June 2016 - cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11
by Corinne Cath 20 Jun '16

20 Jun '16

Dear Gordon and others, As a 'lurker' on the list and a pretty regular RIPE participant, I can only state that I think this mailinglist is very important. And yes, that it is a wanted, and necessary, contribution to the larger conversations going on at RIPE. That being said, I can imagine your frustration about the lack of conversation, Gordon. But that seems in part because there are not sufficient working group co-chairs to move the ball forward in terms of ensuring a steady flow of mailinglist conversations and contributions. This is not to say that Meredith is not doing an excellent job. She is. But she is also doing it alone. And if we want the list to become more active we need to ensure that there are enough people to facilitate that. I also noticed during the latest RIPE meeting that there was a lot of pressure to select co-chairs, yet when the conversation was started a lot of (negative) energy was focused on our current chair's choice of words with regards to the procedures for doing so. I think highlighting this is important for several reasons: it shows that the group is very focused on process, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but when such a process-heavy approach actually undermines the process of selectinging the co-chairs, in my mind there is a (process) problem. We could have easily spent that time we nit-picked Meredith choice of words, nit-picking the candidates merits. Related to this, as a relative newbie on this list, the rather hostile manner in which the conversation at RIPE in Copenhagen took place was off-putting. And now before my inbox gets filled up with people complaining about 'generation-Y's inability to deal with the real world' or 'in your face feedback', let me make three things clear: 1. I am Dutch, we pretty much invented the in-your-face-style of conversation. 2. I am on IETF mailinglist, where they pretty much invented 1. but then for mailinglists 3. Just because our communities pride themselves on their 'saying-it-like-it-is' culture does not make it efficient (or right) It should not come as a surprise that lurkers on the list stay silent sometimes when they notice that the on going conversations are tense, a little in-crowdy, and that their questions or points are most likely dismissed with a 'go read the archives'. I am not saying that this is the case for this mailinglist or WG, but I think it might be something to consider. I hope that in the upcoming weeks we can make a definitive decision about the new co-chairs. Don't worry, I won't suggest an election (or that I don't want to be in the way of your coffee break) because we all know that apparently offering such suggestions can get some people pretty agitated, but rather that we move this process forward so we can get back to discussing the content, with support of the new co-chair(s). Best, Corinne On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-request(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. The Working Group (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: The Working Group (Johan Helsingius) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:19:16 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <0EA874BD-F5E3-426F-B293-AE3795B7CD34(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a > reply I feel I should ask one more. > > Do people actually want this Working Group? > > I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But > traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG > cannot just be about private conversations. > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of > conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be > interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I > have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many > ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make > even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for > co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they > see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what > chairs and co-chairs think. > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right > now. But what to others think? > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:24:41 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <julf(a)julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <576664D9.9070004(a)julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the > > lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that > > while people may be interested they are not actually > > interested enough to say anything. > > As I haven't been on this list too long, I didn't want to > start spamming the list with postings about stuff going > on that I think we should be aware of (and possibly address), > and instead have been lurking to get a "feel" for the > spirit of the list - but I agree with you, it seems rather > thin on the ground with regards to relevant discussion. > > Julf > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: LPWA: Things in Search of a Network
by Mirjam Kuehne 20 Jun '16

20 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, Last week Marco Hogewoning had the opportunity to visit the LPWA IoT Networks Event in Amsterdam, a two-day conference dedicated to the use of low power wide area (LPWA) wireless networks that lie behind many Internet of Things (IoT) solutions that are entering the market. Please find his report on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_hogewoning/lpwa-things-in-search-of-a-n… Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization
by Nurani Nimpuno 11 Jun '16

11 Jun '16

Fyi. Nurani Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani <izumi(a)nic.ad.jp> > Date: 11 June 2016 at 04:59:34 GMT+2 > To: "ianaxfer(a)nro.net" <ianaxfer(a)nro.net> > Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization > > As you may have seen already through various channels, the NTIA has published Assessment Report on the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal. > > NTIA Finds IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Meets Criteria to Complete Privatization > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-pro… > > It has thoroughly reviewed each component of the proposal including the Number Resources component and expresses that it meets the criteria for the transition announced by the NTIA in March 2014. > This is a big step forward, with still work to do for implementation. > > You can see the latest Transition Planning Timeline and Implementation Planning at : https://www.icann.org/uploads/iana_work_session_asset/attachment/321/TPFM_0… > > > Nurani & Izumi > > _______________________________________________ > ianaxfer mailing list > ianaxfer(a)nro.net > https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer

