From paf at frobbit.se Sun May 1 06:12:28 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 06:12:28 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> Thanks Gordon, What is irritating with just that snippet on top of page 12 you reference is that they say in more or less the same sentence that it is important to decide who to trust, while one should be told to trust whatever eID Brussels decides on. Thats a contradiction in terms. There are too many "trust" issues where Brussels think the path forward is to tell people what to trust. Incident reporting, how CERTs are managed and get their information and eID. Just to mention a few. Thats not how trust is built up. And specifically not how trust is moved from trust between individuals to trust between organizations. Patrik On 30 Apr 2016, at 23:00, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Some people here may remember the presentation on eIDs at a previous RIPE meeting. > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process > > A draft Commission document which mentions eIDs has recently been ?leaked?. > > http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Platforms-Communication.pdf > > See in particular the top of page 12. > > I understand from folk within the bubble (the Brussels/EU bubble) that this kind of thing is now seen as a way of testing the reaction of experts, of those really interested, before proceeding. > > So any prompt reaction, and this could be individual reactions rather than the reactions of organisations, may be useful. > > Indeed any reaction now may more useful than when the Commission has taken a formal position on the proposal and when the services are naturally obliged to defend it. > > This item from The Register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/eu_login_youtube_national_id_card/ - would suggest that one person to write to is the Estonian Commissioner. > > Regards, > > Gordon -------------- 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 Sun May 1 14:38:57 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 12:38:57 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Well, I have read parts of it, but one thing that did pop out was this sentence: "[...]In particular, online platforms need to accept credentials issued or recognized by national public authorities, such as electronic ID cards, citizen cards, bank cards or mobile IDs.[..]" I think that this creates a big security risk. In the Netherlands, this "trust" means that there will be a single point of failure: The authentication server, called "digi-d". This is a server where we have to log in every year for doing our tax report, and every year they have issues with DDoS due to people filling in their taxes. On top of that, when authenticated you have all the information on your passport + you can even use this form of authentication to legally "sign" documents. All you need to do is intercept 2 paper mails (one with username, one with password) and you can fill in all the paperwork for that person. At my job we have an "authentication" system that the EU desires already in place. You can log in with any credential you want (they are constantly adding new ones), and based on how you log in you get a different "clearance" rating. If you log in with an eID for example, you get a higher clearance rating than logging in with google ID. Based on the website that uses this system you get a different ID number, and only the authentication system itself knows who this user is (and can send emails to that user). The websites itself don't know who logged in, they only know an ID number and what the user shared with them. That way you can use your google ID for example to make an appointment with the municipality (if you have connected your google ID to your eID) but to make changes you still need to log in using your eID (due to the clearance level not being high enough). What I find the biggest issue with these "eID" from brussels is the fact that it is too easy to track them back to a particular user. You will always need to use the same identification method, and if someone steals your identity card + password they can basically steal your complete identity. Not only that, governments can track you down for writing down your ideas online. This has been happened before with Twitter, and I am pretty sure that advocating a Single Sign On (SSO) will make this even worse. I feel that this is going the same way as in China, where you have a "digital identity" that everyone can use to contact you, and when that "digital identity" leads to violations, then they simply have to trace it back to its owner. I am not sure if people like to visit Facebook with their identity card. Or use Twitter with their real name. What if they decide that when you want to be on the internet, you need to log in first? What if one of those SSO systems goes down, gets hacked (think Diginotar) or even fails to protect its users? "Freedom of Speech" is something that I think should be cared for, and that also means the possibility to have something that is not a single point of failure. I think that the EU should advocate an universal log-in system like U2F that can be used by everyone without having a single authentication system that needs to be monitored by the EU. The SSO that the EU advocates can quickly become something that directly comes out of a book from George Orwell. Without a single point of failure, or a single point of "trust", only then you can be sure that privacy is ensured. That way people can securely browse the internet without having to rely on state-issued identification tokens to browse the internet. Julius ter Pelkwijk On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 6:12 AM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Thanks Gordon, > > What is irritating with just that snippet on top of page 12 you reference > is that they say in more or less the same sentence that it is important to > decide who to trust, while one should be told to trust whatever eID > Brussels decides on. > > Thats a contradiction in terms. > > There are too many "trust" issues where Brussels think the path forward is > to tell people what to trust. Incident reporting, how CERTs are managed and > get their information and eID. Just to mention a few. > > Thats not how trust is built up. And specifically not how trust is moved > from trust between individuals to trust between organizations. > > Patrik > > On 30 Apr 2016, at 23:00, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > Some people here may remember the presentation on eIDs at a previous > RIPE meeting. > > > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process > > > > A draft Commission document which mentions eIDs has recently been > ?leaked?. > > > > > http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Platforms-Communication.pdf > > > > See in particular the top of page 12. > > > > I understand from folk within the bubble (the Brussels/EU bubble) that > this kind of thing is now seen as a way of testing the reaction of experts, > of those really interested, before proceeding. > > > > So any prompt reaction, and this could be individual reactions rather > than the reactions of organisations, may be useful. > > > > Indeed any reaction now may more useful than when the Commission has > taken a formal position on the proposal and when the services are naturally > obliged to defend it. > > > > This item from The Register - > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/eu_login_youtube_national_id_card/ > - would suggest that one person to write to is the Estonian Commissioner. > > > > Regards, > > > > Gordon > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Sun May 1 15:13:42 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 14:13:42 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <30C65146-0CD8-4B10-89F4-C127E7E640A6@rfc1035.com> > On 1 May 2016, at 13:38, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > I think that the EU should advocate an universal log-in system.... NO! A MILLION, TRILLION, BAZILLION TIMES NO! The EU should not be advocating any form of universal electronic identity token at all. Ever. No government should do that. And neither should anyone else. Despite what our google/facebook/apple/M$/etc overlords would like us all to believe, the holy grail of universal single sign on (USSO) is an impossible fantasy. Framing a discussion on USSO around how to make it less intrusive or more privacy-friendly or less exposed to DoS or accommodate multiple trust anchors or whatever misses the point completely. Assuming these systems could ever be made to work, their benefits are grossly outweighed by their disadvantages and risks. IMO that has to be the message which needs to be heard and understood by legislators. I hope this WG will be up to that challenge. From nick at inex.ie Sun May 1 17:22:14 2016 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 16:22:14 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <57261F26.1000309@inex.ie> Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > What is irritating with just that snippet on top of page 12 you > reference is that they say in more or less the same sentence that it > is important to decide who to trust, while one should be told to > trust whatever eID Brussels decides on. That snippet, and the paragraph before it, are very confused pieces of thinking. > In particular, online platforms need to accept credentials issued or > recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic ID > cards, citizen cards, bank cards or mobile IDs. [...] > Further, the Commission will draw up a plan to strengthen public > authorities' capacity to process and analyse large-scale data to > support the enforcement of EU single market policies and to ensure > platform users are more aware of the data collected by platforms and > how it is used. The paper then mention fake online reviews as being an example that deserves particular merit. In the long list of things which cause erosion of trust, fake online reviews are pretty far down. Apart from the concerns you mentioned, there is a complete lack of understanding about the stupidity of using: 1. very widely or universally accepted access credentials. The more widely accepted an access token is, the more damage you can do by compromising the token. 2. irrevocable tokens (e.g. biometrics in national ID cards) as trust credentials on the Internet. One of the centre-pieces of trust is that it can be revoked. If something cannot be untrusted, it should not be trusted in the first place. In either case, it would be pretty catastrophic if trust databases of this form were compromised. The more widely used a trust database is, the more valuable it is and the more likely it is to be viewed as an interesting target by threat actors, whether state or criminal. Overall, while the intentions of this suggestion cannot be doubted, the idea of mandating wide acceptance of eIDs seems to be an extremely unwise plan of action. Nick From paf at frobbit.se Sun May 1 17:33:14 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 17:33:14 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <57261F26.1000309@inex.ie> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <57261F26.1000309@inex.ie> Message-ID: <2BDD2C3B-8B11-489A-BB8B-7BCEFE9187A9@frobbit.se> On 1 May 2016, at 17:22, Nick Hilliard wrote: > 2. irrevocable tokens (e.g. biometrics in national ID cards) as trust > credentials on the Internet. One of the centre-pieces of trust is that > it can be revoked. If something cannot be untrusted, it should not be > trusted in the first place. Note though that this conclusion of yours, which I agree with, does not imply revocation lists must exists. It might be that the time to live on the validation one do is short. After that, it must be validated again (which might fail). This specifically works if the one handing out the "positive validation token" can say for how long it is valid. I.e. for me the first mistake in design of trust systems is to think one can use irrevocable tokens. The second that revocation lists works. But that is an implementation issue of the major issue you bring up -- which once again I agree with. 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 pelkwijk at gmail.com Sun May 1 17:49:37 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 15:49:37 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <57261F26.1000309@inex.ie> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <57261F26.1000309@inex.ie> Message-ID: My biggest fear is the use of eID to basically "identify" yourself. From what I know, the eID is the highest form of "identification" you can have. >From a scale from 1-4, an eID is the highest form of trust you can give ( http://web.archive.org/web/20150915011249/http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/bulletns/bltnaug04.htm). Using that just to authenticate yourself on websites to prevent fake online reviews is like shooting a fly with a shotgun. Knowing a username + password already gives you a level 1 clearance, buying a product already gives level 2 clearance (proof that you have the object). Having a eID that can issue tokens for you gives you a level 3 clearance (that person is real, for sites like facebook), signing with the eID is level 4 (if you want to fill in tax forms). Revoking a key requires that the the revocation signatures are also stored online for everyone to see (in case of identity theft). So, the question is: How much trust do you need to have in the other party? Amazon only needs to verify that you actually bought the goods before flagging you as a "verified purchaser", to prevent fake reviews. They don't need to know my real name, just me logging in + a receipt of the goods I bought. The case of actually using an "eID" is only valid when you want to verify the identity of that user, for example when you want to get a loan or when you need to be reasonably sure that the other party is really a client of yours (eg: a bank). Otherwise, I would not see any benefit of having some sort of "eID" for authentication. On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:22 PM Nick Hilliard wrote: > Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > What is irritating with just that snippet on top of page 12 you > > reference is that they say in more or less the same sentence that it > > is important to decide who to trust, while one should be told to > > trust whatever eID Brussels decides on. > > That snippet, and the paragraph before it, are very confused pieces of > thinking. > > > In particular, online platforms need to accept credentials issued or > > recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic ID > > cards, citizen cards, bank cards or mobile IDs. > [...] > > Further, the Commission will draw up a plan to strengthen public > > authorities' capacity to process and analyse large-scale data to > > support the enforcement of EU single market policies and to ensure > > platform users are more aware of the data collected by platforms and > > how it is used. > > The paper then mention fake online reviews as being an example that > deserves particular merit. In the long list of things which cause > erosion of trust, fake online reviews are pretty far down. > > Apart from the concerns you mentioned, there is a complete lack of > understanding about the stupidity of using: > > 1. very widely or universally accepted access credentials. The more > widely accepted an access token is, the more damage you can do by > compromising the token. > > 2. irrevocable tokens (e.g. biometrics in national ID cards) as trust > credentials on the Internet. One of the centre-pieces of trust is that > it can be revoked. If something cannot be untrusted, it should not be > trusted in the first place. > > In either case, it would be pretty catastrophic if trust databases of > this form were compromised. The more widely used a trust database is, > the more valuable it is and the more likely it is to be viewed as an > interesting target by threat actors, whether state or criminal. > > Overall, while the intentions of this suggestion cannot be doubted, the > idea of mandating wide acceptance of eIDs seems to be an extremely > unwise plan of action. > > Nick > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrea.GLORIOSO at eeas.europa.eu Sun May 1 16:05:16 2016 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at eeas.europa.eu (GLORIOSO Andrea (EEAS-WASHINGTON)) Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 10:05:16 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> Dear all, I can't claim I am an expert on eID systems in general, or on the eID regulatory framework that the EU put in place about a year and a half ago specifically (it's the "eIDAS Regulation"), and for clarity I cannot, as an official of the EU, comment on leaks (European Commission rules - not that I necessarily agree with this particular rule, but it is what it is). However, my limited understanding of the eIDAS framework is that it does not impose the use of any particular electronic Identification, Authentication or Signature (that's what "eIDAS" stands for) system, but rather creates a security baseline and interoperability obligations for EU Member States in order to ensure mutual recognition of different systems across the EU. If people have concerns about this particular field of EU policy, I think it would indeed be great to raise them so that colleagues in Brussels (and in national capitals, too - let's not forget that the eIDAS Regulation was adopted via the "ordinary legislative procedure", which means that both the European Parliament and the Council, i.e. Member States' governments, approved it) are aware of the concerns and can clarify misunderstandings, if indeed there are any. You can find more information on eIDAS at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/trust-services-and-eid, and you contact the colleagues in the "eIDAS Task Force" at CNECT-TF-eIDAS-LT at ec.europa.eu. I seem to remember that the Head of the Task Force, Andrea Servida, did give a presentation on the topic at a RIPE meeting some time ago, but I might well be wrong. One word of friendly advice: although as EU officials we are obliged to respond to all queries by EU citizens within 15 working days (unless they are manifestly baseless, repetitive, etc - I once got an email asking why the European Commission was scheming with the Reptilians to bring about the fall of Western Civilization, and I honestly didn't known what to answer as I first would have needed to demonstrate I was not a Reptilian fifth column myself) it is always more efficient if similar questions / comments are grouped together in one single message. Just common sense I guess. I hope this helps, Andrea Sent from my iPad > On May 1, 2016, at 08:39, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > Well, I have read parts of it, but one thing that did pop out was this sentence: "[...]In particular, online platforms need to accept credentials issued or recognized by national public authorities, such as electronic ID cards, citizen cards, bank cards or mobile IDs.[..]" > > I think that this creates a big security risk. In the Netherlands, this "trust" means that there will be a single point of failure: The authentication server, called "digi-d". This is a server where we have to log in every year for doing our tax report, and every year they have issues with DDoS due to people filling in their taxes. On top of that, when authenticated you have all the information on your passport + you can even use this form of authentication to legally "sign" documents. All you need to do is intercept 2 paper mails (one with username, one with password) and you can fill in all the paperwork for that person. > > At my job we have an "authentication" system that the EU desires already in place. You can log in with any credential you want (they are constantly adding new ones), and based on how you log in you get a different "clearance" rating. If you log in with an eID for example, you get a higher clearance rating than logging in with google ID. Based on the website that uses this system you get a different ID number, and only the authentication system itself knows who this user is (and can send emails to that user). The websites itself don't know who logged in, they only know an ID number and what the user shared with them. That way you can use your google ID for example to make an appointment with the municipality (if you have connected your google ID to your eID) but to make changes you still need to log in using your eID (due to the clearance level not being high enough). > > What I find the biggest issue with these "eID" from brussels is the fact that it is too easy to track them back to a particular user. You will always need to use the same identification method, and if someone steals your identity card + password they can basically steal your complete identity. Not only that, governments can track you down for writing down your ideas online. This has been happened before with Twitter, and I am pretty sure that advocating a Single Sign On (SSO) will make this even worse. > > I feel that this is going the same way as in China, where you have a "digital identity" that everyone can use to contact you, and when that "digital identity" leads to violations, then they simply have to trace it back to its owner. I am not sure if people like to visit Facebook with their identity card. Or use Twitter with their real name. What if they decide that when you want to be on the internet, you need to log in first? What if one of those SSO systems goes down, gets hacked (think Diginotar) or even fails to protect its users? "Freedom of Speech" is something that I think should be cared for, and that also means the possibility to have something that is not a single point of failure. > > I think that the EU should advocate an universal log-in system like U2F that can be used by everyone without having a single authentication system that needs to be monitored by the EU. The SSO that the EU advocates can quickly become something that directly comes out of a book from George Orwell. Without a single point of failure, or a single point of "trust", only then you can be sure that privacy is ensured. That way people can securely browse the internet without having to rely on state-issued identification tokens to browse the internet. > > Julius ter Pelkwijk > >> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 6:12 AM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >> Thanks Gordon, >> >> What is irritating with just that snippet on top of page 12 you reference is that they say in more or less the same sentence that it is important to decide who to trust, while one should be told to trust whatever eID Brussels decides on. >> >> Thats a contradiction in terms. >> >> There are too many "trust" issues where Brussels think the path forward is to tell people what to trust. Incident reporting, how CERTs are managed and get their information and eID. Just to mention a few. >> >> Thats not how trust is built up. And specifically not how trust is moved from trust between individuals to trust between organizations. >> >> Patrik >> >> On 30 Apr 2016, at 23:00, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> >> > Some people here may remember the presentation on eIDs at a previous RIPE meeting. >> > >> > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process >> > >> > A draft Commission document which mentions eIDs has recently been ?leaked?. >> > >> > http://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Platforms-Communication.pdf >> > >> > See in particular the top of page 12. >> > >> > I understand from folk within the bubble (the Brussels/EU bubble) that this kind of thing is now seen as a way of testing the reaction of experts, of those really interested, before proceeding. >> > >> > So any prompt reaction, and this could be individual reactions rather than the reactions of organisations, may be useful. >> > >> > Indeed any reaction now may more useful than when the Commission has taken a formal position on the proposal and when the services are naturally obliged to defend it. >> > >> > This item from The Register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/29/eu_login_youtube_national_id_card/ - would suggest that one person to write to is the Estonian Commissioner. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon May 2 15:26:57 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 15:26:57 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> Message-ID: <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> There is a lot more to this draft than eIDs. It is worth slogging through it to get an idea of what the Commission thinks about this area in general. I guess nobody on this list actually runs e-mail services for third-parties - do they include mailing lists? There are some interesting things about portability there. Patrik, do I have your attention now? ;-) Anyway, and keeping it simple, there are various stages where one can try and make one?s wishes or concerns known in Brussels. The first stage is too often for those in the bubble. Lobbyists and the like. There are many lobbyists, very many lobbyists. And they work full-time. And of course they include ETNO and GSMA and so on. And you also have the ?expert groups? and public consultations. It is still relatively rare though that a draft proposal is then leaked. Does this indicate that some folk are not happy? But this ?leak? is very useful. You can now see much more clearly where the Commission is heading. Writing to your favourite Commissioner now might have an impact. It has to be very soon though. The machine is moving. Once the proposal has been adopted collectively then the Commission collectively has to defend it. After that it is a question of arguing - collectively? - through Parliament and Council? Writing now as an individual to the Commission, even on one particular point, obviously does not preclude joining in with any group response later to the Council or Parliament. Gordon From pelkwijk at gmail.com Mon May 2 15:52:27 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 13:52:27 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> Message-ID: I do run e-mail services for third parties... Including mailing lists. Its a private non-profit invite-only system and its paid by donations from its users, but one of the biggest issues that I have with this is that when it becomes mandatory to "sign" your emails, nobody will use my system anymore because the username can be traced back to a physical person. Also, the term "doxing" will be a big issue for me since I store over 1.5 million emails/month just for a single service, and they include sensitive information about the user like username, location and email address. The system runs purely on emails that are generated by users, and in general send their emails from addresses that are specially made for this purpose. When a request comes in to "remove" a username from the system, I humbly request them to send me an email with that request, otherwise I am unable to trace the source back. If each username can lead to a physical person, then I have to secure my server on a different scale to prevent data leaks (and stalking). I even had to go to the cops for a data leak (thieves broke in the system and copied over 1 million emails), leaked it online and the cops just said "meeh", despite the fact that I had the offending IP address. What if those emails contained identity card signatures? They would still not be able to do something with it, but everyone would know who you were and what you have been doing online. Its a "goodbye privacy". An "username" is a very low way of confidentiality that a person is guaranteed to be that person. However, if the "username" has to be signed with his eID, then that username suddenly becomes something like your social security number: Nobody wants that piece of information to be sent to everyone, however regulations force you to give that piece of information to everyone. On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:27 PM Gordon Lennox wrote: > There is a lot more to this draft than eIDs. It is worth slogging through > it to get an idea of what the Commission thinks about this area in general. > > I guess nobody on this list actually runs e-mail services for > third-parties - do they include mailing lists? There are some interesting > things about portability there. > > Patrik, do I have your attention now? ;-) > > Anyway, and keeping it simple, there are various stages where one can try > and make one?s wishes or concerns known in Brussels. > > The first stage is too often for those in the bubble. Lobbyists and the > like. There are many lobbyists, very many lobbyists. And they work > full-time. And of course they include ETNO and GSMA and so on. > > And you also have the ?expert groups? and public consultations. > > It is still relatively rare though that a draft proposal is then leaked. > Does this indicate that some folk are not happy? > > But this ?leak? is very useful. You can now see much more clearly where > the Commission is heading. Writing to your favourite Commissioner now might > have an impact. It has to be very soon though. The machine is moving. Once > the proposal has been adopted collectively then the Commission collectively > has to defend it. > > After that it is a question of arguing - collectively? - through > Parliament and Council? > > Writing now as an individual to the Commission, even on one particular > point, obviously does not preclude joining in with any group response later > to the Council or Parliament. > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon May 2 16:30:57 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 16:30:57 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2 May 2016, at 15:26, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Patrik, do I have your attention now? ;-) Yes... See you in Copenhagen? ;-) 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 gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon May 2 18:19:41 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:19:41 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5637C8BB-8C88-4116-AF80-F061478F7B25@gmail.com> Then I suggest you - and Patrik? and others? - read what they say about such services. At one point they write: ?In particular, many citizens complain about difficulties in switching email providers?. This is in the context of transferring "personal and non-personal data?. No, I don?t know what this is meant to imply. Somebody has a Yahoo account and wants to switch to Gmail? And take their (IMAP) archives with them and their e-mail address? I have heard Commission officials in the past talk about making e-mail addresses portable like telephone numbers. More importantly it is not always for the Commission to interpret any regulations: others do that. You cannot got back to the Commission - or Council or Parliament! - and ask what they really meant. So effort now to help get it right can pay off. Happy reading! Gordon > On 02 May 2016, at 15:52, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > I do run e-mail services for third parties... From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon May 2 18:29:18 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 18:29:18 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> Message-ID: The date on the draft would suggest that the text will be adopted when folks are in Copenhagen. So any conversations in Copenhagen would be based on this draft - and so irrelevant - or on the adopted text that nobody will have had the chance to read? If you or anyone else wants to react before adoption then that ought to be done now. But what do the co-chairs think? Gordon > On 02 May 2016, at 16:30, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > On 2 May 2016, at 15:26, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> Patrik, do I have your attention now? ;-) > > Yes... > > See you in Copenhagen? ;-) > > paf From pelkwijk at gmail.com Mon May 2 20:17:49 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 18:17:49 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <5637C8BB-8C88-4116-AF80-F061478F7B25@gmail.com> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> <5637C8BB-8C88-4116-AF80-F061478F7B25@gmail.com> Message-ID: >From what I understand with my limited amount of knowledge about laws: Someone has an account with an ISP. They want to change their ISP, but don't want to lose all the data they have stored on the server. The onliest way to get this data out is to contact the ISP and then have a lengthy conversation on why you want your data out. Google does this with "google takeout", but I know a lot of ISP providers will simply cut off your email account when you switch to another ISP (therefore force you to stay with that particular ISP). On the context of eID, to identify yourself before you can even use a "personalized" email account (or even a personalized nickname) is cause for concern. Similar to asking for ID before you can buy a sim card. Its all "to prevent terrorism", but it does not solve anything other than forcing people to use their real identity or using a system that does not require you to use a real ID. This will only lead to providers of services asking for identification, which leads to more data leaks (with rather sensitive information this time), and people will need to use their ID card to log in (instead of using their private username/password). I think that the whole eID thing can be useful for shopping and identification purposes (for example when you want to open an account at the bank), but the way I see it is that they want to enable you to send your passport information to sites like Facebook and Amazon to "enhance" your experience and to keep trolls out. This on the other hand goes against the nature of "privacy", where you have the right to be anonymous. If eID is used, I would treat it as a "passport", and base the laws around the usage + storage of the data retrieved from that passport. I remember that Belgium was using an eID card in the form of a SIM card, and that it could be used in place of an "age coin" when you want to buy a pack of sigarettes or beer from the vending machines. The other way that it can go is that you need that eID to "identify" yourself if you want to use certain services, like accessing facebook. That one is a more tricky one, since it will force people to think about how much private personal information they are sharing with those websites. And if that website forces you to "sign" a legal document before you can enter the website, then many people will wonder why. Its a question that you need to ask to the privacy guru's: What are the privacy implications of using an electronic ID card that can be read online using a simple smart card reader? On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:19 PM Gordon Lennox wrote: > Then I suggest you - and Patrik? and others? - read what they say about > such services. > > At one point they write: ?In particular, many citizens complain about > difficulties in switching email providers?. This is in the context of > transferring "personal and non-personal data?. > > No, I don?t know what this is meant to imply. Somebody has a Yahoo account > and wants to switch to Gmail? And take their (IMAP) archives with them and > their e-mail address? > > I have heard Commission officials in the past talk about making e-mail > addresses portable like telephone numbers. > > More importantly it is not always for the Commission to interpret any > regulations: others do that. You cannot got back to the Commission - or > Council or Parliament! - and ask what they really meant. So effort now to > help get it right can pay off. > > Happy reading! > > Gordon > > > On 02 May 2016, at 15:52, Julius ter Pelkwijk > wrote: > > > > I do run e-mail services for third parties... > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Mon May 2 22:49:51 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 22:49:51 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Elephants and eIDs In-Reply-To: <5637C8BB-8C88-4116-AF80-F061478F7B25@gmail.com> References: <7EB70247-28ED-430A-BB29-FC2B44B2BCC7@frobbit.se> <2F3D07A4-1459-4E19-A2A8-FB68CE4FAE78@eeas.europa.eu> <09DDA870-D8FF-4D34-B837-198F38992836@gmail.com> <5637C8BB-8C88-4116-AF80-F061478F7B25@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 2 May 2016, at 18:19, Gordon Lennox wrote: > At one point they write: ?In particular, many citizens complain about difficulties in switching email providers?. This is in the context of transferring "personal and non-personal data?. As you say between the lines...it is not problematic to swap email service providers. The problem is to switch email address. And the fact many providers do by default give out email addresses in their own domain, although you can also use your own (as for Google). 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 meredithrachel at google.com Wed May 4 16:17:54 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:17:54 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties Message-ID: Hi Co-op WG, Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy community as well as the network research community, and is frequently consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging policy considerations with technology issues. Thanks, Meredith Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Wed May 4 16:18:24 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:18:24 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: CCing Collin and Achilleas directly, to ensure delivery On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > Hi Co-op WG, > > Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we already > have two), and to ask that others interested *announce themselves on this > list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol > > for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. > > Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally > three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. > > - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher > Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half > now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, > and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research > collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy > community as well as the network research community, and is frequently > consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies > on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that > I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. > > - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer > Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing with > Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation > activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical > bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address > allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging > policy considerations with technology issues. > > Thanks, > Meredith > Coop-WG Chair > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed May 4 16:44:46 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 16:44:46 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would have thought that any possible candidate would have already been on the mailing list. Gordon > On 04 May 2016, at 16:18, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > CCing Collin and Achilleas directly, to ensure delivery > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Wed May 4 16:48:14 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:48:14 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe that's true. However, who knows what filtering behavior different email clients engage in. Best to be safe :) On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I would have thought that any possible candidate would have already been > on the mailing list. > > Gordon > > > On 04 May 2016, at 16:18, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > CCing Collin and Achilleas directly, to ensure delivery > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Thu May 5 16:36:40 2016 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:36:40 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B0828BC-CDBE-4CBD-95F6-DC7F2E09086F@blacknight.com> If they can?t get emails sent to the group mailing list then how can they co-chair the group? -- 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 From: cooperation-wg > on behalf of Meredith Whittaker > Date: Wednesday 4 May 2016 at 15:48 To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: Cooperation WG > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties I believe that's true. However, who knows what filtering behavior different email clients engage in. Best to be safe :) On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: I would have thought that any possible candidate would have already been on the mailing list. Gordon On 04 May 2016, at 16:18, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: CCing Collin and Achilleas directly, to ensure delivery -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 16:38:08 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:38:08 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: <4B0828BC-CDBE-4CBD-95F6-DC7F2E09086F@blacknight.com> References: <4B0828BC-CDBE-4CBD-95F6-DC7F2E09086F@blacknight.com> Message-ID: A great koan. On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > If they can?t get emails sent to the group mailing list then how can they > co-chair the group? > > > -- > 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 > > From: cooperation-wg on behalf of > Meredith Whittaker > Date: Wednesday 4 May 2016 at 15:48 > To: Gordon Lennox > Cc: Cooperation WG > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for > interested parties > > I believe that's true. However, who knows what filtering behavior > different email clients engage in. Best to be safe :) > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > >> I would have thought that any possible candidate would have already been >> on the mailing list. >> >> Gordon >> >> >> On 04 May 2016, at 16:18, Meredith Whittaker >> wrote: >> >> CCing Collin and Achilleas directly, to ensure delivery >> >> >> > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 16:40:24 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:40:24 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: <4B0828BC-CDBE-4CBD-95F6-DC7F2E09086F@blacknight.com> Message-ID: And to be more direct -- I confirmed that both Collin and Achilleas are signed up to the list. I also believe they can both get emails from the list alias.