[cooperation-wg] Minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw - Updated

Dear All,

Following modifications proposed by Jim and Daniel, please find below the
updated minutes of the Coop-WG meeting in Warsaw

In case you have any further comments/updates please let us know


Alain


-------  Beginning of Minutes -------

Cooperation Working Group Draft Agenda

Thursday, 15 May, 11:00 – 12:30

A. Administrative Matters

The co-chairs opened the meeting. New co-chairs Meredith Whittaker and
Alain Van Gaever introduced themselves and briefly outlined their hopes for
the working group, specifically ensuring that the content is relevant and
of practical use to the RIPE community.

The minutes from RIPE 67 were approved, as was the agenda for RIPE 68.


B. Content Blocking

• B1. A Technical Overview of Content Blocking Methods – Pier Carlo Chiodi,
Olaf Kolkman

Olaf Kolkman gave an overview of the work done by Pier Carlo Chiodi on
content blocking on the Internet and other work in the same area. Outlining
a number of strategies employed by those wishing to block content, he noted
that blocking is done most effectively at the end-point (or origin of the
content), and that blocking in the network involves a variety of trade-offs.

Lars-Johan Liman noted that even “legitimate” blocking has collateral
damage, and pointed to the example of the hotel network, where the
interception of traffic prevents the use of DNSSEC. He suggested that in
such situations it is best if the effects of the blocking are stated
upfront for users.

Andrei Robachevsky recalled a paper produced by ISOC (prepared around the
time of the SOCA/PIPA/ACTA legislative proposals), and noted that security
and hidden costs are all important, and public policy makers need to be
made aware of these negative impacts. Olaf pointed out that users will do
whatever they can to get to blocked content, and that this can also have
potential negative effects (including a greater viral footprint or exposing
backdoors to computer systems).

Alexander Isavnin asked participants in the room who thought their
countries were doing blocking, and whether they thought it was being abused.

Richard Barnes noted that these issues reinforce the importance of an
end-to-end strategy, and agreed that the hotel network is a good example of
how blocking can break important security elements like DNSSEC.

Jim Reid noted that blocking access to specific content can mean that
broader services are blocked. He had advised on a case where one of the
questions asked was "what else would be affected if we prevented port 80
access for this particular domain?”. The only person who could provide a
definitive answer would be the administrator of the web server at that IP
address and they would be unlikely to cooperate with anyone intending to
blocking traffic for that address.

• B2. Telex: A Proposal For Circumventing Censorship in the Network – Eric
Wustrow

Eric Wustrow outlined the Telex project, which has been developed to
circumvent content blocking measures. The system provides a means of
connecting users to blocked content via a mechanism that is invisible to
the censoring technology. He encouraged ISPs to contribute to the work with
advice and prototype deployment assistance.

Robert Kisteleki noted that PGP key distribution may be a bottleneck in the
Telex system. Eric noted that the paper discusses some of these issues,
including preventing censors from distributing “bad” public keys. He
suggested that having a central Telex entity that is known and trusted will
be important to mitigate these risks. He also noted that getting
information into areas subjected to censorship is often less difficult than
might be supposed.

• B3. Web Censorship Circumvention: Challenges and Opportunities – Walid
Al-Saqaf

Walid Al-Saqaf outlined his project to map URL filtering via crowdsourcing,
which is developing longitudinal data, while allowing contributing users to
access blocked websites via his own servers. He presented a range of data
and analysis obtained from this work, including content blocking methods
and strategies. He noted the need to make people more aware of the range of
circumvention tools and solutions available, and that speed, security and
anonymity are all important to users. He also described his plans for the
future, including open-sourcing his own project and cooperating with
similar projects.

Andrei Robachevsky asked whether the project looked at which means of
blocking were most common. Walid stated that he has done some analysis of
this, using the packet headers - the more data he can get, the better this
analysis will be.

Meredith Whittaker noted that the Open Observatory of Network Interference
(OONI) project, coordinated by the Tor team, is also doing work in this
area and is generating public data.

Alexander Isavnin suggested that a RIPE task force might be a useful
vehicle for RIPE community members interested in this issue. Walid agreed
that the technical community, and particularly its relationship to civil
society actors in this space, needs to be further explored and understood.

C. IANA Transition

Chris Buckridge and Paul Rendek of the RIPE NCC presented background
information on the U.S. Government’s announcement of its intention to
transition out of its IANA functions oversight role. They noted that any
proposal for a future model of IANA administration needs to come from a
global, multi-stakeholder development process, and that RIPE and the RIPE
NCC are key IANA stakeholders. They suggested that the RIPE community’s
discussion of these issues should be centred around the Cooperation Working
Group, with the RIPE NCC assisting in facilitating input to that process
from regional events and voices.

Rob Blokzijl warned that any process involving ICANN will necessarily be
complicated and political. On a technical point, he noted that future RIPE
NCC presentations on this subject should include the RIPE NCC’s reverse DNS
interactions with IANA, which may be more regular than the number resource
requests already noted. He further noted that the RIPE NCC’s direct
interactions with the NTIA itself were non-existent, and stressed that the
processes developed by RIPE and the other RIR communities already met the
requirements laid out by the NTIA as necessary for oversight of the IANA
functions.

Danniel Karrenberg recalled that this is not the first time this discussion
has taken place, and that the RIPE community has historically taken an
active part in the discussion around the formation of ICANN and the
organisation and delivery of IANA services. He stressed the legitimacy and
credibility of the RIR community processes in policy-making and argued
against over-complicating the situation. He also noted that the IANA is
three distinct groups of functions (number resources, the DNS root zone and
protocol parameters), and the RIPE community discussions should focus
primarily on the number resource functions; if difficulties in defining
governance processes for the DNS root zone threaten to derail the oversight
transition process, the community should be explicitly prepared to propose
unbundling those functions and taking oversight of the numbering functions.

Malcolm Hutty disagreed with the perception that NTIA oversight was not
important, and stressed that this oversight has protected the policy-making
relationship with ICANN itself. He noted that policy regarding the DNS is
determined by the ICANN community and imposed on registrars, meaning that
users essentially have to submit to ICANN policies. RIPE and the RIR
communities determine their own policies with regard to Internet number
management, but it may be conceivable that ICANN would decide it wants to
set these policies in future and impose them on the RIPE community. He
argued that a credible external oversight function must be retained to
prevent this.

Nurani Nimpuno argued that the RIR communities should take ownership of
this issue, as custodians of the Internet number resources, and that the
community members should be contributing to the broader discussion, while
maintaining a focus on the numbering functions. She also stressed that the
communities should be pro-active in defining terms like “multi-stakeholder”
and “openness” which appear in the NTIA requirements.

Jim Reid agreed with Malcolm Hutty on the importance of preventing ICANN
mission-creep, and on the need to tightly define the relationship between
the IANA operator and the RIR communities. He also warned that achieving
consensus on a community proposal may be difficult, and suggested that
there should be a fallback position to allow for RIPE and the RIPE NCC to
make a meaningful contribution to the global discussion.

Jari Arkko noted the evolution that has occurred in how the IETF and IAB
manage oversight of the protocol parameters and their relationship to IANA.
He agreed that the RIPE community needs to take ownership of this and take
charge of what needs to change or not change.

Olaf Kolkman, also an active participant in the IETF, noted the efforts in
the IETF to align on a principle-based approach, with the most important
principle being that the IETF controls its own destiny. Ensuring that
people are empowered to participate in these discussions will help the
debate going forward, and the community needs to provide guidance -
developing a set of principles may be a good first step. Olaf suggested RFC
6220 as a good starting point.

Salam Yamout provided some perspective from the government side,
particularly in the Arab world - notably the perception that the United
States has control of the Internet, and governments’ strong focus on
DNS-related issues. She noted that governments concerns centre primarily
around ICANN.

Phil Rushton urged the community to be aware of events in other forums,
including the UN, WSIS and the ITU - while there is not the need for
everyone to be directly involved, we need to be aware of what governments
are thinking and the where they still need to be convinced by the RIR
communities.

Daniel Karrenberg argued that the community does not need another level of
oversight for protection, and noted that the RIR communities already have
solid agreements in place with ICANN, which ICANN cannot unilaterally
change. He stressed the importance (and his optimism) of achieving
community consensus on a proposal. He suggested that the RIPE community
should avoid being drawn into the discussions about governance and
oversight of DNS root zone management and stick to its purview of Internet
number resources.

Paul Wilson noted that the IANA functions comprise three quite different
areas (numbers, protocol parameters and DNS), and that only one of these
(the DNS) is controversial - the IAB has stated its readiness to take
responsibility for the protocol parameters, and the RIR communities should
also, in the very near future, be ready to make such a statement regarding
the number functions. He and Adiel Akplogan agreed that strengthening the
RIR processes, ensuring that they are consistent, clear, accessible and
well documented, is vital.

Sandy Murphy warned that the outcome of this process may impact our current
model of Internet governance, and stressed the need for the RIR communities
to have their voice heard. She also asked about the ICANN consultation
timeline, specifically the call for comments on its proposed process, and
whether this process is now set. Paul Rendek noted that there is expected
to be more information on ICANN’s planning in time of the ICANN 50 Meeting,
which takes place in London in June.

Chris Buckridge also noted that all relevant information, including links
to the relevant ICANN web, is posted on the ripe.net website.

D. Interconnection

• D1. The Internet, the Internets, and Splinternets – Peter Koch

Peter Koch discussed the proposals coming from Germany for establishing a
separate “German” Internet.

Randy Bush noted the experience of the Saudi industry, after the regulator
decided that no traffic between two Saudi users should leave the country,
and pointed out that IXPs are a key element facilitating this.

There was a question as to whether the German-only email system used the
DNS (which would generate its own cross-border traffic). Peter noted that
the one he mentioned uses special domains, but DNS leakage was of less
concern than the actual content of the messages.

Alain Van Gaever asked about the rate of take-up. Peter didn’t have figures
to hand, but noted that there are incentives, it is early in the
deployment, and the operators are targeting users of existing email
services.

Brian Nisbet said that while he can see what’s being attempted, it never
succeeds and generally breaks things that the users want to do. Peter
stressed that walking away from the discussion probably isn’t the right
strategy, and that users often learn what they want from marketing
campaigns. Expanding on the question of what users want, Meredith Whittaker
noted that users want security, and the technical community needs to be a
public voice stating that this is not the way to achieve that.

Marco Davids noted an initative in the Netherlands using a closed user
group in BGP - this doesn't combat traffic monitoring, but rather helps
mitigate DDOS attacks, and if users (such as banks) are under attack the
group can be closed to users outside the Netherlands.

Olaf Kolkman asked whether any EU research funding had been channeled to
this, and whether the project could lead to some sort of European
standardisation. Peter noted that the work is based on IETF standards. Jean
Jacque Sahel noted that the European Commission has publicly said that this
is all a very bad idea.

Jaap Akkerhuis recalled a proposal from Italy to establish a trusted
network for digital mail.

Olaf Kolkman and Peter Koch, summarising some of the discussion’s key
points, suggested that we are moving intelligence to the core of the
network, and the core is represented by big players. The technical
community cannot just dismiss these initiatives - there are some laudable
goals behind them, and we need to engage in the discussion.


• D2. Interconnection: Russia, the EU, and Internet Cooperation and
Governance – Igor Milashevskiy

Igor Milashevskiy, representing the Russian government in its first RIPE
Meeting, shared some perspectives on that government’s view of the Internet
and related public policy. The Russian government sees the Internet as a
driver of development, with the Russian Internet market the biggest in
Europe - 68 million users, more than 56 million people use Internet every
day, including a significant percentage outside big cities. The Russian
language is also the second largest in Internet, there are slightly fewer
than five million .ru domains and more than 800,000 .рф domains.

Speaking from personal perspective, he noted that the RIPE NCC is a
reference organisation in the Internet space, and the target is to restore
trust and confidence to the Internet environment, and develop international
tools for preventing improper use of the Internet.

Ho noted that the main actor in the Intenet is the user, and if those users
have certain rights in the offline world - access to information, privacy,
secrecy of communication and freedom of opinion - we have to protect those
rights online. The process to do this has just begun, and the Russian
government believes there are no rights without duties, no freedom without
responsibility.

He also suggested that the role of governments in Internet governance needs
to be recognised. NETmundial was a good and innovative attempt to include
all stakeholders, but the outcome document doesn’t reflect all the
contributions.

Ciprian Nica, participating remotely, asked how and who should define the
proper purposes of using the Internet. Igor explained that the Internet is
a universal tool, and can be used for a wide range of purposes, but that
its primary purpose should be to make users’ lives richer.

Desiree Milosevich asked if there could be some elaboration on the Russian
government’s issues with the NETmundial statement. Igor noted that this is
in the public record of the Russian statements.

Paul Rendek extended his thanks to Igor and the Russian government for
their increased willingness to engage with the RIPE community and RIPE NCC,
and welcomed Igor's attendance at the RIPE Meeting.


E. Making the Internet a Little Bit Safer Cryptographically - Randy Bush

Randy Bush discussed the development of an open public architecture for
hardware security modules. The goal is a design (not a product) that is
scalable, composable and assured. He stressed that the project needs people
to audit the code.

Aaron Kaplan asked where to get a development board. Randy noted that the
boards are available for 170 USD. Aaron also noted that it would be a good
idea to have the testing procedure online and publicly available.

Eric Wuster agreed that this is good work and asked why go the FPGA route
rather than using a small embedded chip. Randy noted that some of the
applications need speed, particularly some of the encryption stuff.
Regarding chips though, Randy noted that the FPGA Verilog was first done in
Python, meaning there is a Python version and a Verilog version.

Eric also asked about how the project is sourcing hardware random number
generators. Randy replied that they are currently investigating this issue.

F. Policy Radar

• F1. RIPE NCC Updates, including NETmundial and IGF Developments – Chris
Buckridge

Chris Buckridge gave an update on the wide range of Internet governance
events taking place in the coming months, including the ITU Plenipotentiary
2014 that is scheduled to take place in October. He highlighted the links
between many of these events, particularly in terms of broader strategies.
He noted suggestions from earlier sessions that the RIPE NCC provide more
targeted information for the community, and reported that the RIPE NCC is
investigating the best method for doing this.

Phil Rushton noted that the technical community can have significant impact
on events at the Plenipotentiary via their input to Member State
delegations. He also noted that while NETmundial produced a good outcome
for the multi-stakeholder model, other forums, such as the CSTD Working
Group on Enhanced Cooperation, saw much less support for multi-stakeholder
processes and governance.

• F2. Co-chair Updates and Working Group Initiatives

Meredith Whittaker closed the session by reiterating the goals of
co-chairs, particularly the need to engage people who are affected by
Internet governance and public policy issues, but don't currently take an
active interest. She noted options such as producing white papers, using
RIPE Meeting time for more workshop-style events, and other ideas for the
working group to serve as a RIPE community “brains trust” for those
involved in public policy discussions.

Nurani Nimpuno noted her support for the co-chairs’ approach and stressed
the need to bring discussions back to specific issues and make the topics
practical for RIPE community participants.

The co-chairs closed the meeting.

--------------------- End of Minutes ---------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140611/31cc9c23/attachment.html>