1 0

NTIA Issues IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal Report
by Axel Pawlik 10 Jun '16

10 Jun '16

Dear colleagues, The transition of stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multistakeholder community has reached a significant milestone. On 9 June 2016, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued its assessment report on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal. The proposal was submitted to the NTIA in March 2016 following the ICANN 55 Meeting. From its first announcement, the NTIA has set down a number of requirements that any proposal for transition would need to meet. The proposal must: 1. Support and enhance the multistakeholder model; 2. Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet DNS; 3. Meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and 4. Maintain the openness of the Internet. The NTIA further stipulated that it "would not accept a proposal that replaces its role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution." After thorough review the NTIA reports that it finds that "the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal meets the criteria necessary to complete the long-promised privatization of the IANA functions." The NTIA also looked at the recommendations developed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, and found that "the accountability recommendations are consistent with sound principles of good governance that reflect the unique and important mission of ICANN within the Internet ecosystem.” The NTIA is now engaging with members of the United States Congress, and has asked ICANN to provide an implementation planning status report to gauge whether this work is likely to be completed prior to the expiration of the IANA functions contract on 30 September 2016. A fact sheet and link to the full report is available at: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/fact-sheet-ntias-assessment… Further information on the IANA stewardship transition is available at: https://www.ripe.net/iana-stewardship-transition Best regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

Best effort, specialised services, network neutrality and more
by Gordon Lennox 09 Jun '16

09 Jun '16

I seem to remember some people thinking that the “network neutrality” debate in the EU was over when the Regulation was adopted last year. But this is what Commissioner Oettinger said in April in Brussels at the NetFutures event: << The challenge is that communication networks themselves have to evolve and to adapt to the new digital economy. They need to move from "one size fits all" and "best effort", towards networks that can adapt to the versatile requirements of many industries, and that can deliver guaranteed and ubiquitous quality of service. This is precisely what 5G is aimed to achieve: Changing communication networks into innovation platforms rather than mere voice and data pipes. >> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/oettinger/announcements/keynote-s… Now we have a fairly short public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines. << Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 included new Net Neutrality rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of Internet Access Service. It specified that BEREC lay down guidelines on the implementation by NRAs of their obligations to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules. The Guidelines aim to contribute to the consistent application of the Regulation, thereby contributing to regulatory certainty for stakeholders. >> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_co… For comments from TheRegister see: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equa… <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/08/net_neutrality_requirement_for_equa…> And elsewhere: https://savetheinternet.eu https://edri.org/make-break-summer-eu-net-neutrality-first-stop-vienna/ http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/eu-net-neutrality-draft-guidel… https://netzpolitik.org/2016/leak-eus-forthcoming-net-neutrality-rules-here… http://motherboard.vice.com/read/europe-is-about-to-make-some-big-decisions… Enjoy, Gordon

2 1

Co-chair attributes
by Gordon Lennox 06 Jun '16

06 Jun '16

Now that I think we have clearly moved into the discussion stage - it will be interesting to see how that goes - I have looked back at what has been said on criteria and how we get to consensus. I don’t think the process can or should be micro-managed by the group. I think we can trust Meredith to assume her responsibilities. With that in mind I think the three criteria mentioned by Meredith - candidates should be willing (and not coerced!), able to attend (ideally for the full RIPE meeting), available - are “necessary but not sufficient”. To those of course we should add the generic requirements coming from the “job description" on the RIPE web-site. I hope everybody has read those! I suppose it should almost go without saying that folk should understand what RIPE is and what NCC is and how they each fit into the wider ecosystem. And of course that the co-chairs as a team should also be able to put together a meeting! But all that is probably the same for any WG. So looking through the comprehensive list of criteria from Jim I find myself in agreement with many of them, but not all. I would like to see people from the local community: people who understand how governments work in this region and who understand what the concerns of individuals and organisations in this region are. I would like at least some of the co-chairs to be explicitly sensitive to the tensions between governments and the Internet. Governments and regulators are not always benign! Where I diverge a little from Jim, and the topic has come up recently on this list, is when it comes to outreach and to what extent co-chairs are supposed to represent the WG and indeed RIPE elsewhere. This area is a bit different from others and maybe particularly when it comes to outreach where NCC has been very much involved. NCC, among other things, organises regular roundtables with government folk. I am aware that NCC as such has participated in other meetings such as those of CEPT. I also remember the support NCC gave when it was felt a letter should be written to Brussels. It was not easy. But we were able to do it. Then there was a meeting in the European Parliament on “network neutrality” which proved slightly problematic. Who were the participants representing exactly? To be clear: I am very happy with what NCC has done in this area. I could only wish they mentioned their good work more often on this list! Where I am less comfortable is about outreach being part of the job description of WG Co-chairs. I also wonder to what extent participants in the WG can also take on this kind of task. I think this needs to be discussed further. In Madrid when we have our full complement of co-chairs? As far as consensus is concerned there was a question elsewhere about that. I do not anticipate any problem. If all those who have been following the discussions here on the list just nod at their screens when Meredith announces what she sees as consensus then she will have got it right. Regards, Gordon

3 2

QoS, QoE and Enhanced Services
by Gordon Lennox 05 Jun '16

05 Jun '16

We have EuroDIG this week and of course there will be discussions about "network neutrality” This paper - Adding Enhanced Services to the Internet: Lessons from History - by kc claffy and David Clark is very much worth a read by anyone seriously interested in the topic. https://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2015/adding_enhanced_services_int… Regards, Gordon

1 0

Co-chair attributes: some suggestions
by Jim Reid 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

A consensus seems to be emerging about who should join Meredith as co-chairs. I don’t want to derail that. In parallel to those deliberations, I think it would be helpful to suggest a list of essential or highly desirable qualities that a co-chair of this WG should have. The list below is a first attempt at that. Feel free to suggest others or disagree with these suggestions. It’s improbable that any one individual could hope to tick all of these boxes. That should be possible however when these qualities are spread across 2 or 3 people. The trick is finding the right balance of skills and experience. And I suppose deciding how to prioritise whatever set of requirements emerges: eg “foo is mandatory, bar is nice to have, foobar is highly desirable”. Meredith’s initial three criteria are no-brainers. But they do set the bar rather low. IMO the WG leadership needs to have more than those baseline qualities of being willing, able to attend and available. Here goes (in no particular order): 1) Roots in the RIPE Community 2) A good understanding of how things are done at RIPE (policy-making, consensus driven decision making, openness, lowest possible barriers to entry, inclusiveness, etc) 3) A good understanding of the NCC and its role in supporting RIPE and its WGs 4) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential roles other Internet institutions (ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IGF, trade associations etc) along with an understanding how these institutions intersect with the RIPE community and how/when to best work with them 5) Useful contacts with those in leadership and/or influential positions in government/regulatory circles 6) An appreciation of current legislation and regulation which affects the RIPE community 7) An understanding of future trends in 6) - like new EU Directives, stuff that might pop up from ITU, WCIT, etc and who is driving that 8) Able to engage with legislators and regulators about relevant technology/standards developments like IoT, 5G, IPv6 migration and the IPv4 run-out, crypto, RPKI, next generation broadband (whatever that might be) and so on 9) (Mostly) based in the RIPE service region 10) Ability to engage with government/regulatory policy-makers as well as those in other Internet institutions and represent the RIPE community in those fora

1 0

Press releases from European Commission, Brussels, 25 May 2016
by Gordon Lennox 02 Jun '16

02 Jun '16

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

11 22

Details about the nature of my self-nomination as wg co-chair
by Analia Aspis 01 Jun '16

01 Jun '16

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=shari… ..... Kind regards, Analía Aspis

2 2