* However*, having dealt with email filtering issues in the past, and not being clairvoyant, I made the choice of directly CCing them to ensure that for this specifically important thread directly concerning them, they were explicitly in the loop. That's all. On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > A great koan. > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < > michele at blacknight.com> wrote: > >> If they can?t get emails sent to the group mailing list then how can they >> co-chair the group? >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> From: cooperation-wg on behalf of >> Meredith Whittaker >> Date: Wednesday 4 May 2016 at 15:48 >> To: Gordon Lennox >> Cc: Cooperation WG >> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for >> interested parties >> >> I believe that's true. However, who knows what filtering behavior >> different email clients engage in. Best to be safe :) >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Gordon Lennox < >> gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would have thought that any possible candidate would have already been >>> on the mailing list. >>> >>> Gordon >>> >>> >>> On 04 May 2016, at 16:18, Meredith Whittaker >>> wrote: >>> >>> CCing Collin and Achilleas directly, to ensure delivery >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Meredith Whittaker >> Open Research Lead >> Google NYC >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu May 5 16:44:17 2016 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:44:17 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Meredith, I would like to nominate myself as co-chair. I am an Argentinean ICT lawyer, researcher and consultant as well as and co-coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus. Moreover, I am a member of the Global Internet Policy observatory and correspondant for the Global Cyber Security Capacity Center , among others. I do attach my CV and if you need sth else to circulate, I will be happy to help :) Regards, Anal?a Aspis On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > Hi Co-op WG, > > Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we already > have two), and to ask that others interested *announce themselves on this > list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol > > for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. > > Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally > three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. > > - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher > Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half > now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, > and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research > collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy > community as well as the network research community, and is frequently > consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies > on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that > I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. > > - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer > Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing with > Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation > activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical > bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address > allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging > policy considerations with technology issues. > > Thanks, > Meredith > Coop-WG Chair > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CurriculumVitae2016ENASPIS-MARCHfinal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 489570 bytes Desc: not available URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 16:46:47 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:46:47 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Anal?a, Thank you so much for nominating yourself. We now have three qualified nominees. Cheers, Meredith On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Analia Aspis wrote: > Dear Meredith, > > I would like to nominate myself as co-chair. I am an Argentinean ICT > lawyer, researcher and consultant as well as and co-coordinator of the > Internet Governance Caucus. Moreover, I am a member of the Global Internet > Policy observatory and correspondant for the Global Cyber Security Capacity > Center , among others. I do attach my CV and if you need sth else to > circulate, I will be happy to help :) > > Regards, > Anal?a Aspis > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Meredith Whittaker < > meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > >> Hi Co-op WG, >> >> Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we >> already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce >> themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol >> >> for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. >> >> Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally >> three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. >> >> - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher >> Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half >> now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, >> and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research >> collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy >> community as well as the network research community, and is frequently >> consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies >> on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that >> I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. >> >> - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer >> Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing >> with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation >> activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical >> bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address >> allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging >> policy considerations with technology issues. >> >> Thanks, >> Meredith >> Coop-WG Chair >> >> -- >> Meredith Whittaker >> Open Research Lead >> Google NYC >> >> >> >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu May 5 16:48:07 2016 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:48:07 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your welcome. Let me know if you need a less extensive details of my background so it is easier to read. Cheers, Anal?a On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > Dear Anal?a, > > Thank you so much for nominating yourself. We now have three qualified > nominees. > > Cheers, > Meredith > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Analia Aspis > wrote: > >> Dear Meredith, >> >> I would like to nominate myself as co-chair. I am an Argentinean ICT >> lawyer, researcher and consultant as well as and co-coordinator of the >> Internet Governance Caucus. Moreover, I am a member of the Global Internet >> Policy observatory and correspondant for the Global Cyber Security Capacity >> Center , among others. I do attach my CV and if you need sth else to >> circulate, I will be happy to help :) >> >> Regards, >> Anal?a Aspis >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Meredith Whittaker < >> meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Co-op WG, >>> >>> Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we >>> already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce >>> themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol >>> >>> for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. >>> >>> Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally >>> three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. >>> >>> - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher >>> Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a half >>> now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit speakers, >>> and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through research >>> collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the policy >>> community as well as the network research community, and is frequently >>> consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar governmental bodies >>> on network measurement and management best practices. I'm delighted that >>> I've finally been able to convince him to run for the position officially. >>> >>> - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project Officer >>> Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing >>> with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation >>> activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical >>> bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address >>> allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging >>> policy considerations with technology issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Meredith >>> Coop-WG Chair >>> >>> -- >>> Meredith Whittaker >>> Open Research Lead >>> Google NYC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 16:50:24 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 10:50:24 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Anal?a, Others on the list may have specific questions. For my part, I'm primarily interested in the vision nominees bring to the Co-Op WG, and the means by which they would work to make it an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Analia Aspis wrote: > Your welcome. Let me know if you need a less extensive details of my > background so it is easier to read. > > Cheers, > Anal?a > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Meredith Whittaker < > meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > >> Dear Anal?a, >> >> Thank you so much for nominating yourself. We now have three qualified >> nominees. >> >> Cheers, >> Meredith >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Analia Aspis >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Meredith, >>> >>> I would like to nominate myself as co-chair. I am an Argentinean ICT >>> lawyer, researcher and consultant as well as and co-coordinator of the >>> Internet Governance Caucus. Moreover, I am a member of the Global Internet >>> Policy observatory and correspondant for the Global Cyber Security Capacity >>> Center , among others. I do attach my CV and if you need sth else to >>> circulate, I will be happy to help :) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Anal?a Aspis >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Meredith Whittaker < >>> meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Co-op WG, >>>> >>>> Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we >>>> already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce >>>> themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol >>>> >>>> for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. >>>> >>>> Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally >>>> three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. >>>> >>>> - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher >>>> Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a >>>> half now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit >>>> speakers, and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through >>>> research collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the >>>> policy community as well as the network research community, and is >>>> frequently consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar >>>> governmental bodies on network measurement and management best practices. >>>> I'm delighted that I've finally been able to convince him to run for the >>>> position officially. >>>> >>>> - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project >>>> Officer >>>> Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing >>>> with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation >>>> activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical >>>> bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address >>>> allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging >>>> policy considerations with technology issues. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Meredith >>>> Coop-WG Chair >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Meredith Whittaker >>>> Open Research Lead >>>> Google NYC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Meredith Whittaker >> Open Research Lead >> Google NYC >> >> >> >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu May 5 17:02:51 2016 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 12:02:51 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perfect, I will wait 1 or 2 days to see if I receive more question and give you a quick anwers on that. Regards, Anal?a On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > Hi Anal?a, > > Others on the list may have specific questions. > > For my part, I'm primarily interested in the vision nominees bring to the > Co-Op WG, and the means by which they would work to make it an informative > and generative resource for the RIPE community. > > Best, > Meredith > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Analia Aspis > wrote: > >> Your welcome. Let me know if you need a less extensive details of my >> background so it is easier to read. >> >> Cheers, >> Anal?a >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Meredith Whittaker < >> meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Anal?a, >>> >>> Thank you so much for nominating yourself. We now have three qualified >>> nominees. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Meredith >>> >>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Analia Aspis >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Meredith, >>>> >>>> I would like to nominate myself as co-chair. I am an Argentinean ICT >>>> lawyer, researcher and consultant as well as and co-coordinator of the >>>> Internet Governance Caucus. Moreover, I am a member of the Global Internet >>>> Policy observatory and correspondant for the Global Cyber Security Capacity >>>> Center , among others. I do attach my CV and if you need sth else to >>>> circulate, I will be happy to help :) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Anal?a Aspis >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Meredith Whittaker < >>>> meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Co-op WG, >>>>> >>>>> Taking this time to announce two candidates for co-chair (since we >>>>> already have two), and to ask that others interested *announce >>>>> themselves on this list before May 18*. In keeping with the protocol >>>>> >>>>> for electing new Coop-WG Chairs. >>>>> >>>>> Our goal is to increase the number of chairs from one (me) to ideally >>>>> three -- coming from different sectors and bringing varying experiences. >>>>> >>>>> - *Collin Anderson* -- M-Lab Network Researcher >>>>> Collin has been ably doing the job of co-Chair for a year and a >>>>> half now, working alongside me to help structure WG sessions, recruit >>>>> speakers, and additionally contributing to the RIPE community through >>>>> research collaborations, and beyond. He is well known and respected in the >>>>> policy community as well as the network research community, and is >>>>> frequently consulted by the FCC, European Commission, and similar >>>>> governmental bodies on network measurement and management best practices. >>>>> I'm delighted that I've finally been able to convince him to run for the >>>>> position officially. >>>>> >>>>> - *Achilleas Kemos* -- European Commission Policy and Project >>>>> Officer >>>>> Achilleas Kemos works with the European Commission's Unit dealing >>>>> with Network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation >>>>> activities. He has been Commission representative in the key technical >>>>> bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address >>>>> allocation policies (IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012, bridging >>>>> policy considerations with technology issues. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Meredith >>>>> Coop-WG Chair >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Meredith Whittaker >>>>> Open Research Lead >>>>> Google NYC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Meredith Whittaker >>> Open Research Lead >>> Google NYC >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 5 18:59:19 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 18:59:19 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ED13059-F1B5-456E-A6FB-E5C345EAA6A3@gmail.com> I was unhappy with the post that started this thread as it appeared that the WG had been confronted with a fait accompli. I was also initially confused as to whether Alain is still a co-chair or not. I had personaly presumed he has stepped-down given his absence from the list and from recent meetings. But it would have been nice if the WG had been clearly informed. But more importantly it appears we are not following the process. My quick rewriting of the process is that the co-chair(s) announce(s) on the list the need for new/additional co-chair(s); people say that they would like to stand (ideally on the list?); there is a discussion on the list; based on that discussion the co-chair(s) makes a decision. I have left out the time-table to encourage you to go and have a look at the formal text! However instead of this there appears to have been private conversations away from the list and the WG has then been presented with what might be considered provisional conclusions. I trust this is not the whole story. Can I suggest though that we do a sort of quick restart and we invite all possible candidates, including of course Collin and Achilleas, to present themselves on the list. Then we could have any WG discussion people think necessary, again on the list. If people think it useful we could also have a discussion during the session in Copenhagen when I would presume all the candidates would be present. That would in turn allow Meredith to announce the WG decision. Best, Gordon PS I am not clear what makes a ?qualified nominee?. There are published criteria? From jim at rfc1035.com Thu May 5 19:41:56 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 18:41:56 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On 5 May 2016, at 15:50, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > For my part, I'm primarily interested in the vision nominees bring to the Co-Op WG, and the means by which they would work to make it an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community. +1. I?d like to see that from all of the potential candidates. At the moment, I don?t recognise any of the names that have been put forward and don?t know what they stand for or what they will bring to the WG. From rogerj at gmail.com Thu May 5 19:50:08 2016 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 19:50:08 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: <4ED13059-F1B5-456E-A6FB-E5C345EAA6A3@gmail.com> References: <4ED13059-F1B5-456E-A6FB-E5C345EAA6A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Can I suggest though that we do a sort of quick restart and we invite all possible candidates, including of course Collin and Achilleas, to present themselves on the list. Then we could have any WG discussion people think necessary, again on the list. If people think it useful we could also have a discussion during the session in Copenhagen when I would presume all the candidates would be present. That would in turn allow Meredith to announce the WG decision. supported, let's follow the process. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From collin at measurementlab.net Thu May 5 20:29:43 2016 From: collin at measurementlab.net (Collin Anderson) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:29:43 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair Nominations Introduction (Anderson) Message-ID: Hi Cooperation WG community ? I'm Collin Anderson, an independent network researcher based out of Washington, D.C. I had reached out to Meredith about the possibility of more active participation previously but had suspected this introduction would arise in Copenhagen, so I apologize then for not reaching out through the list first to make a case for myself. I have attended the last four RIPE Meetings, presented at two of those meetings in the Coop WG [1][2], been a supportive resource in the planning of three of those sessions, and have an earlier history of interacting with the RIPE Atlas platform in pursuit of public interest issues [3]. Those presentations and papers are representative of my background and involvements (cda.io) ? the nexus of the Internet, its architecture and public policy, with an interest in accessibility and security. A substantial portion of my time is dedicated to Measurement Lab, however, I also collaborate with a broader range of NGOs and academic institutions on producing research on these issues in Europe and the United States. Hence Coop WG is interesting to me because it is where all of the issues that RIPE maintains expertise in comes into more uncertain questions of external application (from my perspective at least). Outside of this, the question of how I would make an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community is particularly relevant. I'm specifically interested in the Coop WG being a mechanism of inclusion for local communities ? by the virtue of the rotation of the meetings across the region there is an opportunity to bring in representatives of the NGO and public sector that wouldn't otherwise have the means or awareness to come to RIPE. So more local presence outside of generous sponsorships of much needed coffee baristas. My research has always attempted to support the pairing of technical expertise with local impact and local communities that wouldn't otherwise have access to those resources, and I believe that this principle would be a mechanism for Coop WG to fulfill its mission. So, my ambition would be to support conversations like the eID thread that seems to be the most active discussion on Coop-WG in a year, but also to bring in people that wouldn't otherwise have access to this community ? but who should interact and will be novel to form connections with. I would be a generative resource because I happen to have some of these relationships by virtue of my mode of operation professionally, but also because I am personally motivated toward that objective. I would be happy to answer any questions here (on-thread or off-thread) or in Denmark in a couple of weeks, and my apologies again for the misstep. Cordially, Collin Anderson [1] https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10079/ [2] https://ripe71.ripe.net/archives/video/1176/ [3] https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci14/workshop-program/presentation/anderson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 20:29:47 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:29:47 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: <4ED13059-F1B5-456E-A6FB-E5C345EAA6A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: OK! I will start a new thread following the process I wrote. After my meetings finish. (And yes, Alain resigned as Coop WG co-chair last meeting. I have been solo since then.) On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > > > Can I suggest though that we do a sort of quick restart and we invite > all possible candidates, including of course Collin and Achilleas, to > present themselves on the list. Then we could have any WG discussion people > think necessary, again on the list. If people think it useful we could also > have a discussion during the session in Copenhagen when I would presume all > the candidates would be present. That would in turn allow Meredith to > announce the WG decision. > > > supported, let's follow the process. > > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 5 21:27:37 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 21:27:37 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair Nominations Introduction (Anderson) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3296CCC9-D8A6-443A-8C80-12146A63CD78@gmail.com> Hi Collin! I very much appreciate people who ?talk? on the list. So thank you, Gordon > On 05 May 2016, at 20:29, Collin Anderson wrote: > > Hi Cooperation WG community ? > > I'm Collin Anderson, an independent network researcher based out of Washington, D.C. I had reached out to Meredith about the possibility of more active participation previously but had suspected this introduction would arise in Copenhagen, so I apologize then for not reaching out through the list first to make a case for myself. > > I have attended the last four RIPE Meetings, presented at two of those meetings in the Coop WG [1][2], been a supportive resource in the planning of three of those sessions, and have an earlier history of interacting with the RIPE Atlas platform in pursuit of public interest issues [3]. Those presentations and papers are representative of my background and involvements (cda.io ) ? the nexus of the Internet, its architecture and public policy, with an interest in accessibility and security. A substantial portion of my time is dedicated to Measurement Lab, however, I also collaborate with a broader range of NGOs and academic institutions on producing research on these issues in Europe and the United States. Hence Coop WG is interesting to me because it is where all of the issues that RIPE maintains expertise in comes into more uncertain questions of external application (from my perspective at least). > > Outside of this, the question of how I would make an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community is particularly relevant. I'm specifically interested in the Coop WG being a mechanism of inclusion for local communities ? by the virtue of the rotation of the meetings across the region there is an opportunity to bring in representatives of the NGO and public sector that wouldn't otherwise have the means or awareness to come to RIPE. So more local presence outside of generous sponsorships of much needed coffee baristas. My research has always attempted to support the pairing of technical expertise with local impact and local communities that wouldn't otherwise have access to those resources, and I believe that this principle would be a mechanism for Coop WG to fulfill its mission. > > So, my ambition would be to support conversations like the eID thread that seems to be the most active discussion on Coop-WG in a year, but also to bring in people that wouldn't otherwise have access to this community ? but who should interact and will be novel to form connections with. I would be a generative resource because I happen to have some of these relationships by virtue of my mode of operation professionally, but also because I am personally motivated toward that objective. > > I would be happy to answer any questions here (on-thread or off-thread) or in Denmark in a couple of weeks, and my apologies again for the misstep. > > Cordially, > Collin Anderson > > [1] https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10079/ > [2] https://ripe71.ripe.net/archives/video/1176/ > [3] https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci14/workshop-program/presentation/anderson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 5 21:35:57 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 21:35:57 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] eIDs Message-ID: We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. Now here is the UK take: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to share. (I am not sure why I wrote ?nice? there.) :-) Gordon From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 5 22:07:05 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:07:05 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: References: <4ED13059-F1B5-456E-A6FB-E5C345EAA6A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0EA44080-6FEF-4C53-85B5-205687940A08@gmail.com> Thank you! > On 05 May 2016, at 20:29, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > I will start a new thread following the process I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 22:12:25 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:12:25 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations Message-ID: This is the thread where I, as Chair, officially call for Coop-WG co-chair nominees to identify yourselves, and provide a bit of background about who you are and why you'd bring energy and great content to the Coop-WG. Per the process, we'll leave this open for two weeks. I encourage discussion, questions, and and other productive activity that helps you get to know the nominees on this thread. Thanks, Meredith -- currently the sole Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 5 22:12:40 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:12:40 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Co-Chair nominations, and call for interested parties In-Reply-To: <0EA44080-6FEF-4C53-85B5-205687940A08@gmail.com> References: <4ED13059-F1B5-456E-A6FB-E5C345EAA6A3@gmail.com> <0EA44080-6FEF-4C53-85B5-205687940A08@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sent -- please use the new thread for discussion and self-nominating. On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Thank you! > > On 05 May 2016, at 20:29, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > I will start a new thread following the process I > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 5 22:28:15 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:28:15 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D5A1115-7885-40F1-A3DA-2D448E66B2FB@gmail.com> Recognised and appreciated. :-) Gordon > On 05 May 2016, at 22:12, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > > Meredith -- currently the sole Coop-WG Chair From collin at measurementlab.net Thu May 5 23:16:25 2016 From: collin at measurementlab.net (Collin Anderson) Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 17:16:25 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations In-Reply-To: <7D5A1115-7885-40F1-A3DA-2D448E66B2FB@gmail.com> References: <7D5A1115-7885-40F1-A3DA-2D448E66B2FB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Okay, putting this reply into the formal thread. Thanks Meredith and Gordon. Hi Cooperation WG community ? I'm Collin Anderson, an independent network researcher based out of Washington, D.C. I had reached out to Meredith about the possibility of more active participation previously but had suspected this introduction would arise in Copenhagen, so I apologize then for not reaching out through the list first to make a case for myself. I have attended the last four RIPE Meetings, presented at two of those meetings in the Coop WG [1][2], been a supportive resource in the planning of three of those sessions, and have an earlier history of interacting with the RIPE Atlas platform in pursuit of public interest issues [3]. Those presentations and papers are representative of my background and involvements (cda.io) ? the nexus of the Internet, its architecture and public policy, with an interest in accessibility and security. A substantial portion of my time is dedicated to Measurement Lab, however, I also collaborate with a broader range of NGOs and academic institutions on producing research on these issues in Europe and the United States. Hence Coop WG is interesting to me because it is where all of the issues that RIPE maintains expertise in comes into more uncertain questions of external application (from my perspective at least). Outside of this, the question of how I would make an informative and generative resource for the RIPE community is particularly relevant. I'm specifically interested in the Coop WG being a mechanism of inclusion for local communities ? by the virtue of the rotation of the meetings across the region there is an opportunity to bring in representatives of the NGO and public sector that wouldn't otherwise have the means or awareness to come to RIPE. So more local presence outside of generous sponsorships of much needed coffee baristas. My research has always attempted to support the pairing of technical expertise with local impact and local communities that wouldn't otherwise have access to those resources, and I believe that this principle would be a mechanism for Coop WG to fulfill its mission. So, my ambition would be to support conversations like the eID thread that seems to be the most active discussion on Coop-WG in a year, but also to bring in people that wouldn't otherwise have access to this community ? but who should interact and will be novel to form connections with. I would be a generative resource because I happen to have some of these relationships by virtue of my mode of operation professionally, but also because I am personally motivated toward that objective. I would be happy to answer any questions here (on-thread or off-thread) or in Denmark in a couple of weeks, and my apologies again for the misstep. Cordially, Collin Anderson [1] https://ripe69.ripe.net/archives/video/10079/ [2] https://ripe71.ripe.net/archives/video/1176/ [3] https://www.usenix.org/conference/foci14/workshop-program/presentation/anderson On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Recognised and appreciated. > > :-) > > Gordon > > > > On 05 May 2016, at 22:12, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > > > Meredith -- currently the sole Coop-WG Chair > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pelkwijk at gmail.com Fri May 6 09:42:42 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 07:42:42 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] eIDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >From what I know: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/digitale-overheid/inhoud/digitale-veiligheid-en-identiteit/naar-1-standaard-voor-elektronische-identiteit (dutch only) Its the successor of what we call "Digi-D". Although it is supposed to be "strong", all you need is an username + password + SMS code (if its enforced). Authentication goes online and passwords are sent by mail, you will never have to go to the muncipality to verify yourself. The question I have though is the fact that the system is NOT governed by the government, but by private companies. They are specifically talking about "brokers", who can verify + sign in on your name. From what I understand, you can give someone else through your eID access to your account (and basically be able to sing in their name). Those brokers will ask for a certain fee for their services and they need to be validated, so its unlikely that everyone is able to connect their system to it. Its similar to what we call "iDeal", a payment system similar to paypal but then with banks. You pay a transaction fee of 25 cents as a company, but you are not allowed to charge customers. For the brokers, they claim that a fee of 0.05-0.10 cents per transaction is normal (so, every time you log in, its costing 5 cents). You also don't need an eID card, they mention that your phone can also be used as an eID (in combination with a passcode). Two things that they put down as possible "users" in the private sector are financial institutes + webshops. The first one for credit loans (buy now, pay later) and webshops for validating that the user is 18 years or older. I can think that a lot of other companies (like casino's) would also like to be able to use this system. The question I am still thinking about is the "security" aspect. I work in a place where we supply IT systems to muncipalities, and when I hear sometimes how they are working with their "secure" email systems like CORV (supplied by KPN), I can say that I have reasonable doubts that when this system is going to be in place that when someone at the muncipality forgets to update their servers (or the supplier forgets to update their system) that a lot of private/personal information can end up in some Russian black market. Not to mention that the system needs to be "hackable" by brute-force, in case of fraud. Its specifically mentioned in the papers that in case of fraud they need to be able to retrieve the master key by "brute-forcing" their systems. Greetings, Julius On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:36 PM Gordon Lennox wrote: > We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. > > Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as > previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. > > Now here is the UK take: > > > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify > > If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to > share. > > (I am not sure why I wrote ?nice? there.) > > :-) > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org Fri May 6 10:57:22 2016 From: jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org (Jean-Jacques Sahel) Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:57:22 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] eIDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3756543fc06f43b9a45bf518b67607f9@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi all, I am not able to comment on specifics at national level, and clearly there have been (are) many concerns expressed about the security of eID systems, whether handled by private or government entities. But you may be interested in the background provided by the European Commission, including links to the 2014 regulation on eID, as well as follow-up Commission ?implementing decisions? detailing in particular minimum tech specs, interop and security requirements for eID schemes here: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/trust-services-and-eid Their Twitter page (@EU_eIDAS) also has references to various national-level initiatives like the ongoing amendment of the eID law in Finland. Jean-Jacques From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Julius ter Pelkwijk Sent: 06 May 2016 08:43 To: Gordon Lennox ; Cooperation WG Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] eIDs From what I know: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/digitale-overheid/inhoud/digitale-veiligheid-en-identiteit/naar-1-standaard-voor-elektronische-identiteit (dutch only) Its the successor of what we call "Digi-D". Although it is supposed to be "strong", all you need is an username + password + SMS code (if its enforced). Authentication goes online and passwords are sent by mail, you will never have to go to the muncipality to verify yourself. The question I have though is the fact that the system is NOT governed by the government, but by private companies. They are specifically talking about "brokers", who can verify + sign in on your name. From what I understand, you can give someone else through your eID access to your account (and basically be able to sing in their name). Those brokers will ask for a certain fee for their services and they need to be validated, so its unlikely that everyone is able to connect their system to it. Its similar to what we call "iDeal", a payment system similar to paypal but then with banks. You pay a transaction fee of 25 cents as a company, but you are not allowed to charge customers. For the brokers, they claim that a fee of 0.05-0.10 cents per transaction is normal (so, every time you log in, its costing 5 cents). You also don't need an eID card, they mention that your phone can also be used as an eID (in combination with a passcode). Two things that they put down as possible "users" in the private sector are financial institutes + webshops. The first one for credit loans (buy now, pay later) and webshops for validating that the user is 18 years or older. I can think that a lot of other companies (like casino's) would also like to be able to use this system. The question I am still thinking about is the "security" aspect. I work in a place where we supply IT systems to muncipalities, and when I hear sometimes how they are working with their "secure" email systems like CORV (supplied by KPN), I can say that I have reasonable doubts that when this system is going to be in place that when someone at the muncipality forgets to update their servers (or the supplier forgets to update their system) that a lot of private/personal information can end up in some Russian black market. Not to mention that the system needs to be "hackable" by brute-force, in case of fraud. Its specifically mentioned in the papers that in case of fraud they need to be able to retrieve the master key by "brute-forcing" their systems. Greetings, Julius On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:36 PM Gordon Lennox > wrote: We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. Now here is the UK take: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to share. (I am not sure why I wrote ?nice? there.) :-) Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nurani at netnod.se Tue May 10 12:55:36 2016 From: nurani at netnod.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:55:36 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation to the CRISP call 10th May UTC1300 Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] References: <57319F1B.1030101@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <7071492A-EFD0-4BA7-BFA3-CA771E6B14F7@netnod.se> FYI. (Apologies for the very late notice.) Nurani > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Izumi Okutani > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Invitation to the CRISP call 10th May UTC1300 Fwd: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] > Date: 10 maj 2016 10:43:07 CEST > To: "ianaxfer at nro.net" > > Dear Colleagues, > > > FYI. Anyone is welcome to attend the coming call as an observer as usual. > > > Izumi > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Future Status of the CRISP Team [Feedback: by 5/12] > Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:07:09 -0400 > From: German Valdez > To: Izumi Okutani > CC: crisp at nro.net > > Dear CRISP Team > > Please find the webex details below > > Unfortunately I?ll be in transit by the time of the call. I?ll ask ARIN staff to support the meeting. > > Regards > > German > > > CRISP Meeting > Tuesday, May 10, 2016 > 1:00 pm | Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT) | 1 hr > Join WebEx meeting > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/j.php?MTID=m997f5f40cb1b5a93229a05efc0a193c0 > Meeting number: 704 589 239 > Meeting password: crisp > Join by phone > 0800-051-3810 Call-in toll-free number (UK) > +44-203-478-5289 Call-in toll number (UK) > Access code: 704 589 239 > Global call-in numbers | Toll-free calling restrictions > https://ripencc.webex.com/ripencc/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=461171977&tollFree=1 > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WebEx_Meeting.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 3951 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ????????.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer at nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer From Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu Tue May 10 18:05:08 2016 From: Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu (Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:05:08 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B125CA4@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> Dear group members, As Meredith has already signalled to the Group I work for the European Commission. Specifically, I work in the "Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content & Technology" (DG CONNECT) and my responsibilities relate to public policy issues associated with network technologies, with a particular focus on standardisation activities. To this end, I have been Commission representative in the key technical bodies related to Internet Protocol (IP) standards issues and IP address allocation policies (the IETF and RIPE respectively) since 2012. In this context, I have been focusing in particular on enhancing cooperation between the private and public sectors on Internet matters, taking advantage wherever possible of the knowledge and expertise of both technical experts and public sector representatives. As part of my mandate, I have been very happy to help RIPE NCC to organise Roundtable Meetings in Brussels and the IETF to hold a special session for Member States officials at IETF 89 in London (March 2014). I am of the opinion that RIPE Roundtable Meetings have enjoyed great success and note that RIPE NCC share this view, having kindly acknowledged the contribution of the European Commission in "coordinating the organisation of this meeting as vital in reaching out to new public sector representatives and facilitating their participation". I am looking forward to further enhance this cooperation via the workgroup. I am currently dealing with issues of IoT standardisation and numbering, as well as the involvement of vertical industries in next generation networks (5G, mobile Internet, ?) and I believe these are also issues of interest for RIPE and the Coop workgroup. I am looking forward to meeting with you all in Copenhagen and providing any further information you may require about the Commission's interests in RIPE's activities. Achilleas Achilleas Kemos Programme Officer -EU Policies European Commission DG CONNECT - Network Technologies Unit From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 10:12 PM To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations This is the thread where I, as Chair, officially call for Coop-WG co-chair nominees to identify yourselves, and provide a bit of background about who you are and why you'd bring energy and great content to the Coop-WG. Per the process, we'll leave this open for two weeks. I encourage discussion, questions, and and other productive activity that helps you get to know the nominees on this thread. Thanks, Meredith -- currently the sole Coop-WG Chair -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue May 10 23:23:12 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:23:12 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations In-Reply-To: <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B125CA4@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B125CA4@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <702F6213-DA8F-46A3-95C2-B2BE54A67107@gmail.com> It would appear that we already have three candidates for the position of co-chair. Or maybe positions? I hope that we have a few more. This is good. I am particularly pleased that it would appear that Achilleas will be present in Copenhagen. It has proved difficult in the past to get people from the Commission to participate in the WG, on the list and at RIPE meetings. There are constraints on what Commission officials can say. But more active participation, more open participation would be very good. Maybe he could already volunteer to talk about some of the new Commission initiatives. The Commission is expected to announce seven proposals and communications on May 25. Having said that Meredith talked about ?qualified? candidates. I am not sure what that means. I am not even sure we need a formal definition. But I know that Meredith came to RIPE meetings before she became co-chair. Collin has also participated in previous meetings. So as much as I would like people like Achilleas to actively contribute I think it important that the co-chairs come from the community, from those who already understand RIPE, from among those who come regularly to RIPE meetings. May I invite candidates for the position of co-chair - I am thinking of Analia and Achilleas at this stage - to indicate to what extent they have participated until now. Planned participation in Copenhagen is already a bonus! Gordon From mir at ripe.net Wed May 11 10:47:43 2016 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:47:43 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: The Internet for Things Message-ID: <90431198-07e2-8743-eca5-64cec3f12a20@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Please see this new RIPE Labs article by Byron Ellacott, Senior Software Architect at APNIC: The Internet of Things without the Internet is just things, and we?ve had things since the first caveman used a pointy stick to draw on a wall. What then does the Internet bring to things to justify a capital T? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/the-internet-for-things?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=lit-coopwg Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu May 12 18:19:01 2016 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:19:01 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Call for co-chair nominations In-Reply-To: <702F6213-DA8F-46A3-95C2-B2BE54A67107@gmail.com> References: <5213F3B60B84F74AA0C30985B5E546564B125CA4@S-DC-ESTG02-J.net1.cec.eu.int> <702F6213-DA8F-46A3-95C2-B2BE54A67107@gmail.com> Message-ID: . Dear Gordon and all, Thank you very much for this invitation to introduce myself and my background. Even though I am still new in the RIPE environment, I have been involced in the ICT law and IG policiy for the past 10 and even more years, so here a brief introduction of my professional profile and the reason why I would like to co-chair this super community: I am a 36 year old proactive and enthusiastic female lawyer and researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja (Faculty of Law - University of Buenos Aires).I have been working for the past years in the IT law field, both in her doctoral research project in the field of Privacy, International Law and Internet Governance and well as Research Group Projects at the University of Buenos Aires in the field of Surveillance, IT Law and Human Rights evaluating and monitoring the current agenda and well as the international forums related to Internet Governance. Accordingly, I have a very strong knowledge of Internet issues being one of the few professionals in Argentina with an excellent academic records and background on the field. Not only I have obtained several support for the Argentinean, Swiss and Swedish governments to pursue her studies and doctoral research but as well I has return all that support and knowledge to my country. I holds one of the best grades in the University of Buenos Aires, as well as an MBA in Switzerland (University of Lausanne) and research work in Sweden (University of Stockholm ? Center for Law and Informatics). I am as well a specialist in Internet Governance and International and Humanitarian Law and is one of the few professionals in Argentina you is deeply committed to built a strong network within the academia as well as with students to promote the human rights and the use of the technology. Lastly, I am author of different articles and chapters related to technology, politics and law. In the training area, For the past 8 years I have given training and conferences as professor of IT Law and Politics at the University of Stockholm, the Catholic University of Peru, and the University of Buenos Aires and the University Polit?cnico Gran Colombiano. Moreover, I am in charge of the first study group on IG at the University of Buenos Aires. And I do give advice to similar groups within Latin-America. I do currently train lawyers, sociologists, political scientists in IG issues, diplomacy and Law. Of course I have my resume if necessary that will describe with more detail the program of such training. I have provided both training in Spanish and English and a few in French. I the advocacy area, I have been involved in many advocacy activities. To mention a few I have been member (twice) of the Member of the Stakeholder Selection Committee to choose potential speakers from non-governmental organizations for the High-level Meeting on the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS +10). I am the co-coordinator of the Internet Governance Caucus and I am very involved in civil society concerns with regard Internet?s agenda. As part of the Freedom Online Coalition WG 1, I have been working closely with a multistakeholder group (including the government of United States of America, Canada and The Netherlands) focusing our effort in enhancing human rights protection within online activities as well as an active participant of the Civil Society pre-conference and training on capacity building at The Hague. I am the founder of the Argentinean Hub of Internet Governance, a group who seeks to promote discussion and information on IG issues form a Latin-American point of view and the Argentinean Legal Hackers chapter, a group that combines both technical and legal expertise to seek solutions for Internet?s current challenges. In this sense, I do strongly promote online training and international conferences remote participation by different channels I have created. Finally, I am a member of the Global Internet Governance Academic Network and I was recently accepted as a member of the Advisory group of the Global Internet Policy Observatory and the correspondest for the Cyber Security Capacity Portal, at the Unviersity of Oxford. I would like to be part of the RIPE community not only due to my interest in ICT issues but also because I do consider that this is the place where I have to be to deeply undertand the telecoms policies and its interactions. I consider I have always shown an early concern in alternatives solutions to nowadays problems between technology and law, being always my aim to join forces and to collaborate in both educational and social problems that this field involved. As a Latin American citizen 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. Living in Europe for more than 5 years has provide me a unique experience to understand both cultural, political and social aspects of its society as well as the differences and coincidences of the use and coordination of IT resources. Finally, for a personal point of view I consider myself as a very responsible, enthusiastic, proactive and team-worker person, always being very positive and compromise with each task and challenge in my life :), so it is a challenge to participate in RIPE from diffirent traditional profile but bringing energy and new ideas to the community. Best, Anal?a Aspis On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > It would appear that we already have three candidates for the position of > co-chair. Or maybe positions? I hope that we have a few more. This is good. > > I am particularly pleased that it would appear that Achilleas will be > present in Copenhagen. It has proved difficult in the past to get people > from the Commission to participate in the WG, on the list and at RIPE > meetings. There are constraints on what Commission officials can say. But > more active participation, more open participation would be very good. > Maybe he could already volunteer to talk about some of the new Commission > initiatives. The Commission is expected to announce seven proposals and > communications on May 25. > > Having said that Meredith talked about ?qualified? candidates. I am not > sure what that means. I am not even sure we need a formal definition. But I > know that Meredith came to RIPE meetings before she became co-chair. Collin > has also participated in previous meetings. > > So as much as I would like people like Achilleas to actively contribute I > think it important that the co-chairs come from the community, from those > who already understand RIPE, from among those who come regularly to RIPE > meetings. > > May I invite candidates for the position of co-chair - I am thinking of > Analia and Achilleas at this stage - to indicate to what extent they have > participated until now. Planned participation in Copenhagen is already a > bonus! > > Gordon > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri May 13 19:58:37 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 19:58:37 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] eIDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00025156-53CE-44E0-9AFD-E1F3A58B9FEF@gmail.com> And when it goes wrong? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/13/plug_to_be_pulled_on_gateway_in_2018/ Gordon > On 05 May 2016, at 21:35, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. > > Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. > > Now here is the UK take: > > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introducing-govuk-verify > > If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to share. > > (I am not sure why I wrote ?nice? there.) > > :-) > > Gordon > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Mon May 23 14:22:33 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:22:33 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Update on EU Platform Regulation Message-ID: >From Politico: *14 GOVERNMENTS WRITE TO REJECT ?ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL? PLATFORM REGULATION: * The governments believe an EU regulation of Internet platform would ?hamper innovation.? They would like to see more ambitious digital single market proposals from the Commission, and a ?positive approach.? The U.K. and Poland head the list of signatories. Germany, France, Italy, Spain did not join. http://politi.co/1NEYNKN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue May 24 12:03:32 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:03:32 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTSA Message-ID: <64A5B8A6-A386-4ACB-97B6-CE64BA1A57F7@frobbit.se> Hi, As we are moving into a new ITU planning cycle, with specifically WTSA later during 2016 that sets the Study Groups, it is important that we all decide what organization we would like to deal with what issues. To help with this preparatory work ISOC have created this document that I think makes it quite clear what issues might come up: One of the main reasons I think this is important is that we have a terrible experience when ITU-T started to discuss MPLS related issues, something already dealt with in the IETF and we can not have the same overlap between organizations again. Because of this, now is the time to ensure ITU-T do not bring up issues already dealt with in other organizations, and in a similar way we should not redo in non-ITU-T environments things dealt with in ITU-T. I for example think it is of ultimate importance that any IP address policy (of any shape or form) is deal with in the RIRs. And not in any ITU-T study group. And I ask whether this WG is where coordination in the RIPE Community can take place? 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 paf at frobbit.se Tue May 24 12:08:31 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 12:08:31 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Message-ID: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> All, I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair. I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a responsibility in the RIPE PDP. I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU). And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability. I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not want to be alone. But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct people, and not because we must have two co-chairs. I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment. 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 Tue May 24 12:37:31 2016 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:37:31 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> References: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> Message-ID: > On 24 May 2016, at 11:08, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair. I share these concerns and fully support the points you've raised Patrik. Any talk of elections rather than consensus decisions in a RIPE context gives me the heebie jeebies. These get worse when it's those in leadership positions who talk about elections. The co-chair candidates that have emerged to date do not appear to have deep roots in the RIPE community. Although all three are familiar with Internet goverance matters in general, they're somewhat detached from the policy development and Internet governance issues in the RIPE region. This is troubling. As a result, I'm reluctant to support any of them. It would be good for the WG to discuss the requirements and criteria for the new co-chair. I hope we can have that discussion when the WG meets this week. Once there's consensus in the WG on these requirements and criteria, it should be easier to decide which candidate(s) would be the best choice. This may mean the appointment of a co-chair can't be done in Copenhagen and will need to be delayed. From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue May 24 13:40:49 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 13:40:49 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] WTSA In-Reply-To: <64A5B8A6-A386-4ACB-97B6-CE64BA1A57F7@frobbit.se> References: <64A5B8A6-A386-4ACB-97B6-CE64BA1A57F7@frobbit.se> Message-ID: I agree with what Patrik is saying. I would only stress that things really have to be done early if the effort is to be effective. Leaving things until later can mean trying to lobby a variety of individual government representatives - those who will actually be in the room (with the right to speak, table documents and to vote) - and at a point when national positions may have been already fixed. Not always easy! Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Tue May 24 14:20:49 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:20:49 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Hello dear friends! Let's parse this out. The necessary but not sufficient conditions for any candidate are, roughly 1. They can afford to come to RIPE; 2. They are willing to come to RIPE; 3. They have enthusiasm and relevant expertise on issues important to the RIPE community. We have three people (and maybe more -- speak up!) who meet this criteria. Beyond this, there are many things that *could* make a great candidate. But unless we can manifest a human out of mud and thin air, we may have to accept a candidate that doesn't embody all of the qualities on various stakeholders' wish lists. Keeping with the discussion of practical reality, I currently have a very demanding job, and increasingly limited time. I care about RIPE and I'm not comfortable being the single point of failure for a WG whose role is so important to the RIPE community. In other words, I need co-chair. Full stop. Given this, I think a productive direction for this discussion would go something like this: 1. *Openly and kindly ask the current candidates questions*, helping those on the list understand their qualifications more deeply, and assess their abilities and interests. 2. If you have a good lead, *provide concrete suggestions for other candidates*. 3. And, of course, *if the process doesn't sit right, speak up with concrete suggestions on how it can be changed*. The current process was written by me. It uses language the way I use it. It's almost certainly imperfect (appointment, election, choice -- whichever word you want!). I'm more than happy to discuss this. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 24 May 2016, at 11:08, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > > > I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I > am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what > features I would like to see on a new chair. > > I share these concerns and fully support the points you've raised Patrik. > > Any talk of elections rather than consensus decisions in a RIPE context > gives me the heebie jeebies. These get worse when it's those in leadership > positions who talk about elections. > > The co-chair candidates that have emerged to date do not appear to have > deep roots in the RIPE community. Although all three are familiar with > Internet goverance matters in general, they're somewhat detached from the > policy development and Internet governance issues in the RIPE region. This > is troubling. As a result, I'm reluctant to support any of them. > > It would be good for the WG to discuss the requirements and criteria for > the new co-chair. I hope we can have that discussion when the WG meets this > week. Once there's consensus in the WG on these requirements and criteria, > it should be easier to decide which candidate(s) would be the best choice. > This may mean the appointment of a co-chair can't be done in Copenhagen and > will need to be delayed. > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed May 25 14:25:02 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:25:02 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Press releases from European Commission, Brussels, 25 May 2016 Message-ID: The European Commission today tabled a package of measures to allow consumers and companies to buy and sell products and services online more easily and confidently across the EU. The European Commission today proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech better. http://europa.eu/rapid/latest-press-releases.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed May 25 14:28:55 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:28:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules Message-ID: Please look at full press release for some more details. Snippets follow: Commission proposes new e-commerce rules to help consumers and companies reap full benefit of Single Market - Brussels, 25 May 2016 The European Commission today tabled a package of measures to allow consumers and companies to buy and sell products and services online more easily and confidently across the EU. Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: ? A legislative proposal to address unjustified geoblocking and other forms of discrimination on the grounds of nationality, residence or establishment; ? A legislative proposal on cross-border parcel delivery services to increase the transparency of prices and improve regulatory oversight; ? A legislative proposal to strengthen enforcement of consumers' rights and guidance to clarify, among others, what qualifies as an unfair commercial practice in the digital world. The proposed revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation will give more powers to national authorities to better enforce consumer rights. They will be able to: ? check if websites geo-block consumers or offer after-sales conditions not respecting EU rules (e.g. withdrawal rights); ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; ? request information from domain registrars and banks to detect the identity of the responsible trader. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1887_en.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed May 25 14:31:09 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:31:09 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms Message-ID: Please look at the press release for more details. Snippets follow: Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms - Brussels, 25 May 2016 The European Commission today proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech better. This proposal also reflects a new approach to online platforms, addressing challenges in different areas. As part of its Digital Single Market strategy, today the Commission presented an updated Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD); the common rules which have governed audiovisual media, ensured cultural diversity and the free circulation of content in the EU for almost 30 years. Nowadays viewers do not only watch video content via their TV channels but also increasingly via video-on-demand services (such as Netflix and MUBI) and video-sharing platforms (such as YouTube and Dailymotion). This is why the Commission wants to achieve a better balance of the rules which today apply to traditional broadcasters, video-on-demand providers and video-sharing platforms, especially when it comes to protecting children. The revised AVMSD also strengthens the promotion of European cultural diversity, ensures the independence of audiovisual regulators and gives more flexibility to broadcasters over advertising. This proposal reflects the new approach of the Commission towards online platforms - like online marketplaces, search engines, payment systems, social media, video and content-sharing sites. Since the launch of the Digital Single Market strategy in May 2015, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the social and economic role of these new players. Today the Commission concluded that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach was not appropriate for consumers to benefit from the opportunities and for the rules to meet the different challenges posed by the very diverse types of online platforms. Based on this approach, the Commission will look at each area where it can act, from telecoms to copyright rules, to address any specific problems in a future-proof way for all market players. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1873_en.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 25 14:49:34 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:49:34 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: > ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are extremely slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the cybercrime convention etc, or? Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? 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 julf at julf.com Wed May 25 14:56:12 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:56:12 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> On 24-05-16 14:20, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > We have three people (and maybe more -- speak up!) who meet this criteria. This is a tentative hand going up. I am potentially interested in assisting as a co-chair, but I think I have some questions about the actual role of the co-chairs of this wg. Just like Jim and Patrik, I feel that it is important that the co-chairs are familiar with and to our community. While it is also important that they are familiar with what is going on in Brussels and Geneva, I feel that the role of the co-chars doesn't necessarily require personal involvement in the outreach activities and government/regulatory activities. I feel it is more important that the co-chairs encourage people involved in those activities to share their findings with the WG and the community, and raise the flag on significant activities the community should be aware of (and possibly try to see if there is a consensus view within the community on those issues). Is this a view shared by the rest of the WG? Unfortunately I will have to leave Copenhagen Thursday morning, so I won't be able to be at the WG session in person :(. Julf From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 25 15:15:17 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:15:17 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> Message-ID: <5F5B1A3D-430E-44EA-8F40-CF80EEC3F4ED@frobbit.se> On 25 May 2016, at 14:56, Johan Helsingius wrote: > I feel it is > more important that the co-chairs encourage people involved in > those activities to share their findings with the WG and the > community, and raise the flag on significant activities the > community should be aware of (and possibly try to see if there > is a consensus view within the community on those issues). I think this is a good idea with consensus, but more important to encourage the wp participants (us on this list) to speak with our respective representatives here and there and say what we want (regardless of whether we have consensus or not). And this is why I am looking for in the RIPE Community Active participants and/or people very initiated in policy work in the RIPE Region. You might remember that we started this wg with one private sector co-chair (myself) and one government (Maria H?ll). OTOH, that was good at the time (at least when we started...). ;-) Compared to other working groups we do not really have as a goal to create documents and publish shared views. The working group have more been a. catalyst for coordinated activities, and b. a place where RIPE NCC can present and interact with the community. "Cooperation". Although of course it is good if we also have consensus. 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 julf at julf.com Wed May 25 15:25:04 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:25:04 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5F5B1A3D-430E-44EA-8F40-CF80EEC3F4ED@frobbit.se> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5F5B1A3D-430E-44EA-8F40-CF80EEC3F4ED@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <5745A7B0.80808@julf.com> On 25-05-16 15:15, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Although of course it is good if we also have consensus. Just to clarify - there was definitely a reason I put all those modifiers in the phrase "possibly try to see if there is a consensus view". I don't see it as the job of the WG or the co-chairs to force a single shared view - only to articulate a common view in case there is one. Julf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 25 15:27:47 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:27:47 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5745A7B0.80808@julf.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5F5B1A3D-430E-44EA-8F40-CF80EEC3F4ED@frobbit.se> <5745A7B0.80808@julf.com> Message-ID: <1FD18995-BF40-4CE4-A614-D2FD6BAD655E@frobbit.se> On 25 May 2016, at 15:25, Johan Helsingius wrote: > On 25-05-16 15:15, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >> Although of course it is good if we also have consensus. > > Just to clarify - there was definitely a reason I put all those modifiers in the phrase "possibly try to see if there is a > consensus view". I don't see it as the job of the WG or the > co-chairs to force a single shared view - only to articulate a common view in case there is one. We completely agree!!! Again! :-D 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 pelkwijk at gmail.com Wed May 25 15:32:07 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 13:32:07 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to take down a legitimate site. Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website taken down (and to prevent further damage). On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: > > > Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: > > > ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; > > Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like > this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are extremely > slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else > than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". > > To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the > cybercrime convention etc, or? > > Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? > > Patrik > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 25 15:34:07 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:34:07 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How is the take down call passed across borders, i.e. how is the flow of action from detection via decision to messaging and action? Patrik On 25 May 2016, at 15:32, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to take down a legitimate site. > > Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website taken down (and to prevent further damage). > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> >>> Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: >> >>> ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; >> >> Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like >> this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are extremely >> slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else >> than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". >> >> To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the >> cybercrime convention etc, or? >> >> Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? >> >> 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 pelkwijk at gmail.com Wed May 25 16:00:45 2016 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:00:45 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That I am unsure about. I just noted that this can cause issues, since certain items in Holland are "banned" while they are allowed to be sold freely by other member states. A nice example would be buying 'prohibited items' in Germany or even Poland (think airsoft weapons for example): They can legally be sold in certain member countries, but shipping them to Holland is illegal. A Dutch "consumer agency" may force those websites to be shut down, even though the fireworks can be sold legally there. I believe that the call is not passed across borders. The consumer protection agency may act "on behalf" of the other member state to take down that website. In the case of a scammer located in Germany and aiming Dutch citizens, the Dutch consumer protection agency may force the German ISP to cease all activity from that user, even if the practice is considered to be legal in Germany. Basically said, with the "harmonization" it means that any state may act "on behalf" of the other state to shut down a website. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > How is the take down call passed across borders, i.e. how is the flow of > action from detection via decision to messaging and action? > > Patrik > > On 25 May 2016, at 15:32, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > > > What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right > to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their > country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in > all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where > the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the > "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer > had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to > pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on > radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been > included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, > but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer > organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the > site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to > take down a legitimate site. > > > > Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies > can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website > taken down (and to prevent further damage). > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > > > >> On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> > >>> Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: > >> > >>> ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; > >> > >> Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like > >> this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are > extremely > >> slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else > >> than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". > >> > >> To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the > >> cybercrime convention etc, or? > >> > >> Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? > >> > >> Patrik > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org Wed May 25 16:38:01 2016 From: jean-jacques.sahel at icann.org (Jean-Jacques Sahel) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:38:01 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5657ddc386b749619001e97d1ee6ef4e@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> I think Julius is right on the process. I'm still going through the detail, but in short: as this is from an e-commerce perspective, enforcement would come from consumer protection / fair trading agencies (as determined by each national Government) which are usually involved in e-commerce redress matters, and targeted at traders. There are existing specific processes for making intra-EU complaints, seeking redress for instance on non-delivery of goods ordered online from another EU country, which are not MLATS, but 'Mutual Assistance Mechanisms'. The novelties are explained on page 13 of the proposed Regulation: 'Compared to the current Regulation, further minimum powers have been added, such as the power to make test purchases and carry out mystery shopping, power to adopt interim measures, block websites and the power to impose penalties and to safeguard consumer compensation in a cross-border context.' (full text here: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/unfair-trade/docs/cpc-revision-proposal_en.pdf). It is detailed under Chapter III for the MAMs, then in Article 8.2 which details the powers of the authorities, including to suspend a website where it is stipulated that the authority in charge (the German consumer protection agency, on request from the Dutch agency, in Julius?s example) can : 'l) close down a website, domain or similar digital site, service or account or a part of it, including by requesting a third party or other public authority to implement such measures;'. Unless there's further wording which I haven't got to yet, that would likely mean that each national authority would be able to define who would be deemed a 'third party' able to block a website, whether a network operator / ISP, or another relevant entity (a TLD registry??). (on the example of a Dutch user being scammed by a German trader but that particular practice is not illegal in Germany, I?m not sure if the German authority would want / have to shut down the whole website, or just the Dutch webpages / access from NL?) This proposal would normally now go to both the European Parliament and the EU Council (of Governments) for consideration, so there will be a number of hearings and committee discussions coming up, including the opportunity, one would expect, for relevant organisations (like EuroISPA) to air their views. Note that this is part of the ambitious package of new legislations across the digital sector, such as a proposal for a Digital Content Directive which includes proposals around liability for Internet intermediaries for example (see links to the texts on the Commission webpage, or there's various statements by industry players issued this week, eg http://www.digitaleurope.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&entryID=2184&PortalId=0&TabId=353) JJ From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Julius ter Pelkwijk Sent: 25 May 2016 15:01 To: Patrik F?ltstr?m Cc: Gordon Lennox ; cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules That I am unsure about. I just noted that this can cause issues, since certain items in Holland are "banned" while they are allowed to be sold freely by other member states. A nice example would be buying 'prohibited items' in Germany or even Poland (think airsoft weapons for example): They can legally be sold in certain member countries, but shipping them to Holland is illegal. A Dutch "consumer agency" may force those websites to be shut down, even though the fireworks can be sold legally there. I believe that the call is not passed across borders. The consumer protection agency may act "on behalf" of the other member state to take down that website. In the case of a scammer located in Germany and aiming Dutch citizens, the Dutch consumer protection agency may force the German ISP to cease all activity from that user, even if the practice is considered to be legal in Germany. Basically said, with the "harmonization" it means that any state may act "on behalf" of the other state to shut down a website. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m > wrote: How is the take down call passed across borders, i.e. how is the flow of action from detection via decision to messaging and action? Patrik On 25 May 2016, at 15:32, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to take down a legitimate site. > > Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website taken down (and to prevent further damage). > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m > wrote: > >> On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> >>> Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: >> >>> ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; >> >> Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like >> this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are extremely >> slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else >> than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". >> >> To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the >> cybercrime convention etc, or? >> >> Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? >> >> Patrik >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 25 16:51:32 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:51:32 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aha, then you and I see the same/similar "potential problems" with this issue. ;-) Patrik On 25 May 2016, at 16:00, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: > That I am unsure about. I just noted that this can cause issues, since certain items in Holland are "banned" while they are allowed to be sold freely by other member states. A nice example would be buying 'prohibited items' in Germany or even Poland (think airsoft weapons for example): They can legally be sold in certain member countries, but shipping them to Holland is illegal. A Dutch "consumer agency" may force those websites to be shut down, even though the fireworks can be sold legally there. > > I believe that the call is not passed across borders. The consumer protection agency may act "on behalf" of the other member state to take down that website. In the case of a scammer located in Germany and aiming Dutch citizens, the Dutch consumer protection agency may force the German ISP to cease all activity from that user, even if the practice is considered to be legal in Germany. > > Basically said, with the "harmonization" it means that any state may act "on behalf" of the other state to shut down a website. > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> How is the take down call passed across borders, i.e. how is the flow of >> action from detection via decision to messaging and action? >> >> Patrik >> >> On 25 May 2016, at 15:32, Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote: >> >>> What this means is that governmental "consumer agencies" have the right >> to take down websites in other EU states that sell illegal stuff to their >> country. A website like a fireworks store or even ebay can be taken down in >> all member states of the EU without prior notification, regardless of where >> the crime has been committed. This is very useful in certain cases like the >> "free promo scam" that they had in Holland a couple of years ago: A scammer >> had a website where they promoted free stuff worth 20 euro, but you had to >> pay shipping costs (6.95 euro). The website was even heavily promoted on >> radio and television channels, until they realized that they had been >> included in the scam (the cheque bounced). The total damage was unknown, >> but it ranged from 300k to 1 million euro in total. It took consumer >> organisations a few days to get the server taken down, mainly because the >> site looked legitimate in the first place and the ISP was not willing to >> take down a legitimate site. >>> >>> Its like some form of "Cease to Exist" letter that governmental agencies >> can send to the ISP, without having to go to court first to get the website >> taken down (and to prevent further damage). >>> >>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >>> >>>> On 25 May 2016, at 14:28, Gordon Lennox wrote: >>>> >>>>> Today?s e-commerce package is composed of: >>>> >>>>> ? order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; >>>> >>>> Can someone explain what it implies to have something in a package like >>>> this? One of the main issues in Europe is that MLAT processes are >> extremely >>>> slow, and I am worried if what is in this package will be something else >>>> than "optimize the MLAT processes so that they are fast(er)". >>>> >>>> To get efficient MLAT might in turn might require ratification of the >>>> cybercrime convention etc, or? >>>> >>>> Anyone up for guessing what this might imply? >>>> >>>> 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 nick at inex.ie Wed May 25 17:05:29 2016 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:05:29 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> Message-ID: <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Johan Helsingius wrote: > Just like Jim and Patrik, I feel that it is important that the > co-chairs are familiar with and to our community. there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). There definitely needs to be at least one person or more as co-chair who understands the ripe community well. If there is someone else who doesn't understand it as thoroughly, that may not be be a major problem, as long as there is balance. Nick From paf at frobbit.se Wed May 25 17:35:51 2016 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:35:51 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: <7706BF76-EA65-4303-B697-0C92413F391B@frobbit.se> On 25 May 2016, at 17:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > There definitely needs to be at least one person or more as co-chair who > understands the ripe community well. If there is someone else who > doesn't understand it as thoroughly, that may not be be a major problem, > as long as there is balance. +1 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 gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed May 25 17:49:18 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:49:18 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach > outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to > understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This > is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", > etc). > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed May 25 17:57:37 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:57:37 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Choosing chairs Message-ID: In advance of any discussion we will have on the choice of new co-chairs I have looked again at the process as drafted by Meredith. I still think it is OK. It might be word-smithed a little in the future, not to change the ideas but to make it a little bit more robust. But that is not urgent. And anyway I don?t think anyone in the community is going to start counting commas. Looking at what is going on elsewhere it was nice to see that at least one other WG adopted Meredith?s text! But looking wider I see words like elections, consensus, decisions. I don?t think there is conflict. But here is my take. We have tended to avoid elections as we don?t have a nice list of people who are eligible to vote and anyway the folk active on mailing lists are also important. We tend to go instead for consensus. But maybe to point out the obvious somebody has to decide that there is consensus. That decision is perhaps the most important job of a chair / co-chair. And if they ever get it wrong people ought to make that clear and the conversation can then continue. That is basically again what Meredith proposed. Getting consensus can though take time. So a quick ?show of hands? can be useful for certain quick decisions. But maybe not for the choice of WG chairs. There are though other situations where we vote - obviously when we have a list of those eligible to vote but also where there is no chair to make the call. That is the situation we will have when we decide on the RIPE chair. So consensus within the WG but voting at the level of RIPE? And so no conflict? Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 11:47:46 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:47:46 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: - *Achilleas Kemos* -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. - *Collin Anderson* -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. - *Analina Aspis* -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread - *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. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, *I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time*, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group > trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to > outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! > > On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal > response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. > > We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. > > Gordon > > On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > >> >> there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach >> outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to >> understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This >> is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", >> etc). >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de Thu May 26 12:28:48 2016 From: Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de (Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:28:48 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: <79F540CC87E9FD49A2075F92003D5355B84B4638@BMIBH160.intern.bmi> Achilleas Kemos +1 Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Meredith Whittaker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 An: Gordon Lennox; Collin Anderson; Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis; Johan Helsingius Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: * Achilleas Kemos -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. * Collin Anderson -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. * Analina Aspis -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread * 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. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard > wrote: there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI at ec.europa.eu Thu May 26 12:31:05 2016 From: Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI at ec.europa.eu (Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI at ec.europa.eu) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:31:05 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <79F540CC87E9FD49A2075F92003D5355B84B4638@BMIBH160.intern.bmi> References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> , <79F540CC87E9FD49A2075F92003D5355B84B4638@BMIBH160.intern.bmi> Message-ID: Achilleas Kemos +1 Przes?ano z telefonu Android przy pomocy Symantec TouchDown (www.symantec.com) -----Original Message----- From: Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de [Constanze.Buerger at bmi.bund.de] Received: czwartek, 26 maj 2016, 12:29 To: meredithrachel at google.com [meredithrachel at google.com]; gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com [gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com]; collina at gmail.com [collina at gmail.com]; KEMOS Achilleas (CNECT) [Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu]; analia.aspis at gmail.com [analia.aspis at gmail.com]; julf at julf.com [julf at julf.com] CC: cooperation-wg at ripe.net [cooperation-wg at ripe.net] Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: Chairs of this wg Achilleas Kemos +1 Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Meredith Whittaker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 An: Gordon Lennox; Collin Anderson; Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis; Johan Helsingius Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Betreff: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: * Achilleas Kemos -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. * Collin Anderson -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. * Analina Aspis -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread * 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. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard > wrote: there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tahar.schaa at cassini.de Thu May 26 12:32:16 2016 From: tahar.schaa at cassini.de (Schaa, Tahar) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:32:16 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: +1 Achilleas Kemos Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Meredith Whittaker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 An: Gordon Lennox ; Collin Anderson ; Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis ; Johan Helsingius Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Betreff: Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: * Achilleas Kemos -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. * Collin Anderson -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. * Analina Aspis -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread * 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. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard > wrote: there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 26 12:37:10 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:37:10 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? Message-ID: Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning. The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not have the time this topic required during the session. I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process. I still think though that we should keep with published the process. This is where I think we are: * the chair requests candidates. Done. * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. On-going? I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this weekend? ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. ** the chair announces the consensus. I see no need to rush this any faster. Do people agree? I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 12:37:52 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:37:52 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: Hi all, To be very clear --* this is not an election*. While it's great to see the open and vocal support and we will certainly weigh this in decision-making, I want to make that clear. Discussion and providing rationale for your support for a given candidate (or otherwise) would be appreciated. To clarify as well -- we are also looking for more than one additional co-chair. Three is the number that seems healthy and productive to me, but I'm open to suggestions from the community. Thanks, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Schaa, Tahar wrote: > +1 Achilleas Kemos > > > > *Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] *Im > Auftrag von *Meredith Whittaker > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 > *An:* Gordon Lennox ; Collin Anderson < > collina at gmail.com>; Achilleas.KEMOS at ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis < > analia.aspis at gmail.com>; Johan Helsingius > *Cc:* cooperation-wg at ripe.net > *Betreff:* Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg > > > > Hello again, dear friends, > > > > First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. > I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. > > > > I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize > they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a > fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: > > - *Achilleas Kemos* -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He > was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during > the working group. > - *Collin Anderson* -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy > enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. > - *Analina Aspis* -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research > Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present > today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread > - *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. > > I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions > and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively > discussion. > > > > As I mentioned, *I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to > distill the decisions of the community in a week's time*, disclosing such > in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we > should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am > sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That > said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible > move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case > that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. > > > > Best, > > Meredith > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > > The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group > trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to > outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! > > > > On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal > response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. > > > > We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. > > > > Gordon > > > > On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > > there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach > outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to > understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This > is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", > etc). > > > > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 26 12:38:32 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:38:32 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> References: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Hi, Speaking as an outsider from other RIR with little background on how the working group was chartered/how it operates (but someone who has been following this topic and thread), a few comments/questions come to play: 1. What does the operating document of this WG say about its leadership selection process 2. Who decides that more group leader is required 3. What is the scope of decision making for current leader. I think answering those questions could help. Regards On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > All, > > I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am > nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what > features I would like to see on a new chair. > > I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are > active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a > responsibility in the RIPE PDP. > > I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and > active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not > only EU). > > And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) > candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability. > > I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this > wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not > want to be alone. > > But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct > people, and not because we must have two co-chairs. > > I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared > on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the > one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I > request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, > requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment. > > Patrik > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From collin at measurementlab.net Thu May 26 13:06:01 2016 From: collin at measurementlab.net (Collin Anderson) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 13:06:01 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the clear summary Gordon, Since there is only now a convergence of understanding about the process and the impetus for its consideration, I would concur that we should set clear deadlines. Outside of the session there was another person that expressed interest, and I appreciate that there are people that are travelling back from RIPE and will not be able to contribute by the weekend. So, attempting to speak outside of self-interest, I would suggest that we set a deadline of Friday next week (June 3). Several of the candidates have offered a vision of their involvements on this list, and I would also suggest that others do as well, to ensure that the discussion is at least informed by those positions rather than simply a reflection of activated social networks. Additional, unless there is an unexpected issue requiring consultation, the WG is typically dormant for the few weeks following RIPE, and so there is not an immediate need outside of assurance that this is settled within a reasonable period of time. To add one more point of order to the agenda, I would mention that the discussion period should include whether to elect 1 or 2 (or 39, I suppose) additional co-chairs, but Meredith can structure that conversation. I believe that would put the schedule at: June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy. June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate qualifications. June 17: End of discussion. June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus. July 1: Chair conveys consensus. Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others? Cordially, Collin On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning. > > > The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good > that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not > have the time this topic required during the session. > > > I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about > the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be > ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process. > > > I still think though that we should keep with published the process. > > > This is where I think we are: > > > * the chair requests candidates. Done. > > * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. > On-going? > > > I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we > ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and > end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this > weekend? > > > ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. > > ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a > conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. > > ** the chair announces the consensus. > > > I see no need to rush this any faster. > > > Do people agree? > > > I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a > little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather > than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. > > > Gordon > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 26 14:12:00 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:12:00 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <7051942A-8005-4267-A450-1F856910B677@frobbit.se> Message-ID: You will find answers to your questions on the RIPE web-site. For example the selection process is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selection-process Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 12:38, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking as an outsider from other RIR with little background on how the > working group was chartered/how it operates (but someone who has been > following this topic and thread), a few comments/questions come to play: > > 1. What does the operating document of this WG say about its leadership > selection process > 2. Who decides that more group leader is required > 3. What is the scope of decision making for current leader. > > I think answering those questions could help. > > Regards > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Thu May 26 14:19:02 2016 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:19:02 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... Message-ID: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 14:36:55 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:36:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Collin, Thank you for your concrete suggestions. In my view, this schedule is productive and fair, and has the benefit of providing more space for discussion and consideration from the community. If I don't hear any pushback from community members, I will progress by adhering to this schedule. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: > Thanks for the clear summary Gordon, > > Since there is only now a convergence of understanding about the process > and the impetus for its consideration, I would concur that we should set > clear deadlines. Outside of the session there was another person that > expressed interest, and I appreciate that there are people that are > travelling back from RIPE and will not be able to contribute by the > weekend. > > So, attempting to speak outside of self-interest, I would suggest that we > set a deadline of Friday next week (June 3). Several of the candidates have > offered a vision of their involvements on this list, and I would also > suggest that others do as well, to ensure that the discussion is at least > informed by those positions rather than simply a reflection of activated > social networks. Additional, unless there is an unexpected issue requiring > consultation, the WG is typically dormant for the few weeks following RIPE, > and so there is not an immediate need outside of assurance that this is > settled within a reasonable period of time. > > To add one more point of order to the agenda, I would mention that the > discussion period should include whether to elect 1 or 2 (or 39, I suppose) > additional co-chairs, but Meredith can structure that conversation. > > I believe that would put the schedule > > at: > > June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy. > June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate > qualifications. > June 17: End of discussion. > June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus. > July 1: Chair conveys consensus. > > > Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others? > > Cordially, > Collin > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Gordon Lennox < > gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning. >> >> >> The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good >> that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not >> have the time this topic required during the session. >> >> >> I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one >> about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will >> be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the >> process. >> >> >> I still think though that we should keep with published the process. >> >> >> This is where I think we are: >> >> >> * the chair requests candidates. Done. >> >> * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. >> On-going? >> >> >> I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we >> ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and >> end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this >> weekend? >> >> >> ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. >> >> ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a >> conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. >> >> ** the chair announces the consensus. >> >> >> I see no need to rush this any faster. >> >> >> Do people agree? >> >> >> I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a >> little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather >> than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. >> >> >> Gordon >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 26 14:46:56 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:46:56 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> Message-ID: I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" more. Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for obvious reasons. I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something for the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet wrote: > Afternoon, > > There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about > the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well > they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. > > There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of > people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter > experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more > recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably > involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. > > This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole > point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, > or at least into contact. > > I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, > it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for > the discussion. > > Thanks, > > Brian > > -- > Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager > HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 > Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 > web: http://www.heanet.ie/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rogerj at gmail.com Thu May 26 14:57:31 2016 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:57:31 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: > I believe that would put the schedule at: > > June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy. > June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate qualifications. > June 17: End of discussion. > June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus. > July 1: Chair conveys consensus. > > > Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others? I don't disagree on the dates, but isn't it strange to have people come forward BEFORE we discuss what we want from them? Suggest we rather start now on figuring out what we want and possible candidates can announce themself over the next few weeks so by around 17.June we have a good idea of who are interested, and what we expect from them. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 15:02:18 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:02:18 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Roger, Thank you for your constructive comment. To be clear, we made the announcement for candidates before this meeting. And, candidates have come forward (and still can). I think we can discuss what we'd like these people to do or not do, but I don't think it's productive to walk back the process to review a conversation we could be having in parallel. Thanks, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Collin Anderson > wrote: > > > I believe that would put the schedule at: > > > > June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy. > > June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate > qualifications. > > June 17: End of discussion. > > June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus. > > July 1: Chair conveys consensus. > > > > > > Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others? > > I don't disagree on the dates, but isn't it strange to have people > come forward BEFORE we discuss what we want from them? > > Suggest we rather start now on figuring out what we want and possible > candidates can announce themself over the next few weeks so by around > 17.June we have a good idea of who are interested, and what we expect > from them. > > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 15:04:24 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:04:24 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> Message-ID: Brian, this is an excellent point. The perfect should not be the enemy of the done, and we should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG. Discussion of what these qualities are is productive and welcome, of course. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" > more. > > Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for > obvious reasons. > > I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something for > the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. > > Gordon > > On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >> Afternoon, >> >> There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about >> the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well >> they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. >> >> There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of >> people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter >> experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more >> recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably >> involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. >> >> This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole >> point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, >> or at least into contact. >> >> I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, >> it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for >> the discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Brian >> >> -- >> Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager >> HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network >> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 >> Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 >> web: http://www.heanet.ie/ >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hph at oslo.net Thu May 26 15:05:57 2016 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:05:57 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <5746F4B5.9040009@oslo.net> On 26.05.2016 14.19, Brian Nisbet wrote: > There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today > about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation > to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. You may also want to refer to: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542 Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net From brian.nisbet at heanet.ie Thu May 26 15:06:55 2016 From: brian.nisbet at heanet.ie (Brian Nisbet) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:06:55 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <5746F4EF.600@heanet.ie> Gordon, I agree, but I don't think my meaning was clear. I was not suggesting that outreach was purely the role of the Co-Chairs and of course we always need to be careful (I know this very well). It was rather that the role of the WG involves outreach and bringing others into the community, so it should consider this in every action, including the selection of Co-Chairs. It is a factor, far from the whole thing. Brian Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ Gordon Lennox wrote on 26/05/2016 14:46: > I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" more. > > Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for > obvious reasons. > > I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something > for the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. > > Gordon > > On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet > wrote: > > Afternoon, > > There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today > about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in > relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they > may be in it. > > There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a > mix of people who are long standing members of the community and > "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course > those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to > becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect > being the enemy of done. > > This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the > whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into > the community, or at least into contact. > > I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of > the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken > into account for the discussion. > > Thanks, > > Brian > > -- > Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager > HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 > Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 > web: http://www.heanet.ie/ > > From rogerj at gmail.com Thu May 26 15:09:04 2016 From: rogerj at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Roger_J=C3=B8rgensen?=) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:09:04 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > Hi Roger, > > Thank you for your constructive comment. > > To be clear, we made the announcement for candidates before this meeting. > And, candidates have come forward (and still can). I think we can discuss > what we'd like these people to do or not do, but I don't think it's > productive to walk back the process to review a conversation we could be > having in parallel. fair point, it's already started the process ongoing, it's strange but done is done:-) ... now I guess the important point is to get atleast one more chair to support you, I will suggest two more chairs so you are thee in total. These two should have different background and view on things. Get some diversity and experience to the table. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 15:09:39 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:09:39 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree completely, Roger :) On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Roger J?rgensen wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > > Thank you for your constructive comment. > > > > To be clear, we made the announcement for candidates before this meeting. > > And, candidates have come forward (and still can). I think we can discuss > > what we'd like these people to do or not do, but I don't think it's > > productive to walk back the process to review a conversation we could be > > having in parallel. > > fair point, it's already started the process ongoing, it's strange but > done is done:-) > > ... now I guess the important point is to get atleast one more chair > to support you, I will suggest two more chairs so you are thee in > total. These two should have different background and view on things. > Get some diversity and experience to the table. > > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 26 15:15:03 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:15:03 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: <5746F4B5.9040009@oslo.net> References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> <5746F4B5.9040009@oslo.net> Message-ID: I have just looked at the document Hans Petter pointed to. It has been a while since I went there! It is a short document. I recommend a read. But it leaves me with a few questions such as to which model we are following. This I suppose could have an effect on co-chairs. Maybe Meredith could clarify? Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 15:05, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > On 26.05.2016 14.19, Brian Nisbet wrote: > >> There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about >> the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well >> they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. >> > You may also want to refer to: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542 > Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures > > -- > Hans Petter Holen > Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 15:18:25 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:18:25 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> <5746F4B5.9040009@oslo.net> Message-ID: Hi Gordon, Great question. We are following the "Equal Co-Chair Model." Thanks, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I have just looked at the document Hans Petter pointed to. It has been a > while since I went there! > > It is a short document. I recommend a read. > > But it leaves me with a few questions such as to which model we are > following. This I suppose could have an effect on co-chairs. Maybe Meredith > could clarify? > > Gordon > > On 26 May 2016 at 15:05, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > >> On 26.05.2016 14.19, Brian Nisbet wrote: >> >>> There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today >>> about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to >>> how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. >>> >> You may also want to refer to: >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542 >> Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures >> >> -- >> Hans Petter Holen >> Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net >> >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From koalafil at gmail.com Thu May 26 15:22:05 2016 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:22:05 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: References: <5746E9B6.4060604@heanet.ie> <5746F4B5.9040009@oslo.net> Message-ID: Hi, I was wondering this too, Gordon. Thanks Meredith for clarifying. In regards to the question about the number of (co)Chairs in total that a WG can have in the other thread going on; it is 3. Filiz On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > Hi Gordon, > > Great question. We are following the "Equal Co-Chair Model." > > Thanks, > Meredith > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > >> I have just looked at the document Hans Petter pointed to. It has been a >> while since I went there! >> >> It is a short document. I recommend a read. >> >> But it leaves me with a few questions such as to which model we are >> following. This I suppose could have an effect on co-chairs. Maybe Meredith >> could clarify? >> >> Gordon >> >> On 26 May 2016 at 15:05, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >> >>> On 26.05.2016 14.19, Brian Nisbet wrote: >>> >>>> There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today >>>> about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to >>>> how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. >>>> >>> You may also want to refer to: >>> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542 >>> Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures >>> >>> -- >>> Hans Petter Holen >>> Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Maud.Karlberg at vll.se Thu May 26 15:34:36 2016 From: Maud.Karlberg at vll.se (Maud.Karlberg at vll.se) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:34:36 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Vb: Re: On the Nature of WG Chairs... Message-ID: Hi! Can you please take me away from this sendlist? Maud Karlberg V?nliga h?lsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr V?sterbottens l?ns landsting 901 85 Ume? 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik ----- Vidarebefordrat av Maud Karlberg/US/VLL/SE p? 2016-05-26 15:34 ----- Fr?n: Meredith Whittaker Till: Gordon Lennox Kopia: Brian Nisbet , "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" Datum: 2016-05-26 15:04 ?rende: Re: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... S?nt av: "cooperation-wg" Brian, this is an excellent point. The perfect should not be the enemy of the done, and we should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG. Discussion of what these qualities are is productive and welcome, of course. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" more. Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for obvious reasons. I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something for the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet wrote: Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 26 15:54:46 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:54:46 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Vb: Re: On the Nature of WG Chairs... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You can manage your subscription(s) from here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-lists Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 15:34, wrote: > Hi! > > Can you please take me away from this sendlist? > > Maud Karlberg > > V?nliga h?lsningar > > Maud Karlberg > Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr > V?sterbottens l?ns landsting > 901 85 Ume? > 090-7854101 > www.vll.se/informatik > ----- Vidarebefordrat av Maud Karlberg/US/VLL/SE p? 2016-05-26 15:34 ----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 16:33:36 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:33:36 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] For meeting attendees -- relevant BoF this evening Message-ID: [If you're not attending the RIPE meeting in person, you can stop reading now] Hi those at the meeting, I wanted to draw your attention to a BoF happening this evening that may be of interest. Corinne Cath, Oxford Researcher and repeat RIPE attendee (CCed), will be screening a short film that explores how Internet protocols and standards can be architected (or not) to promote Human Rights. - *What: *Movie Screening and Beer BOF: "Net of Rights" - *When: *6pm/17:00 this evening - *Where:* Tutorial Room (to the left of the main room, along the far-left wall across from the espresso cart) Clearly, this is a topic that falls right into the remit of cooperation, and the concomitant challenges of thinking through the social, political, and technical at once. I believe many of you will enjoy it. Oh, and THERE WILL BE FREE BEER. Thanks! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 16:42:49 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:42:49 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] New mailing list format Message-ID: Hi all, Mihnea, CCed, approached me early to discuss the new RIPE Forum mailing list format. A test list, where you can see format and UX, is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-forum-test More information is below. I am very happy with this format, and believe that implementation will increase the ease of communication on the list. However, before it's deployed, I want to make sure the community has a chance to weigh in. Please direct any questions and comments to Mihnea. Best, Meredith *More information on the new RIPE Forum design and deployment, from Mihnea: * Dear colleagues, There?s a new way to participate on the RIPE Working Group mailing lists! Introducing the RIPE Forum, a web-based interface for reading and sending emails on RIPE community mailing lists. We developed the RIPE Forum in-house based on feedback we received from members of the RIPE community who wanted the option to interact and share information in a more modern way. But it?s important to note that this new interface is completely optional ? those who like using the established mailing list system can continue on as they always have, and won?t notice any difference. Several weeks ago the RIPE Forum was deployed on the RIPE Atlas mailing list as a pilot. The test was a success with no major issues detected and very positive comments were received from users. We have presented the results to the Working Group chairs and it was decided to deploy the RIPE Forum to all RIPE Working Group mailing lists. We invite you have a look yourself: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ We created a special mailing list for testing purposes, so that any conversations about the platform itself can be contained there without disrupting the regular flow of discussions on the Working Group mailing lists. Feel free to send test messages and try out the RIPE Forum on this special list. https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-forum-test If you?d like to learn more about how the forum works or the background behind the project, please take a look at this RIPE Labs article that was published for the pilot phase: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/introducing-the-ripe-forum The forum is still in "beta" status ? there might be still some bugs and we are continuously working to improve things, so please keep that in mind while exploring the forum. You can give your feedback by clicking on the ?Report a bug? button on the forum, or leave a comment on the above RIPE Labs article. We hope you?ll enjoy the RIPE Forum, and look forward to your feedback! -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu May 26 16:43:56 2016 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:43:56 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] For meeting attendees -- relevant BoF this evening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Small correction on time. It is at 18h00. And runs until 19h00. :-) Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 16:33, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > [If you're not attending the RIPE meeting in person, you can stop reading > now] > > Hi those at the meeting, > > I wanted to draw your attention to a BoF happening this evening that may > be of interest. Corinne Cath, Oxford Researcher and repeat RIPE attendee > (CCed), will be screening a short film that explores how Internet protocols > and standards can be architected (or not) to promote Human Rights. > > - *What: *Movie Screening and Beer BOF: "Net of Rights" > - *When: *6pm/17:00 this evening > - *Where:* Tutorial Room (to the left of the main room, along the > far-left wall across from the espresso cart) > > Clearly, this is a topic that falls right into the remit of cooperation, > and the concomitant challenges of thinking through the social, political, > and technical at once. I believe many of you will enjoy it. > > Oh, and THERE WILL BE FREE BEER. > > Thanks! > Meredith > > -- > Meredith Whittaker > Open Research Lead > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Thu May 26 16:50:10 2016 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:50:10 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] For meeting attendees -- relevant BoF this evening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Someday I'll get it right! (Thanks, Gordon :) On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Small correction on time. > > It is at 18h00. And runs until 19h00. > > :-) > > Gordon > > On 26 May 2016 at 16:33, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > >> [If you're not attending the RIPE meeting in person, you can stop reading >> now] >> >> Hi those at the meeting, >> >> I wanted to draw your attention to a BoF happening this evening that may >> be of interest. Corinne Cath, Oxford Researcher and repeat RIPE attendee >> (CCed), will be screening a short film that explores how Internet protocols >> and standards can be architected (or not) to promote Human Rights. >> >> - *What: *Movie Screening and Beer BOF: "Net of Rights" >> - *When: *6pm/17:00 this evening >> - *Where:* Tutorial Room (to the left of the main room, along the >> far-left wall across from the espresso cart) >> >> Clearly, this is a topic that falls right into the remit of cooperation, >> and the concomitant challenges of thinking through the social, political, >> and technical at once. I believe many of you will enjoy it. >> >> Oh, and THERE WILL BE FREE BEER. >> >> Thanks! >> Meredith >> >> -- >> Meredith Whittaker >> Open Research Lead >> Google NYC >> >> >> >> >> > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From corinnecath at gmail.com Thu May 26 17:02:07 2016 From: corinnecath at gmail.com (Corinne Cath) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:02:07 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] For meeting attendees -- relevant BoF this evening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you for the shout out Meredith! For clarity sake, I put up a sign on the door of the room where the screening will take place with a big blue arrow. I will also be in/around the room, wearing a red jacket and purple hair (hard to miss). Hope to see you all there! Best, On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Small correction on time. > > It is at 18h00. And runs until 19h00. > > :-) > > Gordon > > On 26 May 2016 at 16:33, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > >> [If you're not attending the RIPE meeting in person, you can stop reading >> now] >> >> Hi those at the meeting, >> >> I wanted to draw your attention to a BoF happening this evening that may >> be of interest. Corinne Cath, Oxford Researcher and repeat RIPE attendee >> (CCed), will be screening a short film that explores how Internet protocols >> and standards can be architected (or not) to promote Human Rights. >> >> - *What: *Movie Screening and Beer BOF: "Net of Rights" >> - *When: *6pm/17:00 this evening >> - *Where:* Tutorial Room (to the left of the main room, along the >> far-left wall across from the espresso cart) >> >> Clearly, this is a topic that falls right into the remit of cooperation, >> and the concomitant challenges of thinking through the social, political, >> and technical at once. I believe many of you will enjoy it. >> >> Oh, and THERE WILL BE FREE BEER. >> >> Thanks! >> Meredith >> >> -- >> Meredith Whittaker >> Open Research Lead >> Google NYC >> >> >> >> >> > -- Corinne J.N. Cath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at julf.com Thu May 26 17:28:29 2016 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 17:28:29 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg In-Reply-To: References: <5745A0EC.7080909@julf.com> <5745BF39.9040405@inex.ie> Message-ID: <5747161D.6090701@julf.com> I really regret I couldn't be physically present this morning, but it appears there was a fair bit of good discussion. 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. As for my background, I started out, as so many of the pillars of our community, as part of the "EUnet Mafia", running the email/usenet backbone for Finland in the 80's, dealing with the regulatory issues around the ITU model and telecom monopolies. My pro-privacy and pro-free-speech projects got me the EFF Pioneer Award, but also got my picture on the front page of The Observer, with the lovely caption "The Peddlars of Child Porn on the Internet". As you can imagine, that led to a fairly strong involvement in content regulation policy issues, and also my involvement as an early board member in Bits of Freedom. As one of the original cypherpunks, I also did my own small part in the Crypto Wars. I do confess to having had a role in getting the Soviet Union connected to the Net, but you will have to pry me with copious amounts of vodka if you want to hear any juicy details. 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. Oh, and just for completeness, I am a Swedish-speaking Finn (*not* from the ?land Islands), but I have been living in Amsterdam since 1997. 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. Julf From analia.aspis at gmail.com Thu May 26 17:46:31 2016 From: analia.aspis at gmail.com (Analia Aspis) Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:46:31 -0300 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Details about the nature of my self-nomination as wg co-chair Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: