From athina.fragkouli at ripe.net Wed Jun 1 15:04:11 2016 From: athina.fragkouli at ripe.net (Athina Fragkouli) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:04:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Signature Draft of IANA Numbering Services SLA In-Reply-To: <301DCA54-39E8-450C-931B-5A3E4F613365@ripe.net> References: <301DCA54-39E8-450C-931B-5A3E4F613365@ripe.net> Message-ID: <574EDD4B.8060203@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, In the interest of transparency, the Number Resource Organization has published an update on progress made on development of the Service Level Agreement between the IANA Numbering Services Operator (ICANN) and the five Regional Internet Registries. A draft 5.2 is now publicly available, and is considered a ?signature draft?. This RIRs expect that this SLA will be signed by all parties at the same time frame as the rest of the accountability measures approved by the ICANN Board. https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5-2-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-services Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC From meredithrachel at google.com Wed Jun 1 17:00:46 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:00:46 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Details about the nature of my self-nomination as wg co-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Analia, Jumping in to say thank you for this careful enumeration. If others who raised questions previously on the list have further questions, I invite them to raise them here. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Analia Aspis wrote: > Dear group, > > I have been following the discussion related to co-chairs nominees. In > order to let the group to know a bit more my profile and my commitement to > the wg, here I go with some extra explanations: > > 1. "*One chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general > policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU)*" > > I am a South American academic but with a different profile from the > classic academics. Since I did start with ICT policy issues, I have been > very involved with CS and goverment, listening to their point of view so as > to perform a more comprehensive understanding of policy development > process. In general temrs, LatinAmericans always "watch and apply" policies > from the "North". In this sense, I am very excited to be part of policy > discussions, so as to understand and give my perspective from another point > of view. > > 2. *WG involves outreach and bringing others into the community* > > In the same direction as pointed out above, definetively I would like to > involve more specilist to RIPE community since I do feel that there are are > still few understanding of RIPE's actions in many organizations from my > region. I was one of them until the past months when I started silently to > follow the discussion. I feel that it is now my moment to act actively and > this does not mean to be the enemy of the done, conversly, it is adding a > new dynamic. For sure I will need time to learn and understand the key > points of the group, but all the challenges I had in life, this is a new > one. > > 3. *We should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make > for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG* > > I think I can offer a comprehensive point of view of the issues, > contribute to the understanding of the different backgrounds and > situations. Moreover, I do consider the research as a unique opportunity > to enhance her research work across Latin America and to start an active > network not only in the region but collaborate worldwide. > > I do have strong experience in tasks related to assist in the design, > execution and analysis on different research project, write about different > themes of IT and IG, coordinate mutlistakeholder, attend and speak in > conferences related to governance and politics, being always updated with > the current mission of international agencies which work with technology > and teaching about IT from different points of view, including legal, > technical and social aspects, teach about internet issues, of course > including all the fields related to ICANN, IGF, ITU, and other > organizations, relationships between domain names and commercial law, > dispute resolutions, social developments among others and organize seminars > within my Research Center to promote and study IG issues > > Finally, you can check out my whole profile here: > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15w3r3fVETcOHhJemRJSnIyeUk/view?usp=sharing > > ..... > > Kind regards, > Anal?a Aspis > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rogerj at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 20:31:23 2016 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:31:23 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > I really regret I couldn't be physically present this > morning, but it appears there was a fair bit of good > discussion. almost never too late:-) a few comments inline > On 26-05-16 11:47, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > >> * *Johan Helsingius* -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of >> his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an >> email here. > > "Sic transit gloria mundi"... :) > > I guess there is poetic justice that having at one point (when IP > packets were still conveyed by pterodactyls) been the largest > provider of anonymity on the net (some of you might remember me > as julf at anon.penet.fi), I have now managed to achieve anonymity > among the younger generation of the RIPE community. where you active at RIPE in the earlier days ? and if so where? > On the downside, I have spent far too much of my life in the > corporate world - after having been part of putting together > the first pan-European ISP, I ended up as CTO and EVP of > the ill-fated carrier and IP services operator KPNQwest. > Having realized I am not very compatible with corporate > structure and hierarchy, I have since been involved with > smaller technology companies. I spent a number of years as > the chairman of the board of IoT device manufacturer Viola > Systems (now part of ABB), and having been a board member > for a long time, I just got appointed chairman of the > board for IoT services provider BaseN. > > I am currently the Nomcom appointee in the Non-Contracted > Parties House of the ICANN GNSO Council. > As to my view of the role of a co-chair for this WG, > I think RIPE-542, as posted by Hans Petter, sums it > up pretty well. Will try to participate in the discussion > and answer any questions, but will be on the road with > sporadic connectivity until Monday evening. so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, that's great! And with that said, think you'll be an excellent co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From analia.aspis at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 20:41:21 2016 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:41:21 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Details about the nature of my self-nomination as wg co-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you very much Meredith for your mail. I want just to stress that I willing to volontary as co-chair in the group, however, due to my based location (Argentinean, living in Buenos Aires) I so not have funds to travel to the meetings. If this is a mandatory requisite to fill, I do not have the resources to do so. Nevertheless, if co-chairs can collaborate in other areas, I will be very happy to do so. Regards, Anal?a On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > Analia, > > Jumping in to say thank you for this careful enumeration. If others who > raised questions previously on the list have further questions, I invite > them to raise them here. > > Best, > Meredith > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Analia Aspis > wrote: > >> Dear group, >> >> I have been following the discussion related to co-chairs nominees. In >> order to let the group to know a bit more my profile and my commitement to >> the wg, here I go with some extra explanations: >> >> 1. "*One chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general >> policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU)*" >> >> I am a South American academic but with a different profile from the >> classic academics. Since I did start with ICT policy issues, I have been >> very involved with CS and goverment, listening to their point of view so as >> to perform a more comprehensive understanding of policy development >> process. In general temrs, LatinAmericans always "watch and apply" policies >> from the "North". In this sense, I am very excited to be part of policy >> discussions, so as to understand and give my perspective from another point >> of view. >> >> 2. *WG involves outreach and bringing others into the community* >> >> In the same direction as pointed out above, definetively I would like to >> involve more specilist to RIPE community since I do feel that there are are >> still few understanding of RIPE's actions in many organizations from my >> region. I was one of them until the past months when I started silently to >> follow the discussion. I feel that it is now my moment to act actively and >> this does not mean to be the enemy of the done, conversly, it is adding a >> new dynamic. For sure I will need time to learn and understand the key >> points of the group, but all the challenges I had in life, this is a new >> one. >> >> 3. *We should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make >> for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG* >> >> I think I can offer a comprehensive point of view of the issues, >> contribute to the understanding of the different backgrounds and >> situations. Moreover, I do consider the research as a unique opportunity >> to enhance her research work across Latin America and to start an active >> network not only in the region but collaborate worldwide. >> >> I do have strong experience in tasks related to assist in the design, >> execution and analysis on different research project, write about different >> themes of IT and IG, coordinate mutlistakeholder, attend and speak in >> conferences related to governance and politics, being always updated with >> the current mission of international agencies which work with technology >> and teaching about IT from different points of view, including legal, >> technical and social aspects, teach about internet issues, of course >> including all the fields related to ICANN, IGF, ITU, and other >> organizations, relationships between domain names and commercial law, >> dispute resolutions, social developments among others and organize seminars >> within my Research Center to promote and study IG issues >> >> Finally, you can check out my whole profile here: >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B15w3r3fVETcOHhJemRJSnIyeUk/view?usp=sharing >> >> ..... >> >> Kind regards, >> Anal?a Aspis >> >> >> > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jun 1 21:01:05 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:01:05 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> Message-ID: <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> > On 1 Jun 2016, at 19:31, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > > so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, > that's great! And with that said, think you'll be an excellent > co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-) me too! *Kids, ask the nearest Old Fart. :-) Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role. IMO it would be great to have a co-chair from the government/regulatory side of things and another who has deep roots in the RIPE/Internet community. I think that?s what the WG needs. Well, that?s the combination I would like to see... Achilleas and Julf would nail those attributes in a way the other candidates don?t quite reach. They?re also based in the RIPE service region too, an added advantage. Not that I have anything against the other choices. I?m sure they?d do a good job and they?re keen to get involved. Which counts for a lot. However it?s not ideal if all of a WG?s co-chairs, especially this WG?s, were based thousands of km away on the other side of the world. It?s likely that a co-chair of this WG might sometimes be needed for face to face meetings with government and regulatory officials from the RIPE service region. Or to have those interactions in their $dayjob and be able to update the WG about them. Perhaps I?m guilty of naming names before the WG's clarified the requirements for its co-chairs. If so, maybe a discussion about that needs to reach consensus before the WG decides who the co-chairs should be. From meredithrachel at google.com Wed Jun 1 21:03:34 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:03:34 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Feel free to start a discussion about requirements, Jim. With the understanding that among those biggest requirements are: - Willing - Able to attend - Available Bicycle shedding other qualities may be fun, but I don't think useful as it pertains to making this selection. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 1 Jun 2016, at 19:31, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > > > > so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, > > that's great! And with that said, think you'll be an excellent > > co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-) > > > me too! > > > *Kids, ask the nearest Old Fart. :-) > > Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan > (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience > to complement what Meredith brings to the role. > > IMO it would be great to have a co-chair from the government/regulatory > side of things and another who has deep roots in the RIPE/Internet > community. I think that?s what the WG needs. Well, that?s the combination I > would like to see... Achilleas and Julf would nail those attributes in a > way the other candidates don?t quite reach. They?re also based in the RIPE > service region too, an added advantage. > > Not that I have anything against the other choices. I?m sure they?d do a > good job and they?re keen to get involved. Which counts for a lot. However > it?s not ideal if all of a WG?s co-chairs, especially this WG?s, were based > thousands of km away on the other side of the world. It?s likely that a > co-chair of this WG might sometimes be needed for face to face meetings > with government and regulatory officials from the RIPE service region. Or > to have those interactions in their $dayjob and be able to update the WG > about them. > > Perhaps I?m guilty of naming names before the WG's clarified the > requirements for its co-chairs. If so, maybe a discussion about that needs > to reach consensus before the WG decides who the co-chairs should be. > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed Jun 1 21:10:18 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:10:18 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: On 1 Jun 2016, at 21:01, Jim Reid wrote: > Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role. After listening and contemplating, I agree with this. Three co-chairs with VERY different background and skill sets. Meredith, Julf and Achilleas. Good combo! Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jun 1 21:23:30 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:23:30 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: > On 1 Jun 2016, at 20:03, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > Feel free to start a discussion about requirements, Jim. With the understanding that among those biggest requirements are: > ? Willing > ? Able to attend > ? Available > Bicycle shedding other qualities may be fun, but I don't think useful as it pertains to making this selection. Meredith, those three requirements are a given. Or should be. All of the candidates meet those criteria, modulo Analisa?s potential issues over travel funding. So if we start from that baseline, what additional attributes does the WG consider mandatory/desirable/optional for its co-chairs? What?s the ideal mix of skills and background? As a for instance, I could be a possible candidate because I?m willing, able to attend and available. [Others may well disgaree with that opinion.] But I am unsuitable as a co-chair for the WG. And I hope we can all agree on that. :-) FWIW, I can think of quite a few people in this Internet governance circus who would be willing, able to attend and available ...and yet be utterly unacceptable as a co-chair. I won?t name names: they rarely if ever surface at RIPE meetings anyway. From julf at julf.com Wed Jun 1 21:44:18 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:44:18 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> Message-ID: <574F3B12.7090608@julf.com> On 01-06-16 20:31, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > almost never too late:-) True. > where you active at RIPE in the earlier days ? and if so where? "It's complicated". The straight answer is "no, not formally". I didn't see a need for a formal involvement, as I knew pretty much everyone in the early days of RIPE. I worked with Axel Pawlik, Paul Rendek and Daniel Karrenberg in the EUnet days, and many of the early RIPE NCC employees used to work in my group first at EUnet and then KPNQwest. > so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, > that's great! Thanks - one of the benefits of having been around for far too long, and gotten involved in far too many things. > And with that said, think you'll be an excellent > co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-) I have to agree. :) Julf From julf at julf.com Wed Jun 1 21:46:58 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:46:58 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <574F3BB2.7080807@julf.com> On 01-06-16 21:03, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > Bicycle shedding other qualities may be fun, but I don't think useful as > it pertains to making this selection. Bummer! Having lived in Amsterdam since 1997, I have become quite an expert on bicycle shed permits... Julf From nick at inex.ie Wed Jun 1 22:16:09 2016 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:16:09 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <574F4289.7000602@inex.ie> Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Three co-chairs with VERY different background and skill sets. > Meredith, Julf and Achilleas. Good combo! wfm too. Nick From rhe at nosc.ja.net Thu Jun 2 10:49:49 2016 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:49:49 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> <447B5E89-61AF-4048-800B-565BA89A9441@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <0776812C-0298-4765-819F-959C21BC2C2C@nosc.ja.net> Jim, all, > Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of > Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and > experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role. I fully agree with this, but one thing I would like to stress to all those that have shown an interest in helping Meredith chair this WG is that you don?t need to be a co-chair to actively participate. Indeed you may have more time to participate if you?re not one of the co-chairs! Chairing the WG should be a choice of selecting (however you define ?selecting?) a candidate that has already worked within the community. It?s not a glorious, well-rewarded job, it?s something you do in addition to the participation. I hope that all those that have shown an interest, whether from governments or the RIPE community, continue to help this WG and the RIPE community?s interactions with government and regulatory affairs. All the best, Rob From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Jun 2 13:18:28 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:18:28 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chair attributes: some suggestions Message-ID: A consensus seems to be emerging about who should join Meredith as co-chairs. I don?t want to derail that. In parallel to those deliberations, I think it would be helpful to suggest a list of essential or highly desirable qualities that a co-chair of this WG should have. The list below is a first attempt at that. Feel free to suggest others or disagree with these suggestions. It?s improbable that any one individual could hope to tick all of these boxes. That should be possible however when these qualities are spread across 2 or 3 people. The trick is finding the right balance of skills and experience. And I suppose deciding how to prioritise whatever set of requirements emerges: eg ?foo is mandatory, bar is nice to have, foobar is highly desirable?. Meredith?s initial three criteria are no-brainers. But they do set the bar rather low. IMO the WG leadership needs to have more than those baseline qualities of being willing, able to attend and available. Here goes (in no particular order): 1) Roots in the RIPE Community 2) A good understanding of how things are done at RIPE (policy-making, consensus driven decision making, openness, lowest possible barriers to entry, inclusiveness, etc) 3) A good understanding of the NCC and its role in supporting RIPE and its WGs 4) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential roles other Internet institutions (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IGF, trade associations etc) along with an understanding how these institutions intersect with the RIPE community and how/when to best work with them 5) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential positions in government/regulatory circles 6) An appreciation of current legislation and regulation which affects the RIPE community 7) An understanding of future trends in 6) - like new EU Directives, stuff that might pop up from ITU, WCIT, etc and who is driving that 8) Able to engage with legislators and regulators about relevant technology/standards developments like IoT, 5G, IPv6 migration and the IPv4 run-out, crypto, RPKI, next generation broadband (whatever that might be) and so on 9) (Mostly) based in the RIPE service region 10) Ability to engage with government/regulatory policy-makers as well as those in other Internet institutions and represent the RIPE community in those fora From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 15:07:11 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:07:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] QoS, QoE and Enhanced Services Message-ID: <568D5B6D-3120-4845-98F0-F0847A8C72ED@gmail.com> We have EuroDIG this week and of course there will be discussions about "network neutrality? This paper - Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History - by kc claffy and David Clark is very much worth a read by anyone seriously interested in the topic. https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2015/adding_enhanced_services_internet/adding_enhanced_services_internet.pdf Regards, Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 18:36:19 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:36:19 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chair attributes Message-ID: <7C45EA07-47A7-4CBE-BF6A-9C3BBDCDBA51@gmail.com> Now that I think we have clearly moved into the discussion stage - it will be interesting to see how that goes - I have looked back at what has been said on criteria and how we get to consensus. I don?t think the process can or should be micro-managed by the group. I think we can trust Meredith to assume her responsibilities. With that in mind I think the three criteria mentioned by Meredith - candidates should be willing (and not coerced!), able to attend (ideally for the full RIPE meeting), available - are ?necessary but not sufficient?. To those of course we should add the generic requirements coming from the ?job description" on the RIPE web-site. I hope everybody has read those! I suppose it should almost go without saying that folk should understand what RIPE is and what NCC is and how they each fit into the wider ecosystem. And of course that the co-chairs as a team should also be able to put together a meeting! But all that is probably the same for any WG. So looking through the comprehensive list of criteria from Jim I find myself in agreement with many of them, but not all. I would like to see people from the local community: people who understand how governments work in this region and who understand what the concerns of individuals and organisations in this region are. I would like at least some of the co-chairs to be explicitly sensitive to the tensions between governments and the Internet. Governments and regulators are not always benign! Where I diverge a little from Jim, and the topic has come up recently on this list, is when it comes to outreach and to what extent co-chairs are supposed to represent the WG and indeed RIPE elsewhere. This area is a bit different from others and maybe particularly when it comes to outreach where NCC has been very much involved. NCC, among other things, organises regular roundtables with government folk. I am aware that NCC as such has participated in other meetings such as those of CEPT. I also remember the support NCC gave when it was felt a letter should be written to Brussels. It was not easy. But we were able to do it. Then there was a meeting in the European Parliament on ?network neutrality? which proved slightly problematic. Who were the participants representing exactly? To be clear: I am very happy with what NCC has done in this area. I could only wish they mentioned their good work more often on this list! Where I am less comfortable is about outreach being part of the job description of WG Co-chairs. I also wonder to what extent participants in the WG can also take on this kind of task. I think this needs to be discussed further. In Madrid when we have our full complement of co-chairs? As far as consensus is concerned there was a question elsewhere about that. I do not anticipate any problem. If all those who have been following the discussions here on the list just nod at their screens when Meredith announces what she sees as consensus then she will have got it right. Regards, Gordon From rogerj at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:23:49 2016 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:23:49 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chair attributes In-Reply-To: <7C45EA07-47A7-4CBE-BF6A-9C3BBDCDBA51@gmail.com> References: <7C45EA07-47A7-4CBE-BF6A-9C3BBDCDBA51@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Where I diverge a little from Jim, and the topic has come up recently on this list, is when it comes to outreach and to what extent co-chairs are supposed to represent the WG and indeed RIPE elsewhere. > This area is a bit different from others and maybe particularly when it comes to outreach where NCC has been very much involved. > Where I am less comfortable is about outreach being part of the job description of WG Co-chairs. I also wonder to what extent participants in the WG can also take on this kind of task. I think this needs to be discussed further. In Madrid when we have our full complement of co-chairs? ... may I ask what we expect our chairs todo? Help RIPE NCC in the outreach, or help in the outreach-job by let all the other around RIPE have an arena to meet the community? If a chair is doing outreach, who are a chair of this WG representing? I would say none, whoever it is cannot represent us. Difficult. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From hph at oslo.net Mon Jun 6 20:43:22 2016 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:43:22 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-chair attributes In-Reply-To: References: <7C45EA07-47A7-4CBE-BF6A-9C3BBDCDBA51@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5755C449.3040409@oslo.