stable and open process by which policy is made and > implemented. > > This includes a community body, the NRO Number Council, tasked with > ensuring that all phases of the regional and global policy development > processes have been correctly concluded. In this sense, practical > "oversight" of the IANA policy development processes already lies with > the community. > > The NTIA?s statement is an invitation to officially acknowledge its own > absence from this process - potentially a straightforward minimal > process for the Internet numbers. As we note on the "What is Oversight?" > page of our website, however, there is another aspect to "oversight" > that is the role of contracting party. In this role, the oversight > holder (currently NTIA) has the power to dictate the terms of the IANA > functions contract and determine who will be contracted to carry out > that role. There has recently been some discussion of this on both the > ICANN IANA transition and 1Net mailing lists. > > The RIPE NCC?s position will be formed by the input of the RIPE > community and RIPE NCC membership. Our initial discussions, both > internally and informally with others have considered the possibility of > this oversight responsibility also shifting to the global RIR > policy-making community. This could very well see an increased role for > the NRO Number Council. > > While the notion of removing the NTIA oversight is no news inside our > community, it is early days in the actual discussion of roles and > acountability. I for one am very interested to hear what our community > has to say. > > Your point will be one that will lead us into a discussion I feel we > need to have. Building a strong, solid position for the RIPE NCC will > depend on the active and informed input of our community. > > So at this point, we welcome any thoughts on this or any other issues > related to the NTIA transition to be sent to this list. I look forward > to our discussion here on the list and at the upcoming Cooperation WG > session in Warsaw. > > Cheers, > Paul > > > On 4/17/14 6:10 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > Paul, > > > > Thanks for this description. > > > > Do you think you can more explicitly describe the audit mechanisms > that exists today, and what RIRs do view in the future, given the NTIA > oversight over IANA is going away? Is the NRO Number Council looking at > IANA today (in a similar way as IAB/IETF is), or just the result of the > RIR coordination, and do you envision that role increase? > > > > It is a bit unclear in your message below. At least for me, and if I > am wrong and it is there, my apologies. > > > > Regards, Patrik > > > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 15:35, Paul Rendek wrote: > > > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> As noted in earlier discussions, the National Telecommunications and > Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S. Department of > Commerce, has announced that it intends to transfer key Internet domain > functions (the IANA functions) to the global multi-stakeholder > community. An open process to develop a model for future IANA > administration is now underway. > >> > >> The RIPE NCC has published a section on its website that provides > background information on the IANA functions, the role of oversight of > IANA and the RIPE NCC?s relationship to IANA. The pages also detail the > process for development of the future IANA model, and the opportunities > for the RIPE community and RIPE NCC membership to contribute: > >> http://ripe.net/iana-transition > >> > >> The RIPE NCC would like to highlight several key points to help > stimulate community discussion in this area: > >> > >> - The IANA function covers three separate areas: Internet resources, > domain names and protocol assignments on behalf of the IETF. The primary > concern for the RIPE NCC is ensuring the continued fair, efficient and > stable management of Internet number resources in any future model or > arrangement. > >> > >> - The RIPE NCC and the other RIRs actually have relatively few > interactions with IANA. We receive allocations of Internet number > resources according to global policies developed using the same > bottom-up processes as in our regional communities. To date, the U.S. > Government?s oversight of IANA has never been exercised to affect IANA > operations or policy development relating to Internet number resources. > >> > >> - The RIPE community and the RIPE NCC work together using a > well-established model of bottom-up, open and inclusive processes. These > attributes, which underpin all RIPE NCC and RIPE community activities, > are essential elements of a "multi-stakeholder" model, specified by the > NTIA as a requirement for any proposal to move forward. > >> > >> - The RIRs have developed their own robust structures to allow for > cooperation and coordination on a global level, most notably through the > Number Resource Organization (NRO), which represents all five RIRs > working cooperatively. The NRO Number Council, which is comprised of > members from the five RIR communities (and which also plays the role of > the ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council), currently > provides oversight of the global policy development process as it > pertains to Internet number resources. > >> > >> > >> It is important that the RIPE NCC membership and the RIPE community's > voices are heard in these discussions, as key stakeholders in how the > global pool of Internet number resources is managed. > >> > >> Following discussion with the co-chairs of the RIPE Cooperation > Working Group, we suggest that RIPE community discussion be focused in > this working group, both on the mailing list and in RIPE Meeting > sessions. This arrangement will allow anyone with an interest to > participate or follow discussions, without the need to attend events in > person. You can subscribe to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing > list at: > >> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/wg-lists/cooperation > >> > >> At RIPE 68 in Warsaw, there will be a discussion on the future of the > IANA functions in the Cooperation Working Group session on 15 May > (remote participation will be available): > >> https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ > >> > >> There will be opportunities to consider these issues in all > RIPE-related venues, including ENOG, MENOG and other regional meetings. > The RIPE NCC will also use its Roundtable Meetings to engage with > governments and regulators on this topic. > >> > >> Finally, there are channels for global discussion, including the > ICANN-hosted mailing list : > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > >> > >> The RIPE NCC will actively participate in the global development > process that is being convened by ICANN. The RIPE NCC will be informed > and directed by our community and membership on the best way forward > with this transition. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Paul Rendek > >> Director of External Relations > >> RIPE NCC > >> > > > > > -------------- 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 chrisb at ripe.net Fri Apr 25 17:20:37 2014 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:20:37 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] NETmundial Concludes With Multistakeholder Statement Message-ID: <71F1AEC7-B897-47CB-89B4-E299F110DB6F@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has posted a brief report on the conclusion of NETmundial in S?o Paulo, Brazil: https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/industry-developments/netmundial-concludes-with-multistakeholder-statement There will be further reporting on NETmundial on the agenda of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 68 next month. Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 16:26:10 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:26:10 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality and Quality Monitoring Message-ID: <5F098407-0395-41BB-99AC-606DFD7CC70C@gmail.com> I know it is late but BEREC has just had a public consultation on: "Monitoring quality of services in the context of network neutrality" based on a draft report, a draft which I think is still worth reading. See: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/2098-public-consultations-on-the-draft-berec-report-on-monitoring-quality-of-internet-access-services-in-the-context-of-net-neutrality Regards, Gordon