October 2013 - cooperation-wg

FYI: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors
by Patrik Fältström 20 Jul '19

20 Jul '19

Hi, As you can see below European Commission just released human rights guidance for 3 business sectors. I have helped COM and specifically IHRB with their piece of the work, and I know others on this list have also helped. Everything from more formal support to extremely good comments that have helped making the documents what they finally ended up being. Patrik Fältström Head of Research and Development Netnod Begin forwarded message: > From: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > Subject: From the European Commission: human rights guidance for 3 business sectors > Date: 17 juni 2013 18:23:09 CEST > To: <entr-csr(a)ec.europa.eu> > > We are pleased to announce the publication of the European Commission Sector Guides on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. > > > Download the Guides here: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6711&lang… > > The Guides – for employment and recruitment agencies, ICT companies, and oil and gas companies – were developed over the past 18 months by Shift and IHRB through extensive research and multistakeholder consultation with representatives from the three industries as well as governments, trade unions, civil society, academia and other experts. Read more about the Guides’ development here. > > Each Guide offers practical advice on how to implement the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in day-to-day business operations in each industry through step-by-step guidance. At each step, they summarise what the UN Guiding Principles expect, offer a range of approaches and examples for how to put them into practice, and link users to additional resources that can support their work. They are intended to help companies “translate” respect for human rights into their own systems and cultures. > > Many thanks to all those who have contributed to this process. > > Best regards, > > > CSR Team > > European Commission > Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General > Unit ENTR.D.1 >

6 12

DNS-based filtering
by Niall O'Reilly 27 Mar '14

27 Mar '14

Hello. Erika's mention of the need "to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community" and a current thread on the bind-users mailing list made me wonder whether the report I mention in the message below is as well known as I think it deserves to be outside the DNS technical community and certain parts of the wider French Internet community. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly Begin forwarded message: > From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly(a)ucd.ie> > Date: 30 October 2013 10:16:26 GMT > To: bind-check(a)telenet.be > Cc: bind-users(a)lists.isc.org > Subject: Re: use bind 9.8 as caching server and authoritative nameserver > message-id: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9(a)ucd.ie> > > > On 28 Oct 2013, at 13:10, bind-check(a)telenet.be wrote: > >> Recently our government obligated all ISP's to block access to child-porn, illegal betting sites, illegal file share sites etc... >> I have been asked now to implement this on our caching DNS servers (serve a custom zone to all of our customers that points to an IP from the government that hosts a block-page) > > You probably understand that this approach is of limited effectiveness, > and has arguably significant disadvantages. > > It may be of interest for you to read the report mentioned at either of > the following URIs (in French, English respectively). > > http://www.afnic.fr/fr/l-afnic-en-bref/actualites/actualites-generales/6573… > http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/6584/show/the-afnic-sc… > > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > Member of AFNIC's Conseil Scientifique > > PS. I wan't a significant contributor to this report. > Credit for that belongs to the colleagues who did the work. /Niall >

13 24

Regulation proposed by European Commission
by Gordon Lennox 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. ------- The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. So now we have a new proposed regulation. I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm But the "communication" is probably better: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-europe… Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-… If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… ------ So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: Brussels, 11.9.2013 COM(2013) 627 final 2013/0309 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications markets, each with a limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, and one spectrum policy.>> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on reasonable terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new types of online services.>> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> ----- So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. The second point says an awful lot in a few words! The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. ----- Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. For more information on the proposal consult EC website. ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html ---- So suggestions. I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. I think a discussion here would be much better. If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. ** or a community input with the help of NCC. One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. Enough for now? Gordon

5 10

Regulation proposed by European Commission
by Gordon Lennox 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

This is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and various associated documents, from the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to the community: ** the Commission's view of the sector ** market consolidation ** interconnection ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on Gordon

3 6

Nomination of co-chair of Cooperation WG
by Maria Häll 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Dear Coop WG colleagues As you all know Patrik Fältström has stepped down as co-chair of the Cooperation Working Group. As remaining co-chair I would like to nominate Niall O'Reilly as new co-chair of the WG. Niall will present himself on the list shortly. If any of you have any other person to nominate, just get back to me on the mailing list or bring it up on the agenda item on this issue on the WG session at 16.00 today. _________________________________ Best regards, Maria Häll CEO/Föreståndare SUNET - Swedish University Network Email: maria(a)sunet.se Mobile: +46 70 535 41 38 Web: www.sunet.se

2 1

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
by Wout de Natris 30 Oct '13

30 Oct '13

Dear all, Reading Gordon's comments, observations and the invitation to speak e.g. with Marietje Schaaken, I reiterate my comment made in Athens two weeks ago, that the RIPE community must seriously contemplate whether it can afford to go without an at minimum semi-permanent person aimed at following and lobbying the European Commission and Parliament. Why? Policies, whether national or at EU level, are years in the making. The earlier representatives from interested parties speak with the civil servants appointed to work on a policy, the greater the odds that messages come across and positions are understood. Once the wording is more or less set in stone, like when a text is presented to the European Parliament, the civil servants have done most of their work. Lobbying them is then too late and the rest indirect. The window of opportunity at the drafting stage is closed. Industry lobbies Brussels extensively and at times very successfully. In its own direct interest. The internet related organisations do not. If this is important, and the topics discussed in Athens suggested to me that it is, the conclusion is that an organisation like RIPE can not afford to ignore politics. Only being there from the start gives influence in the drafting and thinking process. Recent actions from e.g. I* show that positions and actions change, but perhaps not rigorously enough. Internet has become a very political topic. For the internet related organisations the consequence is that politics can no longer be ignored. Hence my advice: Be there from the start from now on and match the more selfish lobbying from corporations with and for the common good. Being there means knowing which fights to pick and the right moment to step in and knowing the right people; efficiency. The side effect is positive also. The right people get to know RIPE (NCC) and hence will show up at roundtables and meetings more to discuss and participate and learn. Best, Wout > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by > European Commission > To: "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > While Wouter waits for his clearance to post... > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Wouter van Hulten <wouter(a)vanhulten.com> > > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET > > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com>, "connect-bof(a)ripe.net" <connect-bof(a)ripe.net>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > > Thanks for this clear summary. > > > > I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to receive feedback from RIPE community: ?Please make comments?, and "the text is very complex, technical, political?. > > > > Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to discuss the Connected Continent proposal.? Tentative dates are 11 november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. > > > > Legislative package: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-packa… > > Impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-con… > > > > What?s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are able to join the meeting, please also send a message. > > That?s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I?m not mistaken. > > > > Wouter > > > > > > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > > Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > > Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > > For more information on the proposal consult EC website <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma…> > > > > > > > > On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. > >> > >> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. > >> > >> ------- > >> > >> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. > >> > >> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! > >> > >> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. > >> > >> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. > >> > >> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. > >> > >> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. > >> > >> So now we have a new proposed regulation. > >> > >> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. > >> > >> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: > >> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? > >> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? > >> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? > >> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services > >> ** ... and so on > >> > >> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: > >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm > >> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm > >> > >> But the "communication" is probably better: > >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-europe… > >> > >> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: > >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-… > >> > >> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. > >> > >> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: > >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… > >> > >> ------ > >> > >> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: > >> > >> Brussels, 11.9.2013 > >> COM(2013) 627 final > >> 2013/0309 (COD) > >> > >> Proposal for a > >> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL > >> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic > >> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives > >> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) > >> No 531/2012 > >> > >> <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications markets, each with a > >> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half > >> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of > >> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, > >> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This > >> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to > >> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast > >> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers > >> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, > >> and one spectrum policy.>> > >> > >> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on reasonable > >> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new > >> types of online services.>> > >> > >> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of > >> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with > >> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and > >> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the > >> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting > >> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider > >> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based > >> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in > >> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster > >> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A > >> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore > >> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply > >> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> > >> > >> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made > >> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP > >> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network > >> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the > >> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified > >> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. > >> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! > >> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. > >> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? > >> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. > >> > >> ----- > >> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: > >> > >> <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation > >> > >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. > >> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. > >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. > >> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> > >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> So suggestions. > >> > >> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. > >> > >> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. > >> > >> I think a discussion here would be much better. > >> > >> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: > >> > >> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. > >> > >> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. > >> > >> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. > >> > >> Enough for now? > >> > >> Gordon > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> connect-bof mailing list > >> connect-bof(a)ripe.net > >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof > >> > > > >

1 0

Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
by Erika.Hersaeus＠pts.se 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

Dear all, I would like to introduce myself regarding the nomination as co-chair of the Cooperation WG. For those of you who don´t know me, I´m Erika Hersaeus and I work at the Swedish NRA - The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS, since several years. I´m interested in enhancing the cooperation and dialogue between the EU Commission, governments, authorities, and the technical community! I would be taking on the role as a representative of my employer. PTS recognize the importance of taking part of the existing processes on Internet Governance, for instance the RIPE meetings and the PDP, and to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community. I´ve experience from e.g. regulation, cooperation and promoting Network and Information Security in Sweden. I´ve been attending RIPE meetings since 2008 in order to follow and take part in the development and discussions within the community´s area since PTS is the Swedish sector authority for electronic communications and we need to be updated on what´s going on. For instance I´ve been working with promoting the deployment of IPv6 and DNSSEC in public bodies in Sweden - also in enhanced cooperation. We also have experience from when there has been a lack of dialogue, which did not result in successful regulation, wherefore I´m an advocate of enhanced dialogue between governments and the technical community. I´ve also experience from arranging Swedish Cooperation fora since 2007. PTS is the host for RGIG, Reference Group on Internet Governance, where representatives from different ministries, authorities, the private sector and the Internet community, meet three times per year. We use an email list between the meetings in order to distribute information about accurate issues, for instance EU directives, ITU resolutions, information from RIPE, articles etc. I would be glad to make an effort in having more representatives from the regulation side, governments, NRA, etc. taking part of the RIPE Community and enhancing the dialogue! If you have any questions, please don´t hesitate to contact me. Regards, Erika

1 0

Candidates
by Gordon Lennox 29 Oct '13

29 Oct '13

If I understand well we now have four (possible) candidates for co-chair: Alain van Gaever Erika Hersaeus Meredith Whittaker Niall O'Reilly This is great! Four good people - yet with quite different backgrounds and skills. It really shows the interest if the WG. And there is a lot of important work to be done. Just waiting for Warsaw does not seem that sensible though. Not on a people level and not on a work level. Among other things we in the EU will be beginning the transition to a new Parliament and a new Commission around then. So what should be the plan? Best, Gordon

4 3

Re: [cooperation-wg] Candidates
by Malcolm Hutty 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

If we have two positions vacant,it strikes me we should strive to get the best of both worlds: someone with a background in government crossing over into the tech community, and someone with a background in the tech community crossing over into the world of policy. Malcolm.

2 1

Barroso on ICTs
by Gordon Lennox 27 Oct '13

27 Oct '13

http://ec.europa.eu/news/pdf/131024_en.pdf

1 0

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
by Wout de Natris 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

Jim´s suggestions make a lot of sense. +1 from me. Wout de Natris > From: cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:00:03 +0200 > > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG > (Alain Van Gaever) > 2. Candidates (Gordon Lennox) > 3. appointing a new co-chair (Jim Reid) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:16:39 +0100 > From: Alain Van Gaever <avangaev(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE > Cooperation WG > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Message-ID: > <CANeNdNK2bqDfSEU_YTRFJi5ueWgMv+FBy=8Vpij640jWs-V6Dg(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dear all, > > > During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the > RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European > Institutions and other governmental organisations. > > > Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I > could lend a hand. > > > I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on > the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO > office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more > background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: > uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ > > > Therefore ? if the RIPE community approves ? I would like to introduce my > candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. > > > With kind regards, > > > Alain Van Gaever >

1 0

Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
by Alain Van Gaever 25 Oct '13

25 Oct '13

Dear all, During the conference in Athens a couple of week ago, I noticed that the RIPE community could use some help in their relations with the European Institutions and other governmental organisations. Given my background in both technology and legislation/policy I thought I could lend a hand. I worked 8 years in the European Commission and worked (among others) on the current European Telecoms legislation. Currently I work in the CTO office of Ofcom - the U.K. national telecom regulator. If you want more background information on me, feel free to check out my LinkedIn profile: uk.linkedin.com/in/alainvangaever/ Therefore – if the RIPE community approves – I would like to introduce my candidature for co-chairing the RIPE Cooperation working group. With kind regards, Alain Van Gaever

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: How “National” is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure?
by Mirjam Kuehne 23 Oct '13

23 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, For those of you who missed Razvan C. Oprea's presentation during the MAT-WG at the recent RIPE Meeting in Athens, we put a summary report on RIPE Labs: How “National” is the Dutch Critical IP Infrastructure? https://labs.ripe.net/Members/benno_overeinder/dutch-critical-ip-infrastruc… This is a contribution by Benno Overeinder, Fahimeh Alizadeh and Razvan C. Oprea. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Neelie Kroes calls for a serious global debate on Internet Governance
by Gordon Lennox 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Worth an attentive listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzB8gyq43k

1 0

European Parliament
by Gordon Lennox 21 Oct '13

21 Oct '13

The European Internet Foundation includes a group of MEPs who have a clear interest in Internet matters. https://www.eifonline.org/members.html There are others of course! Gordon

6 5

Cooperation WG co-shair self nomination
by Meredith Whittaker 17 Oct '13

17 Oct '13

Hello all, I'm interested in working with you to continue to the growth and development of an empirical, technically-founded, data-based voice in policy and governance. I would be taking on this role in my personal capacity, not as a representative of my employer. Bio/soapbox: I'm a Program Manager at Google Research, focusing on Open Source and Open Data (net: how do we provide verifiable data in place of rhetoric and assurances of trustworthiness?). I know many of you (hello!), and those I know have likely heard me monologue about the need for the technical community's input in policymaking. This is my wheelhouse -- in the quest not to totally mess up the Internet, I can think of few things more important. Both because naive political mandates could seriously harm the utility and viability of the most revolutionary engine for human communication since Gutenberg, and because (listen up) these same careless mandates almost certainly take no account of the way networks *actually work,* hampering Operators (your) agency to make sensible decisions and innovations. All that to say, I'd be honored and happy to work with the formidable intellects at RIPE to help develop this technical voice. With some deference to brevity, I'll leave it there. Please ask me any questions. Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

1 0

Draft RIPE NCC submission on EU NIS Directive
by Chris Buckridge 16 Oct '13

16 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, As noted in the recent RIPE Labs article on European Union (EU) engagement, the RIPE NCC has been working with representatives of the RIPE community to address the European Commission's proposed EU Directive on network and information security (NIS). This proposed Directive is currently under consideration by the European Parliament and is available online at: http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_directive_en.pdf The aim of this Directive is "to ensure a high common level of network and information security (NIS) across the EU", specifically through the establishment of national Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), improved information sharing between national authorities and required reporting on risk levels and security incidents by providers of "information society services". RIPE community members and RIPE NCC staff have identified several areas of concern with the current draft of the Directive, and these concerns form the basis of the draft response below. We would like to invite feedback from this working group on whether there is support for the position(s) taken in the statement, whether there is support for the RIPE NCC engaging Members of the European Parliament on this issue, and any other thoughts. There will also be a discussion of this issue in the RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session, which takes place on Thursday, 17 October, 16:00-17:30 local time (UTC+3). You can follow and contribute to this session either on-site in Athens or remotely at: https://ripe67.ripe.net/live/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC -------------------------- The RIPE NCC welcomes the European Commission's efforts in the area of network and information security (NIS), premised on the need for closer international cooperation to meet the global nature of network security issues. We also welcome the Directive's acknowledgement of the need for all stakeholder groups to participate in developing solutions to NIS challenges. Drawing on discussions with members of the RIPE community and internally, the RIPE NCC would like to raise a general concern with the current draft. While the proposed Directive recognises the importance of "informal cooperation mechanisms", we believe that there is an important and formal role for multi-stakeholder mechanisms and processes in refining the implementation details of the Directive. Recognition of such a role would be particularly useful in relation to the following specific aspects of the Directive: 1. Scope The RIPE NCC believes that there is a need to clarify the scope of the Directive, particularly with regard to the following terms: - "information society services which enable the provision of other information society services" - "significant impact" (in relation to security incidents) In line with the purpose and the legal basis of the Directive (i.e. ensuring the functioning of the Internal Market according to Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), we believe that the Directive should be clearly limited to organisations or security incidents that directly impact the Internal Market. Clear criteria should be developed via transparent, multi-stakeholder processes to identify those incidents or organisations covered by the Directive. 2. Establishment of security requirements The Directive aims to establish security requirements for market operators and public administrations, and to this end it empowers the Commission to: - Draw up a list of standards by means of implementing acts [1] - Adopt delegated acts concerning the definition of circumstances in which public administrations and market operators are required to notify incidents The Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union notes the role of multi-stakeholder, bottom-up procedures in developing and maintaining security standards. We believe it would be appropriate that the specification of such standards and definitions in the context of this Directive should also be the outcome of such formal, multi-stakeholder processes. This would help to ensure the inclusion of input from all relevant stakeholders and the flexibility and responsiveness that is required in an online environment. [1] Definitions of "implementing acts" and "delegated acts": http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/lisbo…

1 0

RIPE NCC Engagement with the EU
by Chris Buckridge 02 Oct '13

02 Oct '13

Dear colleagues, We have published a new article on RIPE Labs, outlining the RIPE NCC's general strategy for engaging with the institutions of the European Union. It also looks specifically at recent legislative proposals regarding electronic identification (eID) and network and information security (NIS): https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/engaging-with-eu-legislative-process As ever, we welcome all feedback and discussion, either on the Cooperation Working Group mailing list, or on the RIPE Labs page. We also look forward to further discussion of these issues at the upcoming RIPE 67 Cooperation Working Group session. Best regards, Chris Buckridge External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC

7 6