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 06:58:21 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:58:21 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Best effort, specialised services, network neutrality and more Message-ID: I seem to remember some people thinking that the ?network neutrality? debate in the EU was over when the Regulation was adopted last year. But this is what Commissioner Oettinger said in April in Brussels at the NetFutures event: << The challenge is that communication networks themselves have to evolve and to adapt to the new digital economy. They need to move from "one size fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the versatile requirements of many industries, and that can deliver guaranteed and ubiquitous quality of service. This is precisely what 5G is aimed to achieve: Changing communication networks into innovation platforms rather than mere voice and data pipes. >> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-speech-closing-plenary-session-net-futures-2016-brussels_en Now we have a fairly short public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines. << Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 included new Net Neutrality rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of Internet Access Service. It specified that BEREC lay down guidelines on the implementation by NRAs of their obligations to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules. The Guidelines aim to contribute to the consistent application of the Regulation, thereby contributing to regulatory certainty for stakeholders. >> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_consultations/6075-draft-berec-guidelines-on-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-net-neutrality-rules For comments from TheRegister see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equal_treatment_of_internet_traffic_does_not_mean_users_must_experience_the_same_quality_of_service/ And elsewhere: https://savetheinternet.eu https://edri.org/make-break-summer-eu-net-neutrality-first-stop-vienna/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/eu-net-neutrality-draft-guidelines-released-berec/ https://netzpolitik.org/2016/leak-eus-forthcoming-net-neutrality-rules-heres-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/europe-is-about-to-make-some-big-decisions-on-net-neutrality Enjoy, Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pelkwijk at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 13:07:12 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 11:07:12 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Best effort, specialised services, network neutrality and more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have seen the BEREC draft also mentioned clearly here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/4641/1/netneutraliteit-wat-gaat-er-veranderen-netneutraliteit-europees-en-nederlands.html It gives a nice explanation what is going to happen with net neutrality and what BEREC actually wants to achieve. In short: Net neutrality needs to be guaranteed, unless its for a specialized service. The post specifically mentions the "zero-rating", where providers are providing free mb's for specialist websites and connections with certain IP's. In Holland we have something called the "fair-use policy". This means that people who are using more than 10 times the average per month will get their data squeezed to prevent congestion. This type of service is a fixed-fee service where there is totally no differentiation on IP-level, they only monitor throughput and block certain ports in case they suspect you are abusing their policy. This is in place in ALL wired networks, and the ISP is only a provider for the connection with the backbone (internet). In wireless (mobile phone connection) however, its a different thing. Some providers use a fair-use policy (where only mobiles are allowed with tethering, no mifi or private networks that pump data continuously) while others use a limit (usually 1 or 2 gb of traffic), usually with a "zero-rating" for certain services (like spotify), however this was banned since it introduced unfair business practices. I personally think that net neutrality should not be able to get them mixed up: Either you provide a guaranteed bandwith independent on the connection (fair-use policy, go over a limit and they will throttle the speed) or you provide a data throughput limit where you buy a certain amount of gb with a guaranteed speed. Services where you have an unlimited data plan for a certain service while other services are limited are not really "net neutral", since they favor a certain service. When people hear "unlimited", they associate this with "no limit", and will connect anything to that system (with the problem that it will cause congestion if abused). For VoIP or VPN's or anything requiring a certain bandwith, the "guaranteed bandwith" is the best way to go. Leased lines have a similar idea, where you as company guarantee to provide a certain bandwith from endpoint to endpoint, regardless what sits between them. These ways are more friendly and aim towards the ISP as a "provider to the backbone", rather than a "provider of services". It also prevents cases where unknown services are getting "squeezed" to force them to work together, like in the case of Netflix & Comcast. It also creates a "truly" neutral system, where discrimination based on IP is not possible anymore. Simply said: If I make a connection with a server in a datacenter, my ISP should not make a differentiation if that connection is for spotify, last.fm or google music. The ISP should treat each one equally, and no "zero-rating" should be in place for one of them, since that beats the whole idea of "net neutrality". On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:58 AM Gordon Lennox wrote: > > I seem to remember some people thinking that the ?network neutrality? > debate in the EU was over when the Regulation was adopted last year. > > > But this is what Commissioner Oettinger said in April in Brussels at the > NetFutures event: > > > << The challenge is that communication networks themselves have to evolve > and to adapt to the new digital economy. They need to move from "one size > fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the > versatile requirements of many industries, and that can deliver guaranteed > and ubiquitous quality of service. > > > This is precisely what 5G is aimed to achieve: Changing communication > networks into innovation platforms rather than mere voice and data pipes. >> > > > > https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-speech-closing-plenary-session-net-futures-2016-brussels_en > > > Now we have a fairly short public consultation on the draft BEREC > Guidelines. > > > << Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 included new Net Neutrality rules to > safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the > provision of Internet Access Service. It specified that BEREC lay down > guidelines on the implementation by NRAs of their obligations to monitor > and ensure compliance with the rules. The Guidelines aim to contribute to > the consistent application of the Regulation, thereby contributing to > regulatory certainty for stakeholders. >> > > > > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_consultations/6075-draft-berec-guidelines-on-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-net-neutrality-rules > > > For comments from TheRegister see: > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equal_treatment_of_internet_traffic_does_not_mean_users_must_experience_the_same_quality_of_service/ > > > > And elsewhere: > > > https://savetheinternet.eu > > > https://edri.org/make-break-summer-eu-net-neutrality-first-stop-vienna/ > > > > http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/eu-net-neutrality-draft-guidelines-released-berec/ > > > > https://netzpolitik.org/2016/leak-eus-forthcoming-net-neutrality-rules-heres-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ > > > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/europe-is-about-to-make-some-big-decisions-on-net-neutrality > > > Enjoy, > > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ripencc-management at ripe.net Fri Jun 10 11:38:23 2016 From: ripencc-management at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:38:23 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] NTIA Issues IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Report Message-ID: <575A8A8F.6010300@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The transition of stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community has reached a significant milestone. On 9 June 2016, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued its assessment report on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. The proposal was submitted to the NTIA in March 2016 following the ICANN 55 Meeting. From its first announcement, the NTIA has set down a number of requirements that any proposal for transition would need to meet. The proposal must: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2. Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3. Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet. The NTIA further stipulated that it "would not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution." After thorough review the NTIA reports that it finds that "the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal meets the criteria necessary to complete the long-promised privatization of the IANA functions." The NTIA also looked at the recommendations developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, and found that "the accountability recommendations are consistent with sound principles of good governance that reflect the unique and important mission of ICANN within the Internet ecosystem.? The NTIA is now engaging with members of the United States Congress, and has asked ICANN to provide an implementation planning status report to gauge whether this work is likely to be completed prior to the expiration of the IANA functions contract on 30 September 2016. A fact sheet and link to the full report is available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/fact-sheet-ntias-assessment-iana-stewardship-transition-proposal Further information on the IANA stewardship transition is available at: https://www.ripe.net/iana-stewardship-transition Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From nurani at netnod.se Sat Jun 11 10:21:01 2016 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:21:01 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization References: <575B7E96.3060106@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <50AADB80-4E0B-456D-B029-CFB1D1503267@netnod.se> Fyi. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani > Date: 11 June 2016 at 04:59:34 GMT+2 > To: "ianaxfer at nro.net" > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization > > As you may have seen already through various channels, the NTIA has published Assessment Report on the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal. > > NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-meets-criteria-complete-privatization > > It has thoroughly reviewed each component of the proposal including the Number Resources component and expresses that it meets the criteria for the transition announced by the NTIA in March 2014. > This is a big step forward, with still work to do for implementation. > > You can see the latest Transition Planning Timeline and Implementation Planning at : https://www.icann.org/uploads/iana_work_session_asset/attachment/321/TPFM_07JUN16.pdf > > > Nurani & Izumi > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer at nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Sun Jun 12 18:45:41 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:45:41 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Message-ID: <1FB412AA-6864-4521-98C4-BDDA90100791@rfc1035.com> 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 gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sun Jun 19 11:19:16 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:19:16 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group Message-ID: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a reply I feel I should ask one more. Do people actually want this Working Group? I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG cannot just be about private conversations. The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what chairs and co-chairs think. I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think? Gordon From julf at julf.com Sun Jun 19 11:24:41 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:24:41 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> Message-ID: <576664D9.9070004@julf.com> Gordon, > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the > lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that > while people may be interested they are not actually > interested enough to say anything. As I haven't been on this list too long, I didn't want to start spamming the list with postings about stuff going on that I think we should be aware of (and possibly address), and instead have been lurking to get a "feel" for the spirit of the list - but I agree with you, it seems rather thin on the ground with regards to relevant discussion. Julf From mir at ripe.net Mon Jun 20 16:13:11 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:13:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: LPWA: Things in Search of a Network Message-ID: <8e0299af-15f8-ff77-3470-1829fbbabfc5@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Last week Marco Hogewoning had the opportunity to visit the LPWA IoT Networks Event in Amsterdam, a two-day conference dedicated to the use of low power wide area (LPWA) wireless networks that lie behind many Internet of Things (IoT) solutions that are entering the market. Please find his report on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/lpwa-things-in-search-of-a-network?