From gpetrova at ripe.net Mon Dec 5 13:59:08 2016 From: gpetrova at ripe.net (Gergana Petrova) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:59:08 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] 15 PhD Positions in Security Available In-Reply-To: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> Message-ID: Dear all, Maybe some of you might be interested in this - 15 fully-paid PhD positions in security science in various universities across Europe. The research needs to be carried out in at least two universities in Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia, Italy and Norway. Apply by 4 January 2017: http://bit.ly/2fZnW7A Best, Gergana Gergana Petrova External Relations RIPE Network Coordination Centre Singel 258, 1016 AB Amsterdam, The Netherlands T: +31 20 535 4444 www.ripe.net From chrisb at ripe.net Tue Dec 6 15:04:32 2016 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 08:04:32 -0600 Subject: [cooperation-wg] IGF workshop on IoT - follow live Message-ID: <56D29DC9-0BED-45C1-AF67-56FEEBD30D3C@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, In around one hour (15:00 UTC, Tuesday 6 December), the NRO is facilitating a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum on the Internet of Things. Entitled "The Network of Networked Things: Finding the Internet in IoT?, the session will discuss the impact of the IoT on existing standardisation and administrative bodies, as well as the needs and expectations of IoT end users. You can read more about the workshop at: https://igf2016.sched.org/event/8hsh/ws170-the-network-of-networked-things-finding-the-internet-in-iot You can follow the session live, and contribute via Webex here: https://intgovforum.webex.com/mw3100/mywebex/default.do?service=1&siteurl=intgovforum&nomenu=true&main_url=%2Fmc3100%2Fe.do%3Fsiteurl%3Dintgovforum%26AT%3DMI%26EventID%3D452109232%26UID%3D522325192%26Host%3DQUhTSwAAAAKj2tIiCJiEE-cAsNG6wkWnxvZfYLPWFg1GOMi_Un_Yloy-J-oFDQwk7OtU7YNsqxe9PBWB0X6JbXC4PF8E6GpU0%26FrameSet%3D2%26MTID%3Dm45a023d43ed082fa0aa1b0ea87384c3a Or feel free to tweet thoughts and responses to @ripe_ncc, and we?ll follow them in the room. Any questions, please feel free to hit me up directly via email. Best regards, Chris Buckridge RIPE NCC From ripencc-management at ripe.net Thu Dec 15 14:29:24 2016 From: ripencc-management at ripe.net (Paul Rendek) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:29:24 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC and Europol Sign MoU to Enhance Internet Security Message-ID: <7CACA003-4FBF-4941-B3EC-38B3B3968070@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, I?m pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC and Europol signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at Europol?s headquarters in The Hague on 14 December 2016. The MoU builds on our long-standing relationship with Europol?s European Cybercrime Centre (EC3), with a focus on lending one another expertise in the areas of cybercrime and Internet security. You can find the full news announcement online: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/europol-mou You can also find the MoU itself, along with the other agreements we have with external organisations, on the RIPE NCC website: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Kind regards, Paul Rendek Director of External Relations RIPE NCC From chrisb at ripe.net Fri Dec 23 11:42:30 2016 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:42:30 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda." More information on the Working Group is available at: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, there was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: > - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? > - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of recommendations should we consider? Working closely with one of the technical community members of the Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a document responding to these questions: https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the Internet. The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way forward for its work. Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and weeks! Cheers, Chris Buckridge External Relations Manager RIPE NCC From rhill at hill-a.ch Fri Dec 23 11:46:33 2016 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:46:33 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> References: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> Message-ID: <009901d25d09$d3affa60$7b0fef20$@ch> Thank you for this. Could you please explain the process that was used to develop this paper, who approved it, and why (apparently) some members of this list were consulted but not others? Thanks and best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf > Of Chris Buckridge > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 11:43 > To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group > Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear colleagues, > > One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World Summit > on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group > on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the > Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? Commission on > Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was > set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States > that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further > implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda." > > More information on the Working Group is available at: > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx > > Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, there > was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: > > > - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? > > - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the > Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of > recommendations should we consider? > > > Working closely with one of the technical community members of the > Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a > document responding to these questions: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder- > engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf > > In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all > stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important > that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be > minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the > Internet. > > The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in > Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way > forward for its work. > > Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best > wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and > weeks! > > Cheers, > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Manager > RIPE NCC From chrisb at ripe.net Fri Dec 23 12:10:49 2016 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:10:49 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <009901d25d09$d3affa60$7b0fef20$@ch> References: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> <009901d25d09$d3affa60$7b0fef20$@ch> Message-ID: <1DAA491F-997C-41E0-9ED2-230A402B6C93@ripe.net> Hi Richard, Thanks for your comment. This was a document developed and submitted by the RIPE NCC (on behalf of the organisation, rather than the RIPE community), which I hope was explicit in the document itself. I believe that the content was in line with the principles of the RIPE community, but as we took up the opportunity to respond quite late in the comment window, it was not possible to fully develop a response with the community. If community members feel that more substantial RIPE community input to the WGEC is warranted, I am sure that there will be future opportunities for input (either via formal submission or in communications to the technical community members of the Working Group). Incidentally, the technical community participants in the Working Group (as selected via a process facilitated by the Internet Society) are: ? Nick Ashton-Hart (GCSP) ? Nigel Hickson (ICANN) ? Constance Bommelaer (ISOC) ? Janvier Noulaye (University of Yaound?) ? Jovan Kurbalija (DiploFoundation) I hope that this is useful. Best regards, Chris > On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:46, Richard Hill wrote: > > Thank you for this. > > Could you please explain the process that was used to develop this paper, who approved it, and why (apparently) some members of this list were consulted but not others? > > Thanks and best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf >> Of Chris Buckridge >> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 11:43 >> To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World Summit >> on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group >> on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the >> Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? Commission on >> Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was >> set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States >> that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further >> implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda." >> >> More information on the Working Group is available at: >> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx >> >> Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, there >> was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: >> >>> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? >>> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the >> Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of >> recommendations should we consider? >> >> >> Working closely with one of the technical community members of the >> Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a >> document responding to these questions: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder- >> engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf >> >> In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all >> stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important >> that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be >> minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the >> Internet. >> >> The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in >> Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way >> forward for its work. >> >> Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best >> wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and >> weeks! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris Buckridge >> External Relations Manager >> RIPE NCC > > > From rhill at hill-a.ch Fri Dec 23 12:13:36 2016 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:13:36 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <1DAA491F-997C-41E0-9ED2-230A402B6C93@ripe.net> References: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> <009901d25d09$d3affa60$7b0fef20$@ch> <1DAA491F-997C-41E0-9ED2-230A402B6C93@ripe.net> Message-ID: <011801d25d0d$9b3dc3c0$d1b94b40$@ch> Dear Chris, Thank you for this. Indeed your reply is very useful. But I would like one further clarification: were all five of the technical community participants in WGEC consulted, or only some of them? If so, which? Thanks and best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Buckridge [mailto:chrisb at ripe.net] > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 12:11 > To: Richard Hill > Cc: RIPE Cooperation Working Group > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for your comment. > > This was a document developed and submitted by the RIPE NCC (on behalf > of the organisation, rather than the RIPE community), which I hope was > explicit in the document itself. I believe that the content was in line > with the principles of the RIPE community, but as we took up the > opportunity to respond quite late in the comment window, it was not > possible to fully develop a response with the community. > > If community members feel that more substantial RIPE community input to > the WGEC is warranted, I am sure that there will be future > opportunities for input (either via formal submission or in > communications to the technical community members of the Working > Group). > > Incidentally, the technical community participants in the Working Group > (as selected via a process facilitated by the Internet Society) are: > > ? Nick Ashton-Hart (GCSP) > ? Nigel Hickson (ICANN) > ? Constance Bommelaer (ISOC) > ? Janvier Noulaye (University of Yaound?) > ? Jovan Kurbalija (DiploFoundation) > > I hope that this is useful. > > Best regards, > Chris > > > > On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:46, Richard Hill wrote: > > > > Thank you for this. > > > > Could you please explain the process that was used to develop this > paper, who approved it, and why (apparently) some members of this list > were consulted but not others? > > > > Thanks and best, > > Richard > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On > >> Behalf Of Chris Buckridge > >> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 11:43 > >> To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group > >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working > >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation > >> > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World > Summit > >> on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working > >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to > >> the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? > Commission > >> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group > >> was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member > >> States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to > >> further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis > Agenda." > >> > >> More information on the Working Group is available at: > >> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx > >> > >> Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, > there > >> was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: > >> > >>> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? > >>> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the > >> Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of > >> recommendations should we consider? > >> > >> > >> Working closely with one of the technical community members of the > >> Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and > submitted > >> a document responding to these questions: > >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi- > stakeholde > >> r- engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf > >> > >> In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all > >> stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is > >> important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that > >> they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform > >> that is the Internet. > >> > >> The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 > in > >> Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the > way > >> forward for its work. > >> > >> Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, > >> best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming > >> days and weeks! > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Chris Buckridge > >> External Relations Manager > >> RIPE NCC > > > > > > > From chrisb at ripe.net Fri Dec 23 12:17:41 2016 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 12:17:41 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <011801d25d0d$9b3dc3c0$d1b94b40$@ch> References: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> <009901d25d09$d3affa60$7b0fef20$@ch> <1DAA491F-997C-41E0-9ED2-230A402B6C93@ripe.net> <011801d25d0d$9b3dc3c0$d1b94b40$@ch> Message-ID: <0C673BA0-E085-47F2-A420-00052C8A352E@ripe.net> Dear Richard, No, our only communication on this specific submission was with Nick Ashton-Hart, and it was of an informal nature, in that he was able to provide perspective on the kind of messaging that might be useful in the discussions going forward. But as noted, this submission is explicitly made on behalf of the RIPE NCC alone, with the hope that it will contribute to productive discussions in the WGEC. Best regards, Chris > On 23 Dec 2016, at 12:13, Richard Hill wrote: > > Dear Chris, > > Thank you for this. Indeed your reply is very useful. But I would like one further clarification: were all five of the technical community participants in WGEC consulted, or only some of them? If so, which? > > Thanks and best, > Richard > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chris Buckridge [mailto:chrisb at ripe.net] >> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 12:11 >> To: Richard Hill >> Cc: RIPE Cooperation Working Group >> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working >> Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> Thanks for your comment. >> >> This was a document developed and submitted by the RIPE NCC (on behalf >> of the organisation, rather than the RIPE community), which I hope was >> explicit in the document itself. I believe that the content was in line >> with the principles of the RIPE community, but as we took up the >> opportunity to respond quite late in the comment window, it was not >> possible to fully develop a response with the community. >> >> If community members feel that more substantial RIPE community input to >> the WGEC is warranted, I am sure that there will be future >> opportunities for input (either via formal submission or in >> communications to the technical community members of the Working >> Group). >> >> Incidentally, the technical community participants in the Working Group >> (as selected via a process facilitated by the Internet Society) are: >> >> ? Nick Ashton-Hart (GCSP) >> ? Nigel Hickson (ICANN) >> ? Constance Bommelaer (ISOC) >> ? Janvier Noulaye (University of Yaound?) >> ? Jovan Kurbalija (DiploFoundation) >> >> I hope that this is useful. >> >> Best regards, >> Chris >> >> >>> On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:46, Richard Hill wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for this. >>> >>> Could you please explain the process that was used to develop this >> paper, who approved it, and why (apparently) some members of this list >> were consulted but not others? >>> >>> Thanks and best, >>> Richard >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On >>>> Behalf Of Chris Buckridge >>>> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 11:43 >>>> To: RIPE Cooperation Working Group >>>> Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working >>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation >>>> >>>> Dear colleagues, >>>> >>>> One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World >> Summit >>>> on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working >>>> Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to >>>> the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? >> Commission >>>> on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group >>>> was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member >>>> States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to >>>> further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis >> Agenda." >>>> >>>> More information on the Working Group is available at: >>>> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx >>>> >>>> Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, >> there >>>> was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: >>>> >>>>> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? >>>>> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the >>>> Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of >>>> recommendations should we consider? >>>> >>>> >>>> Working closely with one of the technical community members of the >>>> Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and >> submitted >>>> a document responding to these questions: >>>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi- >> stakeholde >>>> r- engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf >>>> >>>> In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all >>>> stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is >>>> important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that >>>> they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform >>>> that is the Internet. >>>> >>>> The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 >> in >>>> Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the >> way >>>> forward for its work. >>>> >>>> Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, >>>> best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming >>>> days and weeks! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Chris Buckridge >>>> External Relations Manager >>>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> >>> >> > > > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Dec 26 15:46:55 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 15:46:55 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> References: <3DC00795-C427-453E-A85E-1ED2A0E2C974@ripe.net> Message-ID: I find it interesting how the term ?enhanced cooperation? has been interpreted in ways that I think are quite different to what was in the minds of at least some of the people who I understand originally proposed it. In EU relations ?enhanced cooperation? has a specific meaning. It was introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam: so akin to a "term of art?, if you will. Enhanced cooperation, in the EU, was not meant to imply simply better cooperation: it was about differentiated cooperation. In that environment it was and is about some, not all, member states cooperating more fully, more closely, on certain items even in the absence of a wider consensus. So the idea was that, even in a UN-related context, certain states could cooperate more closely, even in the absence of more general agreement? Given the significant on-going restructuring in terms of international relationships one might imagine a shift back to the original intent. Happy holidays! Gordon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation > On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Chris Buckridge wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda." > > More information on the Working Group is available at: > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx > > Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, there was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: > >> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? >> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of recommendations should we consider? > > > Working closely with one of the technical community members of the Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a document responding to these questions: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf > > In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the Internet. > > The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way forward for its work. > > Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and weeks! > > Cheers, > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Manager > RIPE NCC From rhill at hill-a.ch Mon Dec 26 17:19:38 2016 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (Richard Hill) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 12:19:38 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: Dear Gordon Thank you for this. ?As you may recall, I was a member of the WSIS secretariat when the text in question was negotiated and I was involved in the discussions.? As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular". However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. But others might have different recollections.? Best Richard Sent from Samsung Mobile.
-------- Original message --------
From: Gordon Lennox
Date:26/12/2016 10:46 (GMT-04:00)
To: Cooperation WG
Cc: Chris Buckridge
Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
I find it interesting how the term ?enhanced cooperation? has been interpreted in ways that I think are quite different to what was in the minds of at least some of the people who I understand originally proposed it. In EU relations ?enhanced cooperation? has a specific meaning. It was introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam: so akin to a "term of art?, if you will. Enhanced cooperation, in the EU, was not meant to imply simply better cooperation: it was about differentiated cooperation. In that environment it was and is about some, not all, member states cooperating more fully, more closely, on certain items even in the absence of a wider consensus. So the idea was that, even in a UN-related context, certain states could cooperate more closely, even in the absence of more general agreement? Given the significant on-going restructuring in terms of international relationships one might imagine a shift back to the original intent. Happy holidays! Gordon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation > On 23 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Chris Buckridge wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > One of the outcomes of last year?s 10-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was the formation of a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC). Established under the United Nations? Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), the Working Group was set up in response to the feeling expressed by some UN Member States that there was a need to "develop recommendations on how to further implement enhanced cooperation as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda." > > More information on the Working Group is available at: > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-2016-to-2018.aspx > > Coming out of the Working Group?s initial meeting in September, there was an open call for contributions in response to two questions: > >> - What are the high level characteristics of enhanced cooperation? >> - Taking into consideration the work of the previous WGEC and the Tunis Agenda, particularly paragraphs 69-71, what kind of recommendations should we consider? > > > Working closely with one of the technical community members of the Working Group, Nick Ashton-Hart, the RIPE NCC developed and submitted a document responding to these questions: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/multi-stakeholder-engagement/wsis/ripencc-ecwg-submission-201612.pdf > > In summary, the document notes that, while cooperation amongst all stakeholders is vital in developing Internet capacity, it is important that these efforts focus on practical benefits, and that they be minimally distortive or disruptive to the shared platform that is the Internet. > > The Working Group will hold its next meeting on 26-27 January 2017 in Geneva, where it will consider the contributions received and the way forward for its work. > > Happy, as always, to discuss any questions or comments. Meanwhile, best wishes to those celebrating Christmas/New Year in the coming days and weeks! > > Cheers, > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Manager > RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon Dec 26 17:23:41 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 17:23:41 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C95F185-DA79-47A8-97BC-ABBCC53B7E00@frobbit.se> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote: > As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular". > > However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. > > But others might have different recollections. As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar. I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rhill at hill-a.ch Mon Dec 26 17:40:27 2016 From: rhill at hill-a.ch (rhill at hill-a.ch) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 12:40:27 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <277642099.1482770430794.JavaMail.root@localhost> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Dec 26 23:45:51 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2016 23:45:51 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2BAE51B6-0C45-4D81-9A0B-2257CEFD8B60@gmail.com> Richard, I think we agree. "Enhanced cooperation? was, as far as certain EU folk were concerned, about a group of states cooperating independently of the US. In that context the US would of course choose a different interpretation. So of course there was, and perhaps is, scope for inherent disagreement. Gordon > On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote: > > Dear Gordon > > Thank you for this. As you may recall, I was a member of the WSIS secretariat when the text in question was negotiated and I was involved in the discussions. > > As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular". > > However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. > > But others might have different recollections. > > Best Richard > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 00:10:56 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:10:56 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5C95F185-DA79-47A8-97BC-ABBCC53B7E00@frobbit.se> References: <5C95F185-DA79-47A8-97BC-ABBCC53B7E00@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Patrik, What it means to you may be reasonable. Indeed the US may have agreed with you. But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level. In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was. Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.) I sometimes wonder though what happens now. Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise! In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit? Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved? ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California. In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law! Gordon > On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote: > >> As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular". >> >> However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. >> >> But others might have different recollections. > > As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar. > > I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive. > > Patrik From paf at frobbit.se Tue Dec 27 00:17:40 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?utf-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?=) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 00:17:40 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5C95F185-DA79-47A8-97BC-ABBCC53B7E00@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <68DB91E4-D345-4186-A668-4831A3DFDD91@frobbit.se> > On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > Patrik, > > What it means to you may be reasonable. I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself. > Indeed the US may have agreed with you. Maybe. > But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have already agreed at treaty level. > > In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it was. > > Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had not been with State.) > > I sometimes wonder though what happens now. > > Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise! What happens with these questions is that international politics and interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but that's life. > In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust suit? > > Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply because the US government is no longer involved? I guess so. > ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit incorporated in California. Do ICANN, or is that only what people think? > In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law! Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally. Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU. Patrik > > Gordon > > >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >> >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote: >> >>> As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general and of ICANN and IANA in particular". >>> >>> However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. >>> >>> But others might have different recollections. >> >> As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar. >> >> I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive. >> >> Patrik > > From pelkwijk at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 07:42:31 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 06:42:31 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <68DB91E4-D345-4186-A668-4831A3DFDD91@frobbit.se> References: <5C95F185-DA79-47A8-97BC-ABBCC53B7E00@frobbit.se> <68DB91E4-D345-4186-A668-4831A3DFDD91@frobbit.se> Message-ID: When i saw Gordon's question about 'being taken to court', i quickly got myself reminded of the anti-spam team called 'knujon', who actually got involved in legal matters with ICANN, upto a point that they accused ICANN staff (and board) of being corrupt. The problem is though that you need a long breath and a tonne of money to keep a lawsuit going. Talking about the free movement of services, i believe that there was a discussion on this email list about non-discrimination of services for ISP's, because of a new EU-law. In Holland there is a law that prevents discrimination of any kind for ISP's. A mobile phone provider challenged that law with excempting 'all music streaming apps' from the mb-quota. The dutch consumer agency gave them a fine, which is now being challenged in european court. One of the fine things that can happen if you dont think too much about the involved stockholders and the concequences it faces. The question is: if icann ever gets sued, will it be done in an international court or an american court? I usually find these things a big legal minefield that i tend to avoid as someone who is unknown with international politics and legal structures. Also, diversity of the different stakeholders is something that should be carefully looked at, to prevent issues later. Julius Op di 27 dec. 2016 00:17 schreef Patrik F?ltstr?m : > > > > On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > > > > Patrik, > > > > What it means to you may be reasonable. > > I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself. > > > Indeed the US may have agreed with you. > > Maybe. > > > But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is > perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have > already agreed at treaty level. > > > > In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it > was. > > > > Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of > DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it > would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had > not been with State.) > > > > I sometimes wonder though what happens now. > > > > Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? > Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some > time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise! > > What happens with these questions is that international politics and > interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be > used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but > that's life. > > > In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust > suit? > > > > Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply > because the US government is no longer involved? > > I guess so. > > > ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit > incorporated in California. > > Do ICANN, or is that only what people think? > > > In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And > obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law! > > Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally. > > Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU. > > Patrik > > > > > Gordon > > > > > >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> > >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote: > >> > >>> As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an > euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general > and of ICANN and IANA in particular". > >>> > >>> However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding > its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to > encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies > and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. > >>> > >>> But others might have different recollections. > >> > >> As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used > for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. > This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other > States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to > non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar. > >> > >> I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive. > >> > >> Patrik > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Dec 27 19:13:17 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 19:13:17 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE NCC Contribution to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <5C95F185-DA79-47A8-97BC-ABBCC53B7E00@frobbit.se> <68DB91E4-D345-4186-A668-4831A3DFDD91@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Interesting this discussion has delved into ICANN world, so will add a few comments. Kindly see inline Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 27 Dec 2016 07:43, "Julius ter Pelkwijk" wrote: The question is: if icann ever gets sued, will it be done in an international court or an american court? I usually find these things a big legal minefield that i tend to avoid as someone who is unknown with international politics and legal structures. SO: I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, anyone can file a suit in any country against ICANN but the extent that suit goes then depends on how binding ICANN is to law of the land where the suit is filled. I don't see why ICANN will be tried by international courts, as it's a California incorporated organisation though I recognise that there may be certain paper work that ICANN may have done in establishment of its regional hubs which could make ICANN bound "to some extent" to law of those countries as well. However I think the ultimate would not just be American court but rather a California court. Also, diversity of the different stakeholders is something that should be carefully looked at, to prevent issues later. SO: ICANN is currently going through review of its accountability mechanisms (within the WS2) and there is a dedicated group looking at diversity issues[1]. I encourage you to have a look and perhaps contribute to that work as well. Regards 1. https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action?dest=%23page%2F59643278 Julius Op di 27 dec. 2016 00:17 schreef Patrik F?ltstr?m : > > > > On 27 Dec 2016, at 00:10, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > > > > Patrik, > > > > What it means to you may be reasonable. > > I am only asking and claiming what I say is reasonable for me, myself. > > > Indeed the US may have agreed with you. > > Maybe. > > > But if you want the EU member states to sign up for something it is > perhaps better to choose text which does not conflict with text they have > already agreed at treaty level. > > > > In the meantime I believe the US environment is more important than it > was. > > > > Commerce was not too intrusive and they provided at least an illusion of > DC-based legitimacy. (By the way some of us wondered over coffee if it > would not have been better - at least different - if the responsibility had > not been with State.) > > > > I sometimes wonder though what happens now. > > > > Does ICANN fully conform to Californian law regarding not-for-profits? > Is there the basis for a possible challenge there? I looked into this some > time back. I leave others to repeat the exercise! > > What happens with these questions is that international politics and > interest get intertwined with national. Where national legislation can be > used to break up otherwise stable international systems. Unfortunate, but > that's life. > > > In addition is ICANN, as de facto monopoly, more open to an anti-trust > suit? > > > > Will people also be more comfortable with taking ICANN to court simply > because the US government is no longer involved? > > I guess so. > > > ICANN does have a very attractive heap of cash for a not-for-profit > incorporated in California. > > Do ICANN, or is that only what people think? > > > In any case Californian law is now much more important than it was. And > obviously I am not a recognised expert on Californian law! > > Like local law for any organization or private entity acting globally. > > Just look at how "free movement of services" is challenged within the EU. > > Patrik > > > > > Gordon > > > > > >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:23, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> > >> On 26 Dec 2016, at 17:19, Richard Hill wrote: > >> > >>> As I recall, the term "enhanced coordination" was used as a an > euphemism for "end unilateral US control of Internet governance in general > and of ICANN and IANA in particular". > >>> > >>> However, after the text was agreed, there was disagreement regarding > its intent: as I recall, the USA took the view that the intent was to > encourage more cooperation amongst UN agencies and between those agencies > and other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. > >>> > >>> But others might have different recollections. > >> > >> As you invite to other interpretations...for me it was and can be used > for any process that broadens the discussions and influence in discussions. > This is related to at that time USA had special role compared to other > States related to ICANN, States have special relations compared to > non-States in US context and specifically ITU-T and similar. > >> > >> I.e. "enhanced" to me means broaden and be by default inclusive. > >> > >> Patrik > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: