November 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

Proposed Workplan Coop-WG
by Maria Häll 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

Dear Coop-WG colleagues It's great to see the active discussions and debates on mailing list! :-) Facilitating this kind of open and inclusive dialogue between different stakeholders, both on mailing list and at the Coop-WG meetings etc, is one of the key roles of our WG! Without changing this approach for Coop-WG we think it could be fruitful to agree on a work plan and also have have a list of topics we can focus on. See the proposed work plan below. Please get back to us with comments and feedback! Have a nice weekend! Best, Alain, Meredith and Maria co-chairs Coop-WG Proposed Workplan for the Cooperation Working Group (Coop-WG) The description of the Coop-WG can be found here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/coop In line with this description and mission of the Coop-WG we suggest the following process forward. The co-chairs discussed, and agreed that the mission of the Coop-WG could be briefly summarized as follows. We believe that this short-form mission is useful in focusing our work to achieve the greatest impact. Mission: To improve decision-making and mutual understanding by providing technical expertise to policy makers and the non-technical public. To inform the RIPE community on relevant public policy-related developments and governance processes. Topics for engagement, and modes of engagement To make the best use of limited time and resources, we suggest focusing on a select number of technical topics that are currently important within a number of policy debates. Note that this suggestion is not meant as a limitation: the focus topics will shift, and change, and any RIPE community member eager to engage another topic is invited to do so. The Coop-WG mailing list will will, of course, remain open and welcoming of lively debate. As a starting point, we have provided a list of topics that we recognize to be important and within the scope of RIPE community expertise. We would like your feedback. Some of the topics are already discussed in other working groups, but we believe it useful to have these discussions brought to the Coop-WG as well. We ask you to consider the following questions while reviewing the proposed topic list: 1. What are your thoughts on the proposed topics? 2. Where are you seeing these (or other proposed topics) discussed? 3. Per topic, what are your ideas on specific modes of engagement to have maximum impact? Suggested topics: 1. IP Interconnection (soon to have an established RIPE WG) This topic is of increasing political interest and therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with the proposed Interconnection-WG. Defining and explaining its technical functioning and underlying business logic. a. What is sending/calling party pays? What is the difference and how do they relate to current standards and practices? b. What are IXPs and why are they important for the functioning of the Internet? c. What is an ideal peering ecosystem, and why? What are the ways this can go wrong? 2. Security and Privacy of Networks (is this discussed in some other WG?) This topic is of an increasing political interest therefore we think that these steps might be useful, in cooperation with other relevant WG:s. a. How and why does infrastructure and network policy impact security and privacy? b. What would a secure network look like? What are the gaps between a secure network and what we have now? c. How can security and privacy be enhanced in the short-term (practical steps)? What are the long term efforts underway to enhance security and privacy? 3. Characteristics of the global Internet a. How does routing, addressing, etc. work? b. What are the dangers of attempting to create bounded (in many cases national) “Internets”? 4. Interrelationships of physical infrastructure a. What are the different physical-layer technologies that make up “the Internet” as we know it? For example, what is the difference between fiber, coax, et al.? What is the impact of e.g. deploying fiber if last mile networks still have only copper, or cable (etc.)? 5. IPv6 (already discussed in the IPv6 WG) a. Why does it really matter that it gets deployed? What are the technical issues related to IPv6? What impact does it make on e-government and e-society development? b. What is the risk of deploying CGNs 6. Roles and responsibilities for intermediaries Proposed guidelines for engagement to best fulfil this mission: Concrete steps the Coop-WG can engage in to move forward: ● Assemble technical experts on a variety of important topics, upon request. These would be volunteers from the community, and they would be asked to engage with governments, regulatory bodies, policy-making bodies, international organisations, NGOs and others that request or could benefit from a better understanding of the technical details of a given topic. The Coop-WG would provide a bridge between these experts and those who can benefit from their counsel. Coop-WG should also offer expertise in the policy-making field to other WGs in RIPE as well as the RIPE NCC. ● Explain technology, but avoid taking positions on specific policies/regulation (or other politicized topics). The Coop-WG is not a lobbying organization. The focus should be on illuminating how the technology works and highlight discussions and fact-based concerns raised in the Coop-WG. This approach allows the Coop-WG to engage a large community hailing from separate sectors, some of whom disagree with each other. It also allows the Coop-WG to remain credible, and provide clear factual information to those who can use it to improve the content of policy and regulation. ● Develop an understanding of areas where RIPE’s expertise can add value. ○ What are the policy areas that governments, policy makers, and others doing advocacy work are currently working on, and on which of those areas could we assist to improve their technical understanding? With the RIPE community, we should continually work to gather questions and topics of interest to which we can contribute. ○ Work with the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community to understand the policy areas relevant to the RIPE community. The Coop-WG can be a useful forum for the RIPE community to share information on trends and developments in government policy – especially those that affect the operational community. ○ The Coop-WG can support RIPE NCC to prepare position statements or papers for public consultations and general white papers that increase knowledge on technologies/operational procedures relevant to the RIPE community.

5 4

London
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

5 4

Internet governance
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

A sort of conversation seem to be starting and I am not sure where it will take us. It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council. You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: "What is the situation we have decided to change: The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, will present an EU vision for Internet governance as part of the overall internet strategy. The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables. The complexity of the current multi stakeholder approach to Internet Governance has to be further developed in a comprehensible manner so as to ensure inclusiveness of all actors. The establishment of GIPO will contribute to this. ..." http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/connect/en/content/international-internet-governanc… So they want to reform the multi-stakeholder set-up? And by the way I am intrigued by the mention of "enhanced coordination". That always had a special EU meaning and that was not what people, perhaps naively, thought. Meanwhile ICANN is also busy. Steve Crocker writes: "As anyone who has followed the global discourse on Internet governance knows, the multistakeholder model is under threat. Some governments have expressed a clear interest in putting multilateral organizations in charge of Internet policymaking. As the Internet has taken on a larger role in the economy and society, some governments have grown increasingly uncomfortable with their perceived lack of control. More recently, ICANN has received requests to expand its remit to address issues beyond the coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers. This we will not do. The ICANN Board recognizes that the single, open, global, interoperable Internet is under threat of failing due to emerging pressures on multistakeholder governance. As a consequence, the Board gave the ICANN CEO a mandate to work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition to evaluate and participate in the formation a movement or initiative for an Internet cooperation agenda. We are pleased with his initial engagement with the Internet organizations and the broader multistakeholder community. ..." http://blog.icann.org/2013/11/icanns-mandate-to-preserve-and-enhance-multis… Watch this space? Gordon

7 22

Re: [cooperation-wg] London
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 24 Nov '13

24 Nov '13

Gordon London for what exactly? regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:13 To: connect-bof(a)ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] London Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

3 2

Re: [cooperation-wg] London
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 24 Nov '13

24 Nov '13

Gordon ICANN has been held in far more restrictive environments without any filters or traffic shaping .. (and it's on in London next year) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:35 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: connect-bof(a)ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] London Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Co-chairs Cooperation Working Group
by Maria Häll 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

Dear Coop WG colleagues We are happy to announce that the RIPE Cooperation Working Group, in line with earlier co-chair's proposal (almost) three weeks ago, have the following co-chairs: Meredith Whittaker, Google Alan van Gaever, Ofcom Maria Häll, SUNET Thanks a lot, Coop WG members, for your support! We have had our first teleconf meeting this afternoon. Early upcoming week we will send a proposal to Coop WG mailing list on topics to focus on and how to do that etc. We are very much looking forward to work together in the Coop WG, with RIPE NCC and the rest of the RIPE Community. Best, Meredith, Alain and Maria co-chairs Cooperation Working Group

1 0

Swedish Parliament decision on one unified market for telecom
by Patrik Fältström 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

The Swedish Parliament Thursday last week decided that they do believe the suggested regulation do go too far related to the subsidiary principle and will send a letter to Brussels regarding the matter. In Swedish: <http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/A…> Longer background, also in Swedish: <http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Utskottens-dokument/Betankanden/2…> Patrik

1 1

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