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-coopwg Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From corinnecath at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 16:45:31 2016 From: corinnecath at gmail.com (Corinne Cath) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:45:31 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Gordon and others, As a 'lurker' on the list and a pretty regular RIPE participant, I can only state that I think this mailinglist is very important. And yes, that it is a wanted, and necessary, contribution to the larger conversations going on at RIPE. That being said, I can imagine your frustration about the lack of conversation, Gordon. But that seems in part because there are not sufficient working group co-chairs to move the ball forward in terms of ensuring a steady flow of mailinglist conversations and contributions. This is not to say that Meredith is not doing an excellent job. She is. But she is also doing it alone. And if we want the list to become more active we need to ensure that there are enough people to facilitate that. I also noticed during the latest RIPE meeting that there was a lot of pressure to select co-chairs, yet when the conversation was started a lot of (negative) energy was focused on our current chair's choice of words with regards to the procedures for doing so. I think highlighting this is important for several reasons: it shows that the group is very focused on process, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but when such a process-heavy approach actually undermines the process of selectinging the co-chairs, in my mind there is a (process) problem. We could have easily spent that time we nit-picked Meredith choice of words, nit-picking the candidates merits. Related to this, as a relative newbie on this list, the rather hostile manner in which the conversation at RIPE in Copenhagen took place was off-putting. And now before my inbox gets filled up with people complaining about 'generation-Y's inability to deal with the real world' or 'in your face feedback', let me make three things clear: 1. I am Dutch, we pretty much invented the in-your-face-style of conversation. 2. I am on IETF mailinglist, where they pretty much invented 1. but then for mailinglists 3. Just because our communities pride themselves on their 'saying-it-like-it-is' culture does not make it efficient (or right) It should not come as a surprise that lurkers on the list stay silent sometimes when they notice that the on going conversations are tense, a little in-crowdy, and that their questions or points are most likely dismissed with a 'go read the archives'. I am not saying that this is the case for this mailinglist or WG, but I think it might be something to consider. I hope that in the upcoming weeks we can make a definitive decision about the new co-chairs. Don't worry, I won't suggest an election (or that I don't want to be in the way of your coffee break) because we all know that apparently offering such suggestions can get some people pretty agitated, but rather that we move this process forward so we can get back to discussing the content, with support of the new co-chair(s). Best, Corinne On Sun, Jun 19, 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. The Working Group (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: The Working Group (Johan Helsingius) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:19:16 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox > To: Cooperation WG > Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a > reply I feel I should ask one more. > > Do people actually want this Working Group? > > I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But > traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG > cannot just be about private conversations. > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of > conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be > interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I > have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many > ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make > even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for > co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they > see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what > chairs and co-chairs think. > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right > now. But what to others think? > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:24:41 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <576664D9.9070004 at julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the > > lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that > > while people may be interested they are not actually > > interested enough to say anything. > > As I haven't been on this list too long, I didn't want to > start spamming the list with postings about stuff going > on that I think we should be aware of (and possibly address), > and instead have been lurking to get a "feel" for the > spirit of the list - but I agree with you, it seems rather > thin on the ground with regards to relevant discussion. > > Julf > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From collin at measurementlab.net Mon Jun 20 18:36:02 2016 From: collin at measurementlab.net (Collin Anderson) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:36:02 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right > now. But what to others think? In Copenhagen and Bucharest, I raised this issue with a few people privately ? "what is the role of Coop to you, and is there an unaddressed space that it needs to extend into?" I had assumed from the outset that the lull of the mailing list would be problematic, but instead most people seemed to see the group as a space in involve other communities and create room for discussions that would not otherwise fall under existing WGs. It seems that people overall were satisfied with the WG's primary activity taking place at the RIPE meetings, and the sessions spill into the break time because there is such a vibrant discussion. So, I would frame it less as a existential question about the need for the group and pose the question as: are there unaddressed needs that future co-chairs should encourage more active participation in? As for my own silence on the role of the co-chair, that's a product of the process. As Jim had rightly noted last week, there was some semblance of a timeframe that I had proposed but had not been followed. Had it been, rather than opening space for discussion, by June 1, and in fact in the midst of the Copenhagen meeting, there had been already a determination made by a fair amount of people about preferences. As such, that was effective as disincentivizing any further discussion from those who had offered their names, and hence quiet. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a > reply I feel I should ask one more. > > Do people actually want this Working Group? > > I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But > traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG > cannot just be about private conversations. > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of > conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be > interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I > have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many > ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make > even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for > co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they > see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what > chairs and co-chairs think. > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right > now. But what to others think? > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 19:33:19 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:33:19 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A3139AA-3C36-42F3-AB18-7B0CC2634987@gmail.com> Thanks Collin for this. Thanks again! My question was for those people you talked to privately and others like them. In other words the WG. It was not specifically for the co-chair(s). What you were hearing sound like a typical conference, academic or otherwise. Some small group - programme committee, co-chairs, whatever - puts together a bunch of speakers. The audience is invited to rate them afterwards. But the discussion goes on in private conversations over coffee. We all know that works. But it seems to be yet another distinct step away from what the community used to do. So is it what we want? Anecdote. Recently I posted something on the BEREC consultation. There was nice response from Julf. And that was it. Except somebody - another lurker! - picked up the content and kindly mentioning my name posted elsewhere. There was a bit more interaction there. So this bright shiny new thing I am thinking of posting? Is this list still appropriate? Or should I post elsewhere. I don?t feel like cross-posting. But feedback would be nice. Anyway I very much appreciated the programme that Meredith put together for Copenhagen. But the Berec consultation and undoubtedly other things will be over and done with before Madrid. So my question about this list is still to the WG. Best, Gordon > On 20 Jun 2016, at 18:36, Collin Anderson wrote: > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think? > > In Copenhagen and Bucharest, I raised this issue with a few people privately ? "what is the role of Coop to you, and is there an unaddressed space that it needs to extend into?" I had assumed from the outset that the lull of the mailing list would be problematic, but instead most people seemed to see the group as a space in involve other communities and create room for discussions that would not otherwise fall under existing WGs. It seems that people overall were satisfied with the WG's primary activity taking place at the RIPE meetings, and the sessions spill into the break time because there is such a vibrant discussion. > > So, I would frame it less as a existential question about the need for the group and pose the question as: are there unaddressed needs that future co-chairs should encourage more active participation in? > > As for my own silence on the role of the co-chair, that's a product of the process. As Jim had rightly noted last week, there was some semblance of a timeframe that I had proposed but had not been followed. Had it been, rather than opening space for discussion, by June 1, and in fact in the midst of the Copenhagen meeting, there had been already a determination made by a fair amount of people about preferences. As such, that was effective as disincentivizing any further discussion from those who had offered their names, and hence quiet. > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a reply I feel I should ask one more. > > Do people actually want this Working Group? > > I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG cannot just be about private conversations. > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what chairs and co-chairs think. > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think? > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Jun 21 07:36:21 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:36:21 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: <0A3139AA-3C36-42F3-AB18-7B0CC2634987@gmail.com> References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> <0A3139AA-3C36-42F3-AB18-7B0CC2634987@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think this list absolutely should be used for various things discussed in the RIPE Region, as a way to coordinate and flag issues we see here and there. Once upon a time people working with IG issues where very alone. No-one to talk with. Many parties (including RIPE NCC and myself then at Cisco) started with roundtable meetings so that at least people formally working with IG issues in governments (i.e. lower level staff) could get in contact with each others. This did grow, the Cisco (and other) round tables merged with and was taken over by RIPE NCC and this wg was created as the set of people working with IG issues did grow. This list because of this from my point of view could be a place where more things are shared. Unfortunately I am not myself working with IG issues as much as earlier. I do get questions of course and might have a few things to send off to this list the next few days. Triggered by energy sent by the low but still activity on this list. So, the list is somewhat different from the meetings. Meetings should, I think, and can much more if the list is used effectively, be used for exactly what we did in Copenhagen. Interesting people presenting interesting topics. Discussions can very well happen on the list. Including not only information from RIPE NCC what they have done, said and where they have been, but also where they will go and potentially what they will say (so that WG members can feed input to RIPE NCC in advance). It is because of this not either or. We can do presentation like things and discussions. Best, Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From michele at blacknight.com Tue Jun 21 14:30:15 2016 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:30:15 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C4D5B61-7FB4-4E83-A1A7-2F0099F52641@blacknight.com> Gordon Most of the other Working Groups within RIPE have specific ?projects? they?re working on. I don?t think this group has any .. or maybe I missed that email ? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 On 19/06/2016, 10:19, "cooperation-wg on behalf of Gordon Lennox" wrote: Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a reply I feel I should ask one more. Do people actually want this Working Group? I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG cannot just be about private conversations. The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what chairs and co-chairs think. I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think? Gordon From julf at julf.com Tue Jun 21 15:00:50 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:00:50 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> <0A3139AA-3C36-42F3-AB18-7B0CC2634987@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57693A82.5010403@julf.com> On 21-06-16 07:36, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Meetings should, I think, and can much more if the list > is used effectively, be used for exactly what we did in > Copenhagen. Interesting people presenting interesting topics. I agree. > Discussions can very well happen on the list. Including not > only information from RIPE NCC what they have done, said and > where they have been, but also where they will go and > potentially what they will say (so that WG members can feed > input to RIPE NCC in advance). Indeed. And that is really how I see the list working - people post here about upcoming activities, and based on that, we can use the list to coordinate (and inform) our activities. Julf From julf at julf.com Tue Jun 21 15:02:47 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:02:47 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group In-Reply-To: <4C4D5B61-7FB4-4E83-A1A7-2F0099F52641@blacknight.com> References: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34@gmail.com> <4C4D5B61-7FB4-4E83-A1A7-2F0099F52641@blacknight.com> Message-ID: <57693AF7.4030200@julf.com> Michele, > Most of the other Working Groups within RIPE have > specific ?projects? they?re working on. I don?t think > this group has any .. Not specific fixed projects, but rather the "projects" are defined by whatever external actions and outreach is going on. Julf From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 22:27:13 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 22:27:13 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) Message-ID: Kieren?s write-up - where you will also find pointers - is here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/21/how_to_save_the_open_internet/ Nibbles: << The internet could go one of three paths in the next decade, according to an elite group of policymakers: open and global; unequal and uneven; or dangerous and broken. And the path to righteousness? It's contained in the recommendations of the 140-page report that the grandly named Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) has spent two years working on and released Tuesday. >> << There are "significant barriers" to real engagement that "discourage" people. And the report suggests that "seasoned participants from the technical community may need to adjust their usual blunt approach" in order to bring in others. It even goes so far as to suggest that the current approach taken by such groups as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Internet Society (ISOC) and so on "may not always be sustainable, particularly as the pioneers who established and remain key supporters of these bodies disappear from the scene." Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. >> From vesely at tana.it Wed Jun 22 12:21:23 2016 From: vesely at tana.it (Alessandro Vesely) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:21:23 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? Message-ID: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> Hi all, as asked in ISOC survey, it seems there are a few big players who dominate Internet connectivity market, more and more convoluted with telephone. Here in Italy, for reasons beyond my understanding, you are bound to get a residential connection unless you have a VAT number. I really cannot understand the rationale for that, and it looks to me as a gratuitous limitation of individual freedom. Personally, I'm unable to get a non-filtered, static IP connection since I closed my VAT account (after my tax preparer's recommendation). I'll probably have to give up running my own email server. In addition, I've never been able to get IPv6 addresses --perhaps that needs a fiscal reform, eh? Is it that way all over Europe, or is it just Italy? Can anyone shed some light on why it is so? TIA Ale From julf at julf.com Wed Jun 22 12:31:11 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:31:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> Message-ID: <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> Alessandro, > Here in Italy, for reasons beyond my understanding, you are bound to get > a residential connection unless you have a VAT number. I really cannot > understand the rationale for that, and it looks to me as a gratuitous > limitation of individual freedom. Have you asked your provider(s) for a rationale or justification? > Is it that way all over Europe, or is it just Italy? Even the meanings of "residential" and "business" connections vary from provider to provider. You can definitely get unfiltered (and IPv6) "residential" connections here in The Netherlands. Julf From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jun 22 12:41:30 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:41:30 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> Message-ID: > On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:31, Johan Helsingius wrote: > >> >> Here in Italy, for reasons beyond my understanding, you are bound to get >> a residential connection unless you have a VAT number. I really cannot >> understand the rationale for that, and it looks to me as a gratuitous >> limitation of individual freedom. > > Have you asked your provider(s) for a rationale or justification? Julf, when RIPE meeting was in Rome 4-5 years ago, we had to provide copies of our passports to use some city-wide free wi-fi service. I think this was because of Italian law, possibly to help the cops keep track of who was using which IP address. From bengan at resilans.se Wed Jun 22 12:57:00 2016 From: bengan at resilans.se (=?UTF-8?B?QmVuZ3QgR8O2cmTDqW4=?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:57:00 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> Message-ID: Den 2016-06-22 kl. 12:41, skrev Jim Reid: >> On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:31, Johan Helsingius wrote: >> >>> Here in Italy, for reasons beyond my understanding, you are bound to get >>> a residential connection unless you have a VAT number. I really cannot >>> understand the rationale for that, and it looks to me as a gratuitous >>> limitation of individual freedom. >> Have you asked your provider(s) for a rationale or justification? > Julf, when RIPE meeting was in Rome 4-5 years ago, we had to provide copies of our passports to use some city-wide free wi-fi service. I think this was because of Italian law, possibly to help the cops keep track of who was using which IP address. > > I traveled to Tuscany a few times and we always buy prepayed mobil internet. I always have to show my passport to buy that. The same in Spain last 3 times I've been there. /bengan From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 15:07:30 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:07:30 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> Message-ID: <3361ED3B-294F-47DA-B59A-04F8C5D2B638@gmail.com> So - for reasons beyond our collective understanding? - silly demands are yet again made on people who want to use the Internet? I wish it were as simple as to ask for a rationale or justification. Although that is a very good place to start. But some of this is so embedded in certain a cultures it can be impossible to fight for most individuals. So you need allies. It might be worthwhile exploring how we could collectively do something there. My own thing was when I looked at registering a domain name under dotSE. As an individual you have to give them a copy of your government-issued "personal identification number?. But if you are not Swedish then any old government-related number would appear to do. Does not matter which government. Does not matter if it a personal identity number. Does not matter if they can check it or not - probably they cannot. I have no idea why they need this. But somehow they really-really need a little number for that field. Duh! Gordon PS At EuroDIG we had to show our passports (after the security check) to pick up our badge and t-shirt. > On 22 Jun 2016, at 12:57, Bengt G?rd?n wrote: > > Den 2016-06-22 kl. 12:41, skrev Jim Reid: >>> On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:31, Johan Helsingius wrote: >>> >>>> Here in Italy, for reasons beyond my understanding, you are bound to get >>>> a residential connection unless you have a VAT number. I really cannot >>>> understand the rationale for that, and it looks to me as a gratuitous >>>> limitation of individual freedom. >>> Have you asked your provider(s) for a rationale or justification? >> Julf, when RIPE meeting was in Rome 4-5 years ago, we had to provide copies of our passports to use some city-wide free wi-fi service. I think this was because of Italian law, possibly to help the cops keep track of who was using which IP address. >> >> > > I traveled to Tuscany a few times and we always buy prepayed mobil > internet. I always have to show my passport to buy that. The same in > Spain last 3 times I've been there. > > > /bengan > > > From paf at frobbit.se Wed Jun 22 15:27:35 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:27:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: <3361ED3B-294F-47DA-B59A-04F8C5D2B638@gmail.com> References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> <3361ED3B-294F-47DA-B59A-04F8C5D2B638@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55226549-2E08-4C5C-98FB-ACC4EA2DD1CC@frobbit.se> On 22 Jun 2016, at 15:07, Gordon Lennox wrote: > My own thing was when I looked at registering a domain name under dotSE. As an individual you have to give them a copy of your government-issued "personal identification number?. But if you are not Swedish then any old government-related number would appear to do. Does not matter which government. Does not matter if it a personal identity number. Does not matter if they can check it or not - probably they cannot. I have no idea why they need this. But somehow they really-really need a little number for that field. And in Denmark the registry requite mandatory validation of that ID-thing -- but only if you use the Danish ID, not otherwise. Go figure. In Sweden we managed to kill those ideas at least. In a more sensitive environment (I think) it would be a responsibility for the registrar to know who the customer (and domain holder / user) actually is, but nope. That is not how the registrar agreements are written. The current situation makes it impossible for a registrar to say "I know this person". The difference between what one have to do and how to implement it is not very easy to understand sometimes. paf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pelkwijk at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 16:11:00 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:11:00 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: <55226549-2E08-4C5C-98FB-ACC4EA2DD1CC@frobbit.se> References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> <3361ED3B-294F-47DA-B59A-04F8C5D2B638@gmail.com> <55226549-2E08-4C5C-98FB-ACC4EA2DD1CC@frobbit.se> Message-ID: This really sounds like the case of the piratebay, where they tried to sue people over the simple fact that they were mentioned in the whois registry as the "contact person". In Holland the ISP tends to shield themselves a lot by telling the lobbies that they are nothing but data carriers, which in return caused them to get sued for copyright infringement. They are bound by law NOT to give any information about their customers to (private) lobby organisations, unless you come with a legal document requesting them to hand over your personal information. However most ISP's will forward emails sent to them. Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is something that is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set up a mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or buy a postbox company in the Seychelles? The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other than that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that companies try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone number on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have gotten an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in the USA... The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same thing as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should give out a copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds the same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security when people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it without questioning the legality of it. Julius On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:27 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > On 22 Jun 2016, at 15:07, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > My own thing was when I looked at registering a domain name under dotSE. > As an individual you have to give them a copy of your government-issued > "personal identification number?. But if you are not Swedish then any old > government-related number would appear to do. Does not matter which > government. Does not matter if it a personal identity number. Does not > matter if they can check it or not - probably they cannot. I have no idea > why they need this. But somehow they really-really need a little number for > that field. > > And in Denmark the registry requite mandatory validation of that ID-thing > -- but only if you use the Danish ID, not otherwise. > > Go figure. > > In Sweden we managed to kill those ideas at least. > > In a more sensitive environment (I think) it would be a responsibility for > the registrar to know who the customer (and domain holder / user) actually > is, but nope. That is not how the registrar agreements are written. The > current situation makes it impossible for a registrar to say "I know this > person". > > The difference between what one have to do and how to implement it is not > very easy to understand sometimes. > > paf > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Jun 22 18:28:27 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:28:27 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is an interesting document. I?ve only skimmed through and not yet read it in detail. Does anyone know what happens now? Will it be up for discussion/consultation at some governance forum like WSIS or ICANN? How can people and organisations comment on the report? The motherhood and apple pie statements on page viii ("What Happens Next??) are rather vague about next steps. In particular, what does ?... conceive of a new model that embraces greater involvement of those whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the network and to exercise their fundamental rights online. This new vision of ?multi-stakeholderism? requires a more collaborative, global and decentralized model of decision making; enhanced coordination and cooperation across institutions and actors; increased interoperability in terms of identifying and describing issues and approaches for resolution throughout the ecosystem; open information sharing and evidence- based decision making; and expertise- or issue-based organization to allow for both localization and scale in problem solving. ... To continue to be effective, Internet governance will need to be more inclusive and more distributed.? actually mean in practice and where is this new vision/model to be developed? From julf at julf.com Wed Jun 22 20:29:59 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:29:59 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576AD927.8080404@julf.com> On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. I think that is your personal interpretation of what the document actually says. Julf From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 21:00:23 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:00:23 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) In-Reply-To: <576AD927.8080404@julf.com> References: <576AD927.8080404@julf.com> Message-ID: That was Kieren and not me. ;-) I pointed to the article by Kieren which in turn points to the report. In order to encourage people to at least go and read what Kieren said I supplied a couple of tasty ?nibbles? from his article. I had hoped that some people would then go on, as Jim has done, and look at the actual report. :-) Gordon > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many >> of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > document actually says. > > Julf > From julf at julf.com Wed Jun 22 21:04:35 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:04:35 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) In-Reply-To: References: <576AD927.8080404@julf.com> Message-ID: <576AE143.1090706@julf.com> > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) Ah, my apologies - I have been reading the original report, but not Kieren's article, so I didn't realize you were quoting him. Julf From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 22:54:13 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:54:13 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Copenhagen - The Movie! Message-ID: <76D5EDAA-7FD3-47E3-A03F-09ED358465D6@gmail.com> For people who were ?not there? - either not in Copenhagen or just in another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource. And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, stuff perhaps of general interest. So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme. But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware and that is the ?Net of Rights? video from the screening organised by Corinne. https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/ Personal takeaways. The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence. There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard contradiction there. We are not talking about ?evil regimes? elsewhere. We are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. ?Snoopers' charter" anyone? I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet?. That sends the wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the problem. I also don?t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get it right? with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK. There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the Internet technical communities, the ?techies? of the IETF and RIPE, were politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was friendly. A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation from Chris for other possible directions. Gordon From vesely at tana.it Thu Jun 23 11:20:03 2016 From: vesely at tana.it (Alessandro Vesely) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:20:03 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? In-Reply-To: References: <576A66A3.1010609@tana.it> <576A68EF.2080902@julf.com> <3361ED3B-294F-47DA-B59A-04F8C5D2B638@gmail.com> <55226549-2E08-4C5C-98FB-ACC4EA2DD1CC@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <576BA9C3.4070004@tana.it> Thanks for all replies. I note none of them came from Italy or Spain... On Wed 22/Jun/2016 16:11:00 +0200 Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is something that > is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the > culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set up a > mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or buy a > postbox company in the Seychelles? There have been several privacy-safeguarding improvements in residential connections. I welcome them. Requiring a VAT number is different, though. Every Italian citizen has a fiscal code, which is as good as a VAT number for identification purposes. Yet, after years, one of my connection providers still invoices me using my expired VAT number. Could that be rooted in 11-digit VAT numbers vs 16-byte alphanumeric fiscal codes? Hmm... not in this millennium, I'd say. I'd rule out specific laws, because the other connection provider I have did switch to fiscal code invoicing upon request to do so. However, I doubt they would have offered me that contract if I hadn't have a VAT number at the time. A third provider, who promised me everything over the phone last month, retracted all /after having laid new fiber cables to my office/, saying they cannot do their "microbusiness" contract without VAT number. They invoiced me zero euro for missing the deal. Others just quit the conversation as they hear about no VAT number. Note that residential lines, which I use too, are somewhat cheaper for "physical persons" than for businesses. The only high level manager I spoke with dismissed the argument as obvious, saying "Every provider does so". "You mean in Italy?!" I objected. He said yes. > The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other than > that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that companies > try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone number > on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have gotten > an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in the USA... Postmaster.live.com used to check enlisting requests by (also) writing to WHOIS contacts. Many methods can enforce one another. And yes, it is something of a pita to switch provider on a mail server. > The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same thing > as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should give out a > copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds the > same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security when > people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it without > questioning the legality of it. Agreed. BTW, bank payments, along with email addresses, make for trusted IDs. Erogo ergo sum. I don't think FB wants to gain the same level of accountability as, say, PayPal, as an informal ID certifier. Ale From corinnecath at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 12:07:45 2016 From: corinnecath at gmail.com (Corinne Cath) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:07:45 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To those interested in the next steps of the Bildt report, I am will be attending a meeting organized by EU MEP Marietje Schaake next week. see: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2016/06/european-launch-of-our-internet-the-final-report-of-the-global-commission-on-internet-governance/ Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest. On Gordon's comments on the net of rights movie. I appreciate your thoughts and kind words, but I have to disagree with your assertion that it demonizes the Internet. I think the documentary does not demonize or blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its technical infrastructure. Best On Thu, Jun 23, 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. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Jim Reid) > 2. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) > 3. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Gordon Lennox) > 4. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance > (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) > 5. Copenhagen - The Movie! (Gordon Lennox) > 6. Re: Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity > offerings? (Alessandro Vesely) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:28:27 +0100 > From: Jim Reid > To: Cooperation WG > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > This is an interesting document. I?ve only skimmed through and not yet > read it in detail. > > Does anyone know what happens now? Will it be up for > discussion/consultation at some governance forum like WSIS or ICANN? How > can people and organisations comment on the report? > The motherhood and apple pie statements on page viii ("What Happens > Next??) are rather vague about next steps. > > In particular, what does > > > ?... conceive of a new model that embraces greater involvement of those > whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the > network and to exercise their fundamental rights online. This new vision of > ?multi-stakeholderism? requires a more collaborative, global and > decentralized model of decision making; enhanced coordination and > cooperation across institutions and actors; increased interoperability in > terms of identifying and describing issues and approaches for resolution > throughout the ecosystem; open information sharing and evidence- based > decision making; and expertise- or issue-based organization to allow for > both localization and scale in problem solving. > ... > To continue to be effective, Internet governance will need to be more > inclusive and more distributed.? > > actually mean in practice and where is this new vision/model to be > developed? > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:29:59 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <576AD927.8080404 at julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > > of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > document actually says. > > Julf > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:00:23 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox > To: Cooperation WG > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) > > I pointed to the article by Kieren which in turn points to the report. > > In order to encourage people to at least go and read what Kieren said I > supplied a couple of tasty ?nibbles? from his article. > > I had hoped that some people would then go on, as Jim has done, and look > at the actual report. > > :-) > > Gordon > > > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > > > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > >> Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many > >> of the internet organizations is slowly killing them. > > > > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the > > document actually says. > > > > Julf > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:04:35 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on > Internet Governance (GCIG) > Message-ID: <576AE143.1090706 at julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > That was Kieren and not me. ;-) > > Ah, my apologies - I have been reading the original > report, but not Kieren's article, so I didn't realize > you were quoting him. > > Julf > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:54:13 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox > To: Cooperation WG > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Copenhagen - The Movie! > Message-ID: <76D5EDAA-7FD3-47E3-A03F-09ED358465D6 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > For people who were ?not there? - either not in Copenhagen or just in > another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource. > > And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit > some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, > stuff perhaps of general interest. > > So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme. > > But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware > and that is the ?Net of Rights? video from the screening organised by > Corinne. > > https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/ > > Personal takeaways. > > The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the > presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is > that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the > Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and > there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence. > > There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with > governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a > useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard > contradiction there. We are not talking about ?evil regimes? elsewhere. We > are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very > large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are > obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. > ?Snoopers' charter" anyone? > > I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet?. That sends the > wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various > players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the > problem. I also don?t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly > somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not > know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those > who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had > several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. > Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get > it right? with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the > agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding > MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK. > > There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the > Internet technical communities, the ?techies? of the IETF and RIPE, were > politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That > does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in > Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned > and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA > interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was > friendly. > > A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by > the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation > from Chris for other possible directions. > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:20:03 +0200 > From: Alessandro Vesely > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet > connectivity offerings? > Message-ID: <576BA9C3.4070004 at tana.it> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Thanks for all replies. I note none of them came from Italy or Spain... > > On Wed 22/Jun/2016 16:11:00 +0200 Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > > > Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is > something that > > is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the > > culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set > up a > > mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or > buy a > > postbox company in the Seychelles? > > There have been several privacy-safeguarding improvements in residential > connections. I welcome them. > > Requiring a VAT number is different, though. Every Italian citizen has a > fiscal code, which is as good as a VAT number for identification purposes. > Yet, after years, one of my connection providers still invoices me using my > expired VAT number. Could that be rooted in 11-digit VAT numbers vs > 16-byte > alphanumeric fiscal codes? Hmm... not in this millennium, I'd say. > > I'd rule out specific laws, because the other connection provider I have > did > switch to fiscal code invoicing upon request to do so. However, I doubt > they > would have offered me that contract if I hadn't have a VAT number at the > time. > > A third provider, who promised me everything over the phone last month, > retracted all /after having laid new fiber cables to my office/, saying > they > cannot do their "microbusiness" contract without VAT number. They > invoiced me > zero euro for missing the deal. > > Others just quit the conversation as they hear about no VAT number. Note > that > residential lines, which I use too, are somewhat cheaper for "physical > persons" > than for businesses. > > The only high level manager I spoke with dismissed the argument as obvious, > saying "Every provider does so". "You mean in Italy?!" I objected. He > said yes. > > > The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other > than > > that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that > companies > > try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone > number > > on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have > gotten > > an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in > the USA... > > Postmaster.live.com used to check enlisting requests by (also) writing to > WHOIS > contacts. Many methods can enforce one another. And yes, it is something > of a > pita to switch provider on a mail server. > > > The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same > thing > > as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should > give out a > > copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds > the > > same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security > when > > people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it > without > > questioning the legality of it. > > Agreed. BTW, bank payments, along with email addresses, make for trusted > IDs. > Erogo ergo sum. I don't think FB wants to gain the same level of > accountability as, say, PayPal, as an informal ID certifier. > > Ale > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at julf.com Thu Jun 23 12:28:30 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:28:30 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> Corinne, > I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest. Yes, please - I think many of us are very interested! > I think the documentary does not demonize or > blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed > questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the > political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people > maintaining its technical infrastructure. Yes, they are good questions - but as we know all too well, the problem is not just techies not understanding the political issues, but also politicians not understanding the technology. And that is were we have a great opportunity (and responsibility) to inform and educate people. Julf From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 15:29:05 2016 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:29:05 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> Message-ID: Hi all, Corinne: Yes, please do post a summary. I am interested in knowing what was said. Johan: Your points definitely do not fall on deaf ears. You are right! I think important for more to be done in terms of capacity building at the governmental level. Of course, this incites a point of frustration for some in the technical community in that it seems government reps don't always (or sometimes) listen. The good question to brainstorm is what can we as a community do to help politicians and others in government better understand the technology or at the very least, take part in the discussions and listen to the community's point of view? Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia Independent #netgov consultant & editor IGMENA communications manager 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter *|* LinkedIn On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > Corinne, > > > I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest. > > Yes, please - I think many of us are very interested! > > > I think the documentary does not demonize or > > blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed > > questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the > > political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people > > maintaining its technical infrastructure. > > Yes, they are good questions - but as we know all too well, > the problem is not just techies not understanding the political > issues, but also politicians not understanding the technology. > And that is were we have a great opportunity (and responsibility) > to inform and educate people. > > Julf > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at julf.com Thu Jun 23 15:37:25 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:37:25 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> Message-ID: <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> Michael, > Of course, this incites a point of frustration for > some in the technical community in that it seems government reps don't > always (or sometimes) listen. And sometimes they listen very selectively... :) > The good question to brainstorm is what can we as a community do to help > politicians and others in government better understand the technology or > at the very least, take part in the discussions and listen to the > community's point of view? The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. Julf From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 15:39:40 2016 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:39:40 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> Message-ID: Johan, >And sometimes they listen very selectively... :) Indeed ;) >The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community >and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and >activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that >case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. That's a good point. And I recognize it's difficult to talk about either politics or mobilization in a constructive way when there is no single or set position, one way or another. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote: > Michael, > > > Of course, this incites a point of frustration for > > some in the technical community in that it seems government reps don't > > always (or sometimes) listen. > > And sometimes they listen very selectively... :) > > > The good question to brainstorm is what can we as a community do to help > > politicians and others in government better understand the technology or > > at the very least, take part in the discussions and listen to the > > community's point of view? > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > Julf > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 16:01:52 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:01:52 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> Message-ID: I agree. One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and you get a response. But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong disagreement about values. I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. Gordon > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 16:12:22 2016 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:12:22 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> Message-ID: I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen to listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work with diplomats and a lot of training with government. In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of politics and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, etc. -- are still people. Just people. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I agree. > > One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and > you get a response. > > But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is > not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong > disagreement about values. > > I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. > Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour > there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And > it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. > > Gordon > > > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de Thu Jun 23 17:39:28 2016 From: Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de (Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:39:28 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> Message-ID: <79F540CC87E9FD49A2075F92003D5355B84BC313@BMIBH160.intern.bmi> We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content ? we have the process. ? For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: New role of public administration and governments The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 solutions, worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running and we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. About this communication way and the role of public administration in the community I told you last year. But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. In hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but we have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a problem because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to figure out a new ?Thinking? and new ?Cooperation Forms?. Regards Constanze Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Michael Oghia Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 An: Gordon Lennox Cc: Cooperation WG Betreff: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen to listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work with diplomats and a lot of training with government. In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of politics and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, etc. -- are still people. Just people. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: I agree. One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and you get a response. But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong disagreement about values. I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. Gordon > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius > wrote: > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike.oghia at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 17:44:21 2016 From: mike.oghia at gmail.com (Michael Oghia) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:44:21 +0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <79F540CC87E9FD49A2075F92003D5355B84BC313@BMIBH160.intern.bmi> References: <576BB9CE.4060404@julf.com> <576BE615.4060705@julf.com> <79F540CC87E9FD49A2075F92003D5355B84BC313@BMIBH160.intern.bmi> Message-ID: Thank you for sharing this Constanze! Indeed, the more we work together, the more we will accomplish things. I am sure of that. Collaboration is how we built the Internet, and and I firmly believe collaboration and openness is how we will continue to ensure it evolves in a way that is advantageous and beneficial to humanity. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM, wrote: > We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: > > For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content ? we have the > process. J > > > > For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: > > New role of public administration and governments > > > > The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only > ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home > with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 solutions, > worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. > The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running and > we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. About > this communication way and the role of public administration in the > community I told you last year. > > But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. > > The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are > driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. In > hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but we > have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a problem > because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. > > So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts > and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . > > . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social > and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to > figure out a new ?Thinking? and new ?Cooperation Forms?. > > Regards > > Constanze > > > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *Im > Auftrag von *Michael Oghia > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 > *An:* Gordon Lennox > *Cc:* Cooperation WG > *Betreff:* [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > > > > I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. > > > > My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact > decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and > once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are > positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen to > listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work > with diplomats and a lot of training with government. > > > > In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of politics > and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, > etc. -- are still people. Just people. > > > -Michael > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > > I agree. > > One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and > you get a response. > > But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is > not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong > disagreement about values. > > I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. > Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour > there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And > it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. > > Gordon > > > > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Jun 23 20:41:32 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:41:32 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6774327E-646A-44D7-AB4B-8D8EDB97CA5B@frobbit.se> On 23 Jun 2016, at 12:07, Corinne Cath wrote: > Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. A number of us wrote various pieces of the report, or the background reports that is the foundation of the main report. And you will see presentations on the various pieces here and there the next year I guess. No.33 on fragmentation due to interest of market economy forces I presented Tuesday this week in Slovenia at their Go6/SovenianNOG meeting, and you can find the video recording here: Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From corinnecath at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 13:13:02 2016 From: corinnecath at gmail.com (Corinne Cath) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:13:02 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects. I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup: The working group discusses the following: 1. The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are *not* to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups . This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. 2. The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list mailing list. 3. The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. 4. The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force , describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) itself. The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO ) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group. I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele? best, On Fri, Jun 24, 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. Re: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, > Issue 16 (Michael Oghia) > 2. Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:44:21 +0300 > From: Michael Oghia > To: Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de > Cc: Cooperation WG , Gordon Lennox > > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > Message-ID: > oVxA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you for sharing this Constanze! > > Indeed, the more we work together, the more we will accomplish things. I am > sure of that. Collaboration is how we built the Internet, and and I firmly > believe collaboration and openness is how we will continue to ensure it > evolves in a way that is advantageous and beneficial to humanity. > > -Michael > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM, wrote: > > > We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: > > > > For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content ? we have the > > process. J > > > > > > > > For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: > > > > New role of public administration and governments > > > > > > > > The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only > > ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home > > with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 > solutions, > > worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. > > The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running > and > > we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. > About > > this communication way and the role of public administration in the > > community I told you last year. > > > > But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. > > > > The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are > > driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. > In > > hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but > we > > have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a > problem > > because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. > > > > So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts > > and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . > > > > . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social > > and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to > > figure out a new ?Thinking? and new ?Cooperation Forms?. > > > > Regards > > > > Constanze > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *Im > > Auftrag von *Michael Oghia > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 > > *An:* Gordon Lennox > > *Cc:* Cooperation WG > > *Betreff:* [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg > > Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > > > > > > > > I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. > > > > > > > > My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact > > decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and > > once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are > > positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen > to > > listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work > > with diplomats and a lot of training with government. > > > > > > > > In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of > politics > > and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, > > etc. -- are still people. Just people. > > > > > > -Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox < > gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > I agree. > > > > One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question > and > > you get a response. > > > > But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is > > not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong > > disagreement about values. > > > > I would add though that often it is not even just about ?governments?. > > Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour > > there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And > > it is not always the ?good guys? who have clue. > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius wrote: > > > > > > The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community > > > and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and > > > activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that > > > case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160623/3b40b1b7/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:41:32 +0200 > From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" > To: "Corinne Cath" > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 > Message-ID: <6774327E-646A-44D7-AB4B-8D8EDB97CA5B at frobbit.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On 23 Jun 2016, at 12:07, Corinne Cath wrote: > > > Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. > > A number of us wrote various pieces of the report, or the background > reports that is the foundation of the main report. And you will see > presentations on the various pieces here and there the next year I guess. > > No.33 on fragmentation due to interest of market economy forces < > http://ourinternet.org/research/market-driven-challenges-open-internet-standards> > I presented Tuesday this week in Slovenia at their Go6/SovenianNOG meeting, > and you can find the video recording here: > > > > Patrik > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 203 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > URL: < > https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160623/e2d9103b/attachment-0001.sig > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 14:09:01 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:09:01 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good questions. The charter is for us to rewrite if it seems useful. At at the same time a charter has to represent a really solid consensus if it is to mean that people will work. It has of course to be sufficiently long lasting to be useful. And of course any work or product has to fit well with the rest of RIPE. The topic area is obviously important. But the work has been effectively split/shared between the WG and NCC. NCC has sensibly evolved its approach to its roundtables since the beginning, from short-day meetings in Schipol to full days in Brussels. On the individual points. 1. I always felt some of this to be excessively optimistic for the WG. Governments en masse are not going go turn up for a full RIPE meeting. We do not even have an outbound mailing list. 2. Here NCC has the lead. 3. We have done this - with the active participation f NCC. But it is difficult. And slow. But we know how to do it. 4. The fact that the document dates from 2009 perhaps says it all. By the way I am still amused by the idea that ?enhanced cooperation? was a term coined during the WSIS. ?Enhanced cooperation? is a term of the art. It is a EU term and was probably introduced by the EU. Check Wikipedia. It was meant to imply that without overall agreement in the UN, ITU, wherever some countries could still go ahead and cooperate. I think the goals for the WG should be ** information sharing when it comes to policy initiatives and regulatory implementation. Problems anticipated and encountered. ** helping with individual action. Draft letters and information on who to contact. ** collective out-reach - with NCC of course. I think the first point is being dealt with more and more. It should be obvious that any charter should reflect the realities of what we actually do and what would be reasonable to aspire too. Gordon > On 24 Jun 2016, at 13:13, Corinne Cath wrote: > > Dear all, > > I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects. > > I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup: > > The working group discusses the following: > > The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are not to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups . This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. > The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list mailing list. > The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. > The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force , describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) itself. > The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO ) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group. > > > I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele? > > best, > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mir at ripe.net Wed Jun 29 13:11:26 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:11:26 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Geoff Huston on the Open Internet Message-ID: <7b056a08-c615-1e23-ae3c-471ab5f5a8e5@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Please find a new article by Geoff Huston on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/gih/open-season?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-coopwg It talks about the Open Internet and if public policy can help to preserve it. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Thu Jun 30 15:18:02 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:18:02 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Scaling the Internet of Things? Not a Problem! (by Shane Kerr) Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please find a new article by Shane Kerr on RIPE Labs talking about some challenges for the Internet of Things: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/shane/scaling-the-internet-of-things-not-a-problem?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-coopwg Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC