From julf at julf.com Sun Jul 3 11:44:20 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 11:44:20 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5778DE74.5040605@julf.com> Just back from ICANN56 - and I am sure you all saw this announcement that Nick sent out. On Wednesday, RIPE (and the other RIRs) and ICANN signed the IANA Numbering Services SLA, so the work of the CRISP team is now done (and the team dissolved). At ICANN56 we also clarified some of the outstanding issues related to the post-transition IANA, and earlier in June NTIA published a report stating that their criteria for the transition have been fulfilled, so we are closer and closer to actually completing the transition - US politics willing... Julf -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ripe-list] ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:35:42 +0200 From: Nick Hyrka Reply-To: ripencc-management at ripe.net Organization: RIPE NCC To: ripe-list at ripe.net This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO) ICANN and Regional Internet Registries Sign SLA for the IANA Numbering Services Helsinki, Finland ? 29 June 2016. The RIRs and ICANN signed the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the IANA Numbering Services today at ICANN 56 in Helsinki, Finland. This agreement documents the arrangements for provision by ICANN of IANA numbering services, after the IANA stewardship transition which is expected to occur on 30 September 2016. The SLA will only come into effect with the transition, and will have no effect whatsoever before that time. This event is a significant milestone in the long process of transition planning which started in March 2014 with US Government announcement. The process involved huge efforts by the Internet number community collectively, and by teams formed specifically to carry out the work. In particular the NRO Executive Council expresses its sincere thanks for the contribution by CRISP members during the last year and a half in the IANA Stewardship Transition Process. The CRISP Team worked tirelessly to integrate and consolidate the views from the five different regional communities into a single proposal. As the work of the CRISP team is now finally complete, we hereby announce that the team is formally dissolved. Finally the NRO EC also wishes acknowledge the support of the ICANN Board and staff who worked hard with us to finalise the SLA and ensure it was completed on time. The final version of the SLA is available at: http://www.nro.net/sla From jim at rfc1035.com Mon Jul 11 17:18:39 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:18:39 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Replying to myself, eh? Meredith, a month has passed since I posted the message below to the list. You haven?t replied. There hasn?t even been an acknowledgement or an ?I?m busy and will get back to you/the WG in a few days?. Could you please answer the questions I posted? As far as question [2] goes, the WG now needs a revised schedule for co-chair appointment(s). Nothing has happened. We?ve gone beyond the end points that were in the appointment proposals made by yourself and Collin. Since neither of them has been followed, the WG needs to know and agree a time-line for choosing another co-chair (or two). It would be nice to get an update from you on what the next steps are and when they can be expected to happen. Thanks > On 12 Jun 2016, at 17:45, Jim Reid wrote: > > Meredith, I think there?s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I?m confused and uncertain about what?s meant to be happening. :-) > > Could you please clarify matters? > > I have three questions: > > [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? > > [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn?t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it?s not clear (at least not to me) if we?re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting. > > [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it?s the former, what?s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria? > > It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, ?I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.?. > > > > From meredithrachel at google.com Mon Jul 11 17:35:13 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:35:13 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hello, First, thank you all for being patient with my lack of response. I have been extremely busy, and have put aside replying to any email that is not mission critical because my day job required it. As I made clear at the meeting and on the list multiple times, this is one of the reasons that I pushed for a swift appointment/anointment of co-chairs. *The Coop WG work is simply not something I can do on my own, especially not right now. * Secondly, *I do not know what the revised schedule for selecting co-chairs is. *This, I think, is a critical point. Timeline: I proposed a schedule before RIPE72, and received pushback at the meeting and on the list. Collin proposed a revised schedule at the meeting, and received pushback. All of this referring to vague protocol, but none willing to follow written protocol (see, my proposal before RIPE72) when it pushes against some or another desired outcome. Here is revealed an uneasy norm on the list, in which the Chairs and others can suggest what they will, but have no authority to actually move forward with one or another suggestion. The membership of the list, on the other hand, has no responsibility but to declare dissatisfaction. The tone this sets is both unproductive and, frankly, hostile. Corinne summarized this beautifully in a past email. Combine this with the fact that chairing the group is a volunteer position, and we have a situation in which, frankly, busy people with day jobs put dealing with mailing list vagueness and hostility toward the bottom of their list. So, what do you suggest?* Were I to move forward, I would very quickly select Achilles and Collin as co-chairs. *They are both active, helpful, and have shown themselves to be directly engaged in issues central to the Coop WG. However, I expect resistance to these selections. Following such resistance, I have no clarity on what happens, or what others suppose should happen. Best, Meredith On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > Replying to myself, eh? > > > Meredith, a month has passed since I posted the message below to the list. > You haven?t replied. There hasn?t even been an acknowledgement or an ?I?m > busy and will get back to you/the WG in a few days?. Could you please > answer the questions I posted? > > As far as question [2] goes, the WG now needs a revised schedule for > co-chair appointment(s). Nothing has happened. We?ve gone beyond the end > points that were in the appointment proposals made by yourself and Collin. > Since neither of them has been followed, the WG needs to know and agree a > time-line for choosing another co-chair (or two). It would be nice to get > an update from you on what the next steps are and when they can be expected > to happen. > > Thanks > > > > > On 12 Jun 2016, at 17:45, Jim Reid wrote: > > > > Meredith, I think there?s confusion and uncertainty about the > (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I?m > confused and uncertain about what?s meant to be happening. :-) > > > > Could you please clarify matters? > > > > I have three questions: > > > > [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? > > > > [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? > You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a > week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn?t > appear to have had much support from the WG. So it?s not clear (at least > not to me) if we?re following that time-line or the earlier one you > suggested during the last RIPE meeting. > > > > [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair > criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional > co-chair(s)? If it?s the former, what?s the time-line for the WG to agree > those criteria? > > > > It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each > answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For > instance, ?I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the > list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.?. > > > > > > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 20:48:38 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:48:38 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> I am confused. Maybe I am the only one? When it was announced that the new co-chairs were to be Collin and Achilleas I objected. I did not object to the two personalities. I simply did not agree with the WG being presented with a fait accompli without any prior discussion. I said this on the list. I suggested instead that the procedure as drafted by Meredith and published on the RIPE web-site be followed. There was support for that. The procedure was then followed and we now have several candidates for co-chair. There was also a positive exchange about the time-table. I thought the proposal by Collin was good. I do not remember any pushback. I am not aware of any contributions on the list which I would consider unproductive or hostile. Maybe things were said or written elsewhere which I was not party to. But I obviously cannot comment on that. I have seen Julf on the list. I have see Collin on the list. That is good. And of course I guess everybody appreciated Collin stepping in when Meredith was not available. I sympathise with the conflict Meredith feels between the demands of her day-job and the role of co-chair. I guess many of us have been in similar situations and so we know the hard decisions that then have to be taken. But to use that to go back to the fait accompli does not feel right. To ignore the process, to ignore the WG cannot be right. So where do we go from here? Gordon > On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:35, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > Hello, > > First, thank you all for being patient with my lack of response. I have been extremely busy, and have put aside replying to any email that is not mission critical because my day job required it. As I made clear at the meeting and on the list multiple times, this is one of the reasons that I pushed for a swift appointment/anointment of co-chairs. The Coop WG work is simply not something I can do on my own, especially not right now. > > Secondly, I do not know what the revised schedule for selecting co-chairs is. This, I think, is a critical point. > > Timeline: I proposed a schedule before RIPE72, and received pushback at the meeting and on the list. Collin proposed a revised schedule at the meeting, and received pushback. All of this referring to vague protocol, but none willing to follow written protocol (see, my proposal before RIPE72) when it pushes against some or another desired outcome. Here is revealed an uneasy norm on the list, in which the Chairs and others can suggest what they will, but have no authority to actually move forward with one or another suggestion. The membership of the list, on the other hand, has no responsibility but to declare dissatisfaction. The tone this sets is both unproductive and, frankly, hostile. Corinne summarized this beautifully in a past email. Combine this with the fact that chairing the group is a volunteer position, and we have a situation in which, frankly, busy people with day jobs put dealing with mailing list vagueness and hostility toward the bottom of their list. > > So, what do you suggest? Were I to move forward, I would very quickly select Achilles and Collin as co-chairs. They are both active, helpful, and have shown themselves to be directly engaged in issues central to the Coop WG. > > However, I expect resistance to these selections. Following such resistance, I have no clarity on what happens, or what others suppose should happen. > > Best, > Meredith From meredithrachel at google.com Mon Jul 11 20:54:38 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:54:38 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> Message-ID: We would not be going back to a fait accompli. We would be making a decision following a month and some weeks deliberation on the list. However, the mode by which a decision gets made, process or no, is not clear or determined. As co-chair, I expressed my preferences as they relate to people I will be working and collaborating with. My preferences have not changed. That's what I'm able to do. I am not able to divine the "will of the group," nor is there a process drafted to do so. I appreciate your continued participation and your drive toward clarity, Gordon. Thanks, Meredith On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I am confused. Maybe I am the only one? > > When it was announced that the new co-chairs were to be Collin and > Achilleas I objected. I did not object to the two personalities. I simply > did not agree with the WG being presented with a fait accompli without any > prior discussion. I said this on the list. I suggested instead that the > procedure as drafted by Meredith and published on the RIPE web-site be > followed. There was support for that. > > The procedure was then followed and we now have several candidates for > co-chair. > > There was also a positive exchange about the time-table. I thought the > proposal by Collin was good. I do not remember any pushback. > > I am not aware of any contributions on the list which I would consider > unproductive or hostile. Maybe things were said or written elsewhere which > I was not party to. But I obviously cannot comment on that. > > I have seen Julf on the list. I have see Collin on the list. That is good. > And of course I guess everybody appreciated Collin stepping in when > Meredith was not available. > > I sympathise with the conflict Meredith feels between the demands of her > day-job and the role of co-chair. I guess many of us have been in similar > situations and so we know the hard decisions that then have to be taken. > > But to use that to go back to the fait accompli does not feel right. To > ignore the process, to ignore the WG cannot be right. > > So where do we go from here? > > Gordon > > > > On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:35, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > First, thank you all for being patient with my lack of response. I have > been extremely busy, and have put aside replying to any email that is not > mission critical because my day job required it. As I made clear at the > meeting and on the list multiple times, this is one of the reasons that I > pushed for a swift appointment/anointment of co-chairs. The Coop WG work is > simply not something I can do on my own, especially not right now. > > > > Secondly, I do not know what the revised schedule for selecting > co-chairs is. This, I think, is a critical point. > > > > Timeline: I proposed a schedule before RIPE72, and received pushback at > the meeting and on the list. Collin proposed a revised schedule at the > meeting, and received pushback. All of this referring to vague protocol, > but none willing to follow written protocol (see, my proposal before > RIPE72) when it pushes against some or another desired outcome. Here is > revealed an uneasy norm on the list, in which the Chairs and others can > suggest what they will, but have no authority to actually move forward with > one or another suggestion. The membership of the list, on the other hand, > has no responsibility but to declare dissatisfaction. The tone this sets is > both unproductive and, frankly, hostile. Corinne summarized this > beautifully in a past email. Combine this with the fact that chairing the > group is a volunteer position, and we have a situation in which, frankly, > busy people with day jobs put dealing with mailing list vagueness and > hostility toward the bottom of their list. > > > > So, what do you suggest? Were I to move forward, I would very quickly > select Achilles and Collin as co-chairs. They are both active, helpful, and > have shown themselves to be directly engaged in issues central to the Coop > WG. > > > > However, I expect resistance to these selections. Following such > resistance, I have no clarity on what happens, or what others suppose > should happen. > > > > Best, > > Meredith > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 21:17:45 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:17:45 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> The "Cooperation WG Chair Selection Process? is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selection-process I would like this to be followed. Does anybody object? In particular I note that "the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal.? This implies that ?Chair/s? ought not to insist on their own preferences and to ignore the WG. I do not think that is what Meredith has in mind. But I am still seeking clarity. However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present. Gordon > On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:54, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > We would not be going back to a fait accompli. We would be making a decision following a month and some weeks deliberation on the list. > > However, the mode by which a decision gets made, process or no, is not clear or determined. As co-chair, I expressed my preferences as they relate to people I will be working and collaborating with. My preferences have not changed. That's what I'm able to do. I am not able to divine the "will of the group," nor is there a process drafted to do so. > > I appreciate your continued participation and your drive toward clarity, Gordon. > > Thanks, > Meredith > From nick at inex.ie Mon Jul 11 21:29:11 2016 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:29:11 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5783F387.8030201@inex.ie> Gordon Lennox wrote: > However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like > Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present. I would also like to see Julf as co-chair. Nick From julf at julf.com Mon Jul 11 22:58:52 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:58:52 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5784088C.9080206@julf.com> Gordon, > However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would > like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, > present. I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. Julf From rogerj at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 23:08:30 2016 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:08:30 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > This implies that ?Chair/s? ought not to insist on their own preferences and to ignore the WG. I do not think that is what Meredith has in mind. But I am still seeking clarity. > > However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present. I agree, that is I would also like to see Julf as a co-chair. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Tue Jul 12 09:19:55 2016 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:19:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <5784088C.9080206@julf.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <647B95F5-BD1C-4FFD-94F2-D69B573B527C@gmail.com> <13D741FD-4217-4F5F-8174-467ADCABA852@gmail.com> <5784088C.9080206@julf.com> Message-ID: <236A711A-3854-4EB3-8F04-AE5F24C057A6@ams-ix.net> Hi Julf, > On 11 Jul 2016, at 22:58, Johan Helsingius wrote: > >> However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would >> like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, >> present. > > I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, > but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) > to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are > people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. I agree it is up to the chair(s) to decide, i.e. to ?declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion?. Part of this is the expression by ?WG members? of ?their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates?. Which is what Gordon and Nick did, in line with the formal chair selection process. I too think it is important, as these are volunteer roles, that the current chair(s) personally will ?feel happy to work with? the new co-chairs. I trust the existing chair(s) will be transparant when this consideration influences a personal preference. In my case I have to state my ?approval? is based not only on visible presence and participation of candidates, but also on (not) knowing them personally and (not) having a clear opinion on their capabilities to add value as co-chairs and lead the WG into the future. Anyway, this is why I want to endorse your candidacy. Best, -Bastiaan From pk at ISOC.DE Tue Jul 12 09:43:38 2016 From: pk at ISOC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:43:38 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Message-ID: <20160712074338.GK26436@x28.adm.denic.de> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:58:52PM +0200, Johan Helsingius wrote: > I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, > but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) > to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are > people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. I feel that we have a significant confusion regarding the chairs' role and position. is quite clear in stating that the two or three chairs are collectively chairing the goup, but the WG gets to decide (which is not unlike the other RIPE WGs). I have not received signals that the WG was accidentally off track with combining its choices. -Peter From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Jul 12 16:06:50 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:06:50 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <0B8965DC-8A78-4C0D-B735-D54342AA67F4@rfc1035.com> > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > So, what do you suggest? It?s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG Meredith. That?s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation with the WG. However given where we are, here?s what I would do if I was in your shoes. Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn?t followed and things have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that never happened and start from scratch once more. There?s no point apportioning blame or playing ?he said, she said? about what happened since that would not help. I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go beyond that by naming any personal preferences or ?qualified candidates?. This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then there?s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last words... Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for nominees. When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it would be helpful to clearly state the dates when ?nominations? close, when the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. hope this helps From meredithrachel at google.com Tue Jul 12 16:29:21 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:29:21 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <0B8965DC-8A78-4C0D-B735-D54342AA67F4@rfc1035.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <0B8965DC-8A78-4C0D-B735-D54342AA67F4@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Thanks, all, Jim, I appreciate your reiterating the process. The issue is, as I see it, that *we've already gone through two rounds of this process*, imperfect as they may have been, and pretending that "doing it again" will produce something "better" seems like a stretch. To review -- we have four candidates. These are: - Achilleas Kemos - Collin Anderson - Julf Helsingius - Analia Aspis Analia won't be able to make the RIPE meetings. So, while her experience is formidable and her voice very welcome on the list, she does not look like a good choice for Co-chair. That leaves us with three candidates. I know Collin, he has been a shadow chair in the past, helping organize and assemble WG sessions, and working on a number of policy and research issues in collaboration with RIPE community members. Achilleas brings considerable policy expertise, and can help bring policymakers from EC and otherwise into the RIPE community. This is a great asset. Julf is a last-minute candidate who is clearly invested and experienced. His tone is even-keeled, and by all accounts, he appears to be someone who'd be a pleasure to work with. So this is what I will do: given that I feel the years of work I've put into the Co-op WG are not being weighted or acknowledged, that many list members would prefer to see me reflect back their opinion passively than voice my own based on these years of experience, and given the increasing time-pressures I'm under in all other areas of life, *I am going to step down. * I will remain available to answer questions and help guide the process through Barcelona, but I will no longer be Co-chair. *In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs. * Thanks, Meredith On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > > > So, what do you suggest? > > It?s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG > Meredith. That?s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation > with the WG. > > However given where we are, here?s what I would do if I was in your shoes. > > Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. > > Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused > and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn?t followed and things > have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that > never happened and start from scratch once more. There?s no point > apportioning blame or playing ?he said, she said? about what happened since > that would not help. > > I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the > mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite > candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go > beyond that by naming any personal preferences or ?qualified candidates?. > This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who > wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions > then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates > and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, > the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on > the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. > > That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then > there?s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list > who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or > otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has > hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If > the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last > words... > > Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week > long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on > holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means > nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be > an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things > under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for > nominees. > > When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it > would be helpful to clearly state the dates when ?nominations? close, when > the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is > expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. > > > hope this helps > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From collin at measurementlab.net Tue Jul 12 17:05:22 2016 From: collin at measurementlab.net (Collin Anderson) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:05:22 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments In-Reply-To: <0B8965DC-8A78-4C0D-B735-D54342AA67F4@rfc1035.com> References: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> <0B8965DC-8A78-4C0D-B735-D54342AA67F4@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi Jim, As I had previously mentioned, I was surprised to find that from the outset (as in, from before even the close of the WG session), there had been a decision made by more vocal members of the community. This had continued prior to even the anticipated close of nominations, excluding even the planned subsequent exchanges over issues and visions of the future of the WG. I have been impressed with the comments on Corinne in this regard, and would have rather she put in for nomination in retrospect. However, by now the space has narrowed, and I don't anticipate that any productive conversation will result from continuing or restarting. I have been suprised about the positions and modes of intracommunity interaction in this WG, which should otherwise run contrary to its cooperative mandate ? in particular some of the exchanges during the meeting itself. My interest was simply in using the connections that I have accumulated through my professional work and travels in order to bridge the RIPE community with relevant and nascent partners that would otherwise be unaware of the opportunities to collaborate with its members. I would be happy to continue to support future WGs chairs in recommending partners, but am no longer interested in the chair position as a result of the politics involved. Julf has a history of contributions in the field of privacy that I was aware of even before I had the opportunity to meet him in the Amsterdam meeting. I am happy to see that of all people he was willing to step up, and I wish him the best in Coop WG. Best of luck in this transition. Cordially, Collin On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > > > So, what do you suggest? > > It?s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG > Meredith. That?s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation > with the WG. > > However given where we are, here?s what I would do if I was in your shoes. > > Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. > > Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused > and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn?t followed and things > have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that > never happened and start from scratch once more. There?s no point > apportioning blame or playing ?he said, she said? about what happened since > that would not help. > > I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the > mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite > candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go > beyond that by naming any personal preferences or ?qualified candidates?. > This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who > wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions > then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates > and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, > the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on > the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. > > That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then > there?s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list > who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or > otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has > hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If > the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last > words... > > Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week > long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on > holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means > nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be > an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things > under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for > nominees. > > When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it > would be helpful to clearly state the dates when ?nominations? close, when > the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is > expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. > > > hope this helps > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 16:42:57 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:42:57 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? Message-ID: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4@gmail.com> I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort she put in. However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates for the positions of co-chair: ? Achilleas Kemos ? Collin Anderson ? Julf Helsingius ? Analia Aspis After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.? Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have settled down. Gordon From julf at julf.com Wed Jul 13 16:59:26 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:59:26 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? In-Reply-To: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4@gmail.com> References: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5786574E.1050906@julf.com> Gordon, > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > step down as she has done. I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I think we all agree that her contributions have been extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply to provide additional support and resources. > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > co-chairs for the WG. I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider their positions. Julf From meredithrachel at google.com Wed Jul 13 23:51:22 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:51:22 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? In-Reply-To: <5786574E.1050906@julf.com> References: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4@gmail.com> <5786574E.1050906@julf.com> Message-ID: Hi Julf, Gordon, Thank you for your kind words. I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although I appreciate the entreaty. This due both to the climate on the WG list, and to my personal workload, which was already making it very difficult to act as chair. Note that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He has merely dedicated his time and expertise to the group in the past. Thanks, Meredith On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > Gordon, > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > step down as she has done. > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > think we all agree that her contributions have been > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > to provide additional support and resources. > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > co-chairs for the WG. > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > their positions. > > Julf > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From corinnecath at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 14:28:50 2016 From: corinnecath at gmail.com (Corinne Cath) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:28:50 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to echo the sentiments by Gordon and Julf. It is a great loss for the cooperation WG that Meredith has decided to step down, and I hope she reconsiders. I cannot speak for the group, but I want to say that her enthusiasm, experience and dedication will be sorely missed. Something we will all realize soon enough. The same holds for Collin's efforts and support to the WG. I hope the remaining candidates are not scared away by what seems to be politics with a very very tiny 'p', that have colored the discussions and going-ons of late in this WG. I also believe that we should move swiftly in putting in place new (co) chairs, and I support Gordon's suggestions on how to move forward. Best, Corinne Cath On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg at ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner at ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Co-chairs - current status? (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Meredith Whittaker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:42:57 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox > To: Cooperation WG > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she has > done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the effort > she put in. > > However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four candidates > for the positions of co-chair: > > ? Achilleas Kemos > ? Collin Anderson > ? Julf Helsingius > ? Analia Aspis > > After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint > Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.? > > Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and > whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. > > I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could > confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. > > We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have > settled down. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:59:26 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: <5786574E.1050906 at julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > step down as she has done. > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > think we all agree that her contributions have been > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > to provide additional support and resources. > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > co-chairs for the WG. > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > their positions. > > Julf > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:51:22 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker > To: Johan Helsingius > Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? > Message-ID: > < > CAHx-7Ow+6S+bwvM3p8yT_bdHctzju_PN3SDrkmKsEDHZZKC9QA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Julf, Gordon, > > Thank you for your kind words. > > I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although I appreciate the > entreaty. This due both to the climate on the WG list, and to my personal > workload, which was already making it very difficult to act as chair. Note > that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He has merely dedicated > his time and expertise to the group in the past. > > Thanks, > Meredith > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > > Gordon, > > > > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to > > > step down as she has done. > > > > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I > > think we all agree that her contributions have been > > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. > > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in > > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply > > to provide additional support and resources. > > > > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves > > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as > > > co-chairs for the WG. > > > > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, > > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider > > their positions. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160713/e4185f7b/attachment-0001.html > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6 > ********************************************* > -- Corinne J.N. Cath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Jul 14 14:42:00 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 13:42:00 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Open ITU consultation on the Internet Message-ID: <3768A98B-DA76-49B1-AAFA-E7DC2366296A@rfc1035.com> The ITU?s created an open consultation on "Building an enabling environment for access to the Internet?. More details are here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-feb2016.aspx It might be worthwhile for this WG to submit something. Or ask our respective governments what sort of response, if any, they?re preparing. From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 17:12:23 2016 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:12:23 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Corinne Best, -Michael On Jul 14, 2016 3:29 PM, "Corinne Cath" wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to echo the sentiments by Gordon and Julf. It is a great loss > for the cooperation WG that Meredith has decided to step down, and I hope > she reconsiders. I cannot speak for the group, but I want to say that her > enthusiasm, experience and dedication will be sorely missed. Something we > will all realize soon enough. The same holds for Collin's efforts and > support to the WG. > > I hope the remaining candidates are not scared away by what seems to be > politics with a very very tiny 'p', that have colored the discussions and > going-ons of late in this WG. I also believe that we should move swiftly in > putting in place new (co) chairs, and I support Gordon's suggestions on how > to move forward. > > Best, > > Corinne Cath > > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, wrote: > >> Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to >> cooperation-wg at ripe.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> cooperation-wg-owner at ripe.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Co-chairs - current status? (Gordon Lennox) >> 2. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Johan Helsingius) >> 3. Re: Co-chairs - current status? (Meredith Whittaker) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:42:57 +0200 >> From: Gordon Lennox >> To: Cooperation WG >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? >> Message-ID: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4 at gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to step down as she >> has done. I have already written to her with my personal thanks for the >> effort she put in. >> >> However in her most recent e-mail she recalled that we had four >> candidates for the positions of co-chair: >> >> ? Achilleas Kemos >> ? Collin Anderson >> ? Julf Helsingius >> ? Analia Aspis >> >> After explaining various things she wrote, "In my place, I will appoint >> Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs.? >> >> Since then Collin has also sadly stepped down. >> >> May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves candidates and >> whether they are ready to work together as co-chairs for the WG. >> >> I would hope this to be the case. But it would help us all if they could >> confirm promptly and allow us to formalise things and to move on. >> >> We can then look at the appointment of a third co-chair when things have >> settled down. >> >> Gordon >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:59:26 +0200 >> From: Johan Helsingius >> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? >> Message-ID: <5786574E.1050906 at julf.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> Gordon, >> >> > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to >> > step down as she has done. >> >> I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I >> think we all agree that her contributions have been >> extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. >> The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in >> this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply >> to provide additional support and resources. >> >> > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves >> > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as >> > co-chairs for the WG. >> >> I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, >> but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider >> their positions. >> >> Julf >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 17:51:22 -0400 >> From: Meredith Whittaker >> To: Johan Helsingius >> Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" >> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? >> Message-ID: >> < >> CAHx-7Ow+6S+bwvM3p8yT_bdHctzju_PN3SDrkmKsEDHZZKC9QA at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Hi Julf, Gordon, >> >> Thank you for your kind words. >> >> I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although I appreciate the >> entreaty. This due both to the climate on the WG list, and to my personal >> workload, which was already making it very difficult to act as chair. Note >> that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He has merely dedicated >> his time and expertise to the group in the past. >> >> Thanks, >> Meredith >> >> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote: >> >> > Gordon, >> > >> > > I very much regret that Meredith felt it necessary to >> > > step down as she has done. >> > >> > I agree - I really hope Meredith will re-consider, as I >> > think we all agree that her contributions have been >> > extremely valuable, and would certainly continue to be so. >> > The same goes for Collin - and I don't think anyone in >> > this WG had any desire to replace either of them, simply >> > to provide additional support and resources. >> > >> > > May I ask if Achilleas and Julf still consider themselves >> > > candidates and whether they are ready to work together as >> > > co-chairs for the WG. >> > >> > I hereby confirm that I am still ready to work as co-chair, >> > but I sincerely hope Meredith and Collin will reconsider >> > their positions. >> > >> > Julf >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Meredith Whittaker >> Open Research Lead >> Google NYC >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: < >> https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160713/e4185f7b/attachment-0001.html >> > >> >> End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 54, Issue 6 >> ********************************************* >> > > > > -- > Corinne J.N. Cath > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Thu Jul 14 23:18:08 2016 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 23:18:08 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Open ITU consultation on the Internet In-Reply-To: <3768A98B-DA76-49B1-AAFA-E7DC2366296A@rfc1035.com> References: <3768A98B-DA76-49B1-AAFA-E7DC2366296A@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <201607142118.u6ELI8wV024030@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Jim Reid writes: > http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-feb2016.aspx > > It might be worthwhile for this WG to submit something. Or ask our respective governments what sort of response, if any, they?re preparing. > > Don't know what the Dutch government is ging to do, but they did send me a notice about this. From julf at julf.com Fri Jul 15 11:25:01 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:25:01 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chairs - current status? In-Reply-To: References: <24422550-1783-44F4-9388-828F77F2B9A4@gmail.com> <5786574E.1050906@julf.com> Message-ID: <5788ABED.2020602@julf.com> Meredith, > I am not planning to reconsider stepping down, although > I appreciate the entreaty. This due both to the climate > on the WG list, and to my personal workload, which was > already making it very difficult to act as chair. I understand and respect your decision. > Note that Collin has never been an "official" WG chair. He > has merely dedicated his time and expertise to the group > in the past. Noted, and I know we can still count on both of you for help in affecting a reasonable transition. Many thanks, Julf From julf at julf.com Fri Jul 15 11:35:19 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:35:19 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Open ITU consultation on the Internet In-Reply-To: <3768A98B-DA76-49B1-AAFA-E7DC2366296A@rfc1035.com> References: <3768A98B-DA76-49B1-AAFA-E7DC2366296A@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <5788AE57.70906@julf.com> Jim, > The ITU?s created an open consultation on "Building an > enabling environment for access to the Internet?. > It might be worthwhile for this WG to submit something. Yes, if we can agree on a suitable response. Anyone willing to take a first cut? Any responses being prepared by other groups with similar concerns as we have? > Or ask our respective governments what sort of response, > if any, they?re preparing. Indeed - considering all the actual decisions in ITU are made by country representatives, that is the most effective path if we can find sympathetic ears in our governments. Julf From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 20:27:12 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 20:27:12 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder Message-ID: The Berec consultation closes on Monday July 18 at 14h00. http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/3771-public-consultation-on-draft-berec-guidelines-on-implementation-of-net-neutrality-rules There are websites to help you respond if you so wish: https://www.savenetneutrality.eu https://www.savetheinternet.eu/en/ Or of course you can respond directly. But the more who respond the better? Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chrisb at ripe.net Mon Jul 18 11:59:52 2016 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:59:52 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Thank you, Gordon, for this alert. We at the RIPE NCC have also been quite late to this process, but following discussions internally and with some community members over recent days, we have made the following submission on behalf of the RIPE NCC. The imminent deadline unfortunately made it impossible to share this with the Cooperation WG and obtain further comments ahead of submitting. And as it is a submission from the RIPE NCC, the scope of our comment is necessarily quite narrow - in short, please ensure that there is clear guidance from BEREC that nothing in the Regulation should be interpreted as hindering or restricting IPv6 deployment. This is a public consultation, so I?d suggest that if others who have made submissions felt able to share them here, it would be useful to this group?s discussion of the issue. Best regards, Chris ??? > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Chris Buckridge > Subject: RIPE NCC Submission on BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality Rules > Date: 18 July 2016 at 11:39:48 GMT+2 > To: Serge Radovcic > > Dear colleagues, > > The RIPE NCC would like to submit the following comment and suggestion on the BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules. > > The deployment of IPv6 by European network operators has been identified as a priority for the European Commission and for many national regulatory authorities. It is therefore important that the European Net Neutrality Rules not be misinterpreted as hindering or discouraging network operators from deploying IPv6. > > The case of network operators running both IPv4 and IPv6 services is noted in Paragraph 16 of the current draft: > > 16. Where restrictions to reach end-points stem from the use of two different internet addressing schemes, IPv4 and IPv6, this typically does not mean the services cannot be defined as an IAS. While it is not possible to connect two different types of addresses without any translation function, BEREC considers that the term ?virtually all end points? should, at present, not be interpreted as a requirement on ISPs to offer connectivity with both IPv4 and IPv6. > > The RIPE NCC would like to suggest that a final sentence be added to this paragraph, as follows: > > *** > However, we do not believe anything in this Regulation should discourage or restrict the practices or technologies used by operators to facilitate their deployment of IPv6. > > *** > > The RIPE NCC would be happy to provide further commentary or advice on this issue should it be useful. > > Best regards, > > Chris Buckridge > External Relations Manager > RIPE NCC > > > > About the RIPE NCC > > Founded in 1992, the RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit membership organisation. As one of the world?s five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), it administers Internet number resources for more than 13,900 members in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia. > > As an RIR, the RIPE NCC is governed by policies developed by the RIPE community via open, transparent and bottom-up processes. > > The RIPE NCC also serves as secretariat for the RIPE community, providing neutral platforms for community interaction to develop Internet number policy and share experience and ideas. From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 16:55:09 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:55:09 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I understand that there were almost half a million submissions - to be confirmed. It is though worth noting that a number of big players are unhappy. << Some of the world's largest telecoms companies have signed a 5G manifesto, aimed at driving forward the deployment of next-generation mobile networks. The manifesto pledges to launch fast 5G mobile networks in every country within the European Union by 2020. However, it also says current net neutrality regulations could hamper innovation and cause "significant uncertainties". The signatories include BT, Nokia, Orange, Vodafone and Deutsche Telekom. >> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36763903 Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From collin at measurementlab.net Mon Jul 18 18:51:18 2016 From: collin at measurementlab.net (Collin Anderson) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:51:18 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This is a public consultation, so I?d suggest that if others who have made submissions felt able to share them here, it would be useful to this group?s discussion of the issue. Great idea, M-Lab put in the below. We would have reached out a bit more in anticipation of other signatures, but similarly, time constraints. tldr; Measurement Lab predictably wants to make sure that measurement is a part of any set of rules. --- Re: Public Consultation on Draft BEREC Guidelines on Implementation of Net Neutrality Rules Dear Madam or Sir, Measurement Lab (M-Lab) submits this letter in order to express its support for the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) in its efforts to promote public transparency on broadband access in its Guidelines on Implementation of Net Neutrality Rules, released 6 June 2016. M-Lab is an international consortium of research, industry, and public interest partners dedicated to providing an ecosystem for the open, verifiable measurement of global Internet performance. Our experience as a partner to national regulatory agencies (NRAs) around the world, including in several European Union member states, has demonstrated that transparent and reproducible measurement of broadband access is critical to ensuring a healthy Internet that serves as an engine of innovation. In Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union emphasize that transparency and monitoring of compliance to the Net Neutrality Rules by member states constitutes a core component of safeguarding open Internet access. The Parliament and Council particularly focus on the essential role of measurement regimes provided by national regulatory authorities in ensuring that Internet users are able to effectively exercise their rights as consumers and make informed choices in a competitive market. One aspect of the transparency requirement is providing the public with mechanisms to monitor their own Internet access and seek remedies for non-compliance. In its Draft Guidelines, BEREC further positions these recommendations within its previous reports on frameworks for monitoring network neutrality and the provision of Internet access services. Rather than explicitly establishing rules for monitoring mechanisms and their certification by NRAs, in its Draft Guidelines, BEREC instead encourages the public availability of measurement tools at no cost to the end-user, while reinforcing the best practices outlined under previous BoR documents. Critically, these mechanisms include monitoring of specialised services and discrimination of traffic based on application or destination, in addition the basic comparisons between actual and advertised speeds. M-Lab supports these initiatives and encourages their extension in line with the European Union?s regulatory and development mandates. As BEREC demonstrates in its ?Monitoring quality of Internet Access Services in the Context of Net Neutrality,? and other BoR reports, in practice performance measurement is a complex field of ongoing development with continued research opportunities. In October 2014, Measurement Lab released a report entitled ?ISP Interconnection and its Impact on Consumer Internet Performance,? the product of a two-year collaborative effort using our extensive measurement dataset to understand how interconnection arrangements impact end-user access in the United States. Through comparative analysis across the country, and amongst a diverse set of Internet access providers, we were able to demonstrate significant degradation in consumer broadband service over an extended period; degradation associated with disputes related to the business relationships between ISPs. This report, reinforced by subsequent M-Lab research, has since contributed to a stronger public discourse on the role of the business relationships at the core of the Internet, and has been cited in regulatory filings by a breadth of parties. Commercial disputes between network providers are not unique to the United States. European member states individually have already intervened in interconnection issues through regulatory reporting mechanisms and merger agreement conditions, and BEREC acknowledged the need of regulators to consider interconnection arrangements in its Draft Guidelines. Performance measurements that provide data on the impact of congestion between access ISPs and other network providers promises to be the most thorough and scalable approach to interconnection transparency in the long term. In its final Guidelines, BEREC should explicitly encourage national regulators to include interconnection and other network segments in their measurement initiatives. Such a recommendation would incentivize NRAs to meaningfully increase their visibility into the diverse set of conditions that could potentially affect accessibility, rather than rely on testing mechanism that measure against a single location or infrastructure within the networks of last-mile providers. M-Lab is committed to being a strong partner in these monitoring mechanisms. In the coming months, we will further increase our infrastructure footprint to cover multiple transit networks in significant interconnection locations and population centers across the European Union. M-Lab?s presence in diverse networks and geographies will bolster the ability of researchers and regulators to use our data to identify issues specific to a given market, and monitor the continued development of connectivity across and within Europe. Furthermore, M-Lab?s infrastructure is provided through an open partnership program with network providers and regulators. The promotion of interconnection measurement will increase interest and participation in such initiatives, further supporting transparency on broadband accessibility and the creation of rich performance datasets. M-Lab has partnered with academic institutions, private companies, and civil society organizations around the world in order to provide measurement tools in local languages and integrated in consumer applications. One initiative, MeasurementKit, hosted in the Nexa Center for Internet & Society at the Polytechnic University of Turin, builds on the experiences of the network neutrality measurement tool Neubot. MeasurementKit provides a library for device manufacturers and software developers to integrate open measurements tools into deployed applications and hardware. M-Lab has also developed consumer-facing tools, such as browser extensions and web portals to provide easy measurements in the browser and on mobile devices. One of these developments was recently cited as the monitoring mechanism of the Authority for Consumers and Markets in the Netherlands. Similar initiatives have been developed by NRAs themselves in Europe, such as in Greece and Cyprus. Despite differing self-interest, deployments and motivations, these efforts build toward a common dataset and increase the amount of performance information provided by European Internet users. All of these monitoring mechanisms and tools utilize the Network Diagnostic Tool (NDT), which as a result provides a perspective into consumer connectivity that is directly comparable across member states and against other competitive economies. In order to ensure that the monitoring mechanisms offered by member states provide critical resources to the public and regulators in order safeguard the open Internet, the final Guidelines on Implementation of Net Neutrality Rules should: * promote the availability of easily-accessible, user-facing measurement tools for analyzing Internet access performance and network neutrality on mobile and wireline connections; * encourage NRAs to adopt measurement mechanisms that provide openness and comparability across member states, to avoid piecemeal implementation of monitoring programs and in support regional analysis; * include interconnection congestion and other sources of performance degradation relevant to end-to-end accessibility of broadband Internet users within monitoring mechanisms; and, * support monitoring mechanisms that provide publicly-available datasets, open-source software and open methodologies. Measurement Lab currently provides NRAs and consumers with a rich set of free and open tools to conduct independent assessments of broadband access using objective methodologies and tested platforms. As a result of its unique, collaborative model, M-Lab receives tens of thousands of measurements from Internet users in European countries on a daily basis. The Interconnection Study, and subsequent research, affirmed the strength of this open and collaborative approach to Internet performance monitoring. This research also proved that network management practices, traffic discrimination and congestion can be independently measured by third-parties and consumers, reducing opacity of such business arrangements. While we anticipate that BEREC will continue to provide NRAs with recommendations on monitoring framework beyond the implementation of the Net Neutrality Rules, the Guidelines currently offer an opportunity to further ensure rigorous measurement of broadband access through the promotion of principles of openness and comparability. Measurement Lab looks forward to supporting BEREC?s monitoring mechanisms and evaluation of measurement tools, within the Guidelines and in anticipated further reports on measurement. Respectfully submitted, Collin Anderson Researcher, Measurement Lab On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Chris Buckridge wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Thank you, Gordon, for this alert. We at the RIPE NCC have also been quite > late to this process, but following discussions internally and with some > community members over recent days, we have made the following submission > on behalf of the RIPE NCC. > > The imminent deadline unfortunately made it impossible to share this with > the Cooperation WG and obtain further comments ahead of submitting. And as > it is a submission from the RIPE NCC, the scope of our comment is > necessarily quite narrow - in short, please ensure that there is clear > guidance from BEREC that nothing in the Regulation should be interpreted as > hindering or restricting IPv6 deployment. > > This is a public consultation, so I?d suggest that if others who have made > submissions felt able to share them here, it would be useful to this > group?s discussion of the issue. > > Best regards, > Chris > > ??? > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Chris Buckridge > > Subject: RIPE NCC Submission on BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality Rules > > Date: 18 July 2016 at 11:39:48 GMT+2 > > To: Serge Radovcic > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > The RIPE NCC would like to submit the following comment and suggestion > on the BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of > European Net Neutrality Rules. > > > > The deployment of IPv6 by European network operators has been identified > as a priority for the European Commission and for many national regulatory > authorities. It is therefore important that the European Net Neutrality > Rules not be misinterpreted as hindering or discouraging network operators > from deploying IPv6. > > > > The case of network operators running both IPv4 and IPv6 services is > noted in Paragraph 16 of the current draft: > > > > 16. Where restrictions to reach end-points stem from the use of two > different internet addressing schemes, IPv4 and IPv6, this typically does > not mean the services cannot be defined as an IAS. While it is not possible > to connect two different types of addresses without any translation > function, BEREC considers that the term ?virtually all end points? should, > at present, not be interpreted as a requirement on ISPs to offer > connectivity with both IPv4 and IPv6. > > > > The RIPE NCC would like to suggest that a final sentence be added to > this paragraph, as follows: > > > > *** > > However, we do not believe anything in this Regulation should discourage > or restrict the practices or technologies used by operators to facilitate > their deployment of IPv6. > > > > *** > > > > The RIPE NCC would be happy to provide further commentary or advice on > this issue should it be useful. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Chris Buckridge > > External Relations Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > About the RIPE NCC > > > > Founded in 1992, the RIPE NCC is a not-for-profit membership > organisation. As one of the world?s five Regional Internet Registries > (RIRs), it administers Internet number resources for more than 13,900 > members in Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia. > > > > As an RIR, the RIPE NCC is governed by policies developed by the RIPE > community via open, transparent and bottom-up processes. > > > > The RIPE NCC also serves as secretariat for the RIPE community, > providing neutral platforms for community interaction to develop Internet > number policy and share experience and ideas. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ford at isoc.org Tue Jul 19 09:55:34 2016 From: ford at isoc.org (Matthew Ford) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:55:34 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Folks interested in this document and consultation might be interested to learn that Volker Sypli of the German regulator made a presentation to the tsvarea WG meeting here in Berlin yesterday. You can catch up with that via the Meetecho archive (starts 00:35:40): http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF96_TSVAREA&chapter=chapter_1 Mat > On 18 Jul 2016, at 16:55, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > I understand that there were almost half a million submissions - to be confirmed. > > It is though worth noting that a number of big players are unhappy. > > << Some of the world's largest telecoms companies have signed a 5G manifesto, aimed at driving forward the deployment of next-generation mobile networks. > > The manifesto pledges to launch fast 5G mobile networks in every country within the European Union by 2020. > > However, it also says current net neutrality regulations could hamper innovation and cause "significant uncertainties". > > The signatories include BT, Nokia, Orange, Vodafone and Deutsche Telekom. >> > > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36763903 > > Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 10:19:12 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:19:12 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Berec network neutrality consultation - reminder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mat! The slides are here: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-tsvarea-3.pdf And there is a WG session today - ippm @ 14h00-16h00 - which is includes as the first item QoS monitoring at BEREC. Meanwhile here is another item on 5G and NN: http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/10/12139700/telecom-companies-5g-service-european-union-net-neutrality Gordon On 19 July 2016 at 09:55, Matthew Ford wrote: > Folks interested in this document and consultation might be interested to > learn that Volker Sypli of the German regulator made a presentation to the > tsvarea WG meeting here in Berlin yesterday. You can catch up with that via > the Meetecho archive (starts 00:35:40): > http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF96_TSVAREA&chapter=chapter_1 > > Mat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mir at ripe.net Tue Jul 19 15:10:30 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:10:30 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Internet Access Disruption In Turkey - July 2016 In-Reply-To: <14362612-9655-f825-9fb8-0c7668f44c24@ripe.net> References: <14362612-9655-f825-9fb8-0c7668f44c24@ripe.net> Message-ID: <260c52dc-16f5-ea32-28db-48339aba2976@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, With the attempted coup in Turkey, reports went out about social media being throttled and/or blocked. We analysed data about this that we collected with RIPE Atlas and the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI). Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/internet-access-disruption-in-turkey?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-coopwg Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 10:27:55 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:27:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The 5G consultation Message-ID: This is sort of just for the record - because we are too late! There was another consultation: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/targeted-consultation-co-ordinated-introduction-5g-networks-europe A short time-scale to respond and a a "targeted" consultation. So I guess they did not want to hear from individual experts and civil society. Which is a pity given that network neutrality is of interest to very many people and that much of the 5G community is clearly and publicly against network neutrality. They are arguing for the neutrality legislation to be relaxed and at the same time for public subsidies. Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jul 20 10:39:49 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:39:49 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The 5G consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2562CB1B-732F-477E-9270-CE6901C5E995@rfc1035.com> > On 20 Jul 2016, at 09:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > There was another consultation: > > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/targeted-consultation-co-ordinated-introduction-5g-networks-europe > > A short time-scale to respond and a a "targeted" consultation. So I guess they did not want to hear from individual experts and civil society. Thanks for this Gordon. If this consultation didn't follow the rules (whatever they might be) or was engineered to only elicit responses from specific sectors, what can this WG or individual members of this WG do about that? How? Do we contact our MEPs or write to a Commissioner or complain to our governments/regulators? All of these things? Anything else? From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Wed Jul 20 12:29:39 2016 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:29:39 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The 5G consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201607201029.u6KATdJt008555@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Gordon Lennox writes: > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/targeted-consultation-co-ordinated-introduction-5g-networks-europe > > A short time-scale to respond and a a "targeted" consultation. So I guess > they did not want to hear from individual experts and civil society. > > Which is a pity given that network neutrality is of interest to very many > people and that much of the 5G community is clearly and publicly against > network neutrality. They are arguing for the neutrality legislation to be > relaxed and at the same time for public subsidies. Eh? I read: Targeted stakeholders This consultation targets primarily industry representatives, in particular: from the Telecom/ICT sector from any sector that perceives benefits from connectivity to improve its process, products or services However, other organisations or individuals are welcome to contribute if they feel appropriate. Note the last sentence. Looks to me an invitation to react even when your are not a target. Or is there something I don't understand here and it is actually some EC double speak. jaap From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 17:14:02 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:14:02 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The 5G consultation In-Reply-To: <201607201029.u6KATdJt008555@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> References: <201607201029.u6KATdJt008555@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: Jaap, In theory you are right: individuals can respond. But I would suggest that there are practical hurdles to that. The short timescale. The fact that most people here did not pick up on it - they were not targeted? The need for an ECAS account, etc. The targeted industries on the other hand have obviously been the loop for some time. Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 17:25:55 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:25:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The 5G consultation In-Reply-To: <2562CB1B-732F-477E-9270-CE6901C5E995@rfc1035.com> References: <2562CB1B-732F-477E-9270-CE6901C5E995@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Jim, I think the consultation "followed the rules". But were the rules chosen fully appropriate? I am not sure. But neither am I clear on a way forward. I guess they don't want a few hundred thousand responses. I doubt they could even handle that amount of data. But if you look how the targeted industries are lobbying - I guess enough people have read the articles, etc. - then the argument that they should be excused to an extent from the network neutrality AND that they should get public funding is strange. A lot of people were clearly interested in what Berec was doing. So how do they get involved here? Anyway you can always write to the appropriate Commissioner and/or your MEP and/or you local regulator. Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu Wed Jul 20 19:02:40 2016 From: Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu (Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:02:40 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments Message-ID: <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B19D691@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear group members, This is a joint message by Julf and Achilleas. Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. We regret that Meredith and Collin decided to step down, we hope they will continue to follow the Workgroup and provide advice based on their experience and knowledge. We also ask for the support of the Group and the RIPE team, in order to fulfil the Group's objectives and have a successful meeting already in Madrid. To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). Best regards Julf and Achilleas From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:29 PM To: Jim Reid Cc: RIPE Co-operation WG Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Thanks, all, Jim, I appreciate your reiterating the process. The issue is, as I see it, that we've already gone through two rounds of this process, imperfect as they may have been, and pretending that "doing it again" will produce something "better" seems like a stretch. To review -- we have four candidates. These are: ? Achilleas Kemos ? Collin Anderson ? Julf Helsingius ? Analia Aspis Analia won't be able to make the RIPE meetings. So, while her experience is formidable and her voice very welcome on the list, she does not look like a good choice for Co-chair. That leaves us with three candidates. I know Collin, he has been a shadow chair in the past, helping organize and assemble WG sessions, and working on a number of policy and research issues in collaboration with RIPE community members. Achilleas brings considerable policy expertise, and can help bring policymakers from EC and otherwise into the RIPE community. This is a great asset. Julf is a last-minute candidate who is clearly invested and experienced. His tone is even-keeled, and by all accounts, he appears to be someone who'd be a pleasure to work with. So this is what I will do: given that I feel the years of work I've put into the Co-op WG are not being weighted or acknowledged, that many list members would prefer to see me reflect back their opinion passively than voice my own based on these years of experience, and given the increasing time-pressures I'm under in all other areas of life, I am going to step down. I will remain available to answer questions and help guide the process through Barcelona, but I will no longer be Co-chair. In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Reid > wrote: > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > So, what do you suggest? It?s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG Meredith. That?s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation with the WG. However given where we are, here?s what I would do if I was in your shoes. Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn?t followed and things have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that never happened and start from scratch once more. There?s no point apportioning blame or playing ?he said, she said? about what happened since that would not help. I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go beyond that by naming any personal preferences or ?qualified candidates?. This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then there?s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last words... Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for nominees. When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it would be helpful to clearly state the dates when ?nominations? close, when the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. hope this helps -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 08:01:39 2016 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:01:39 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] IXP Best Practice Forum Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Building on last year's IGF Best Practice Forum (BPF) on enabling environments for establishing successful IXPs , this year's IXP BPF aims to identify success stories and list factors that can contribute to the development and success of IXPs as well as the broader Internet ecosystem. I am reaching out to the RIPE community in particular due to many of the efforts by both the community as well as RIPE NCC in promoting IXPs and interconnection in general . The IXP BPF is a consensus-driven, bottom-up, and inclusive collaborative effort, one that brings together professional expertise from across stakeholder groups in order to generate a practical, constructive, and relevant outcome document. We are currently soliciting feedback and brainstorming ideas, especially related to the scope and goals of this year's IXP BPF, and invite you to contribute: https://docs.google.com/document/d/144r3BIFX8QF6wg5m-QNdNfDcYHOVoic4fSMKYA4CGjM/edit . If you are not already involved, I encourage you to add suggestions to the document, share it among your networks, and contact Wim Degezelle, the IXP BPF project manager, or Sala Tamanikaiwaimaro, one of our IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) coordinators, for more information or if you have any questions. Additionally, you can sign up for the mailing list at: http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org. Kind regards, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena communications manager Independent #netgov consultant & editor Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter *|* LinkedIn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pk at ISOC.DE Thu Jul 28 08:17:21 2016 From: pk at ISOC.DE (Peter Koch) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:17:21 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Joint message by Julf and Achilleas for co-chair appointments Message-ID: <20160728061721.GN21165@x28.adm.denic.de> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 05:02:40PM +0000, Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu wrote: > Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. Habemus procuratores! > To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). In that spirit I'd suggest the wg allow itself a rest on process and start working on a program for Madrid. The NIS directive and its implementations status as well as similar legislation in non EU countries could be one topic. -Peter From marcoh at ripe.net Fri Jul 29 15:10:48 2016 From: marcoh at ripe.net (Marco Hogewoning) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:10:48 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Reports on the 10th European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) Message-ID: <51B7AE28-60FB-4F87-826C-7BE1357A170D@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The 10th edition of EuroSSIG (http://www.eurossig.eu) was held last week in Mei?en, Germany. Started as a response to the conclusion by the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) on the lack of academic research and teaching on Internet governance. Since the inception of the summer school in 2007, RIPE NCC has been contributing both financially and with staff resources in the faculty. Over the years several RIPE NCC staff and RIPE community members have attended the summer school as fellows. With many of the alumni active in Internet governance across the various I* organisations and other stakeholder groups, EuroSSIG has been a successful initiative, which found itself copied in many regions, including the Middle East. We have written up our impressions of the 10th anniversary edition of EuroSSIG in the following two articles: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gergana_petrova/eurossig-a-deep-dive-into-the-world-of-internet-governance https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/eurossig-internet-governance-summer-school-a-faculty-members-impressions Should you have any questions about the EuroSSIG or RIPE NCC?s involvement in these activities, please do not hesitate to contact us. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC External Relations