Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16
To those interested in the next steps of the Bildt report, I am will be attending a meeting organized by EU MEP Marietje Schaake next week. see: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2016/06/european-launch-of-our-internet-the-fi... Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest. On Gordon's comments on the net of rights movie. I appreciate your thoughts and kind words, but I have to disagree with your assertion that it demonizes the Internet. I think the documentary does not demonize or blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its technical infrastructure. Best On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request@ripe.net> wrote:
Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to cooperation-wg@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@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at cooperation-wg-owner@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) (Jim Reid) 2. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) 3. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) (Gordon Lennox) 4. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius) 5. Copenhagen - The Movie! (Gordon Lennox) 6. Re: Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? (Alessandro Vesely)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:28:27 +0100 From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) Message-ID: <F41783E4-5A03-4150-884C-DA44CC11EF69@rfc1035.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This is an interesting document. I?ve only skimmed through and not yet read it in detail.
Does anyone know what happens now? Will it be up for discussion/consultation at some governance forum like WSIS or ICANN? How can people and organisations comment on the report? The motherhood and apple pie statements on page viii ("What Happens Next??) are rather vague about next steps.
In particular, what does
?... conceive of a new model that embraces greater involvement of those whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the network and to exercise their fundamental rights online. This new vision of ?multi-stakeholderism? requires a more collaborative, global and decentralized model of decision making; enhanced coordination and cooperation across institutions and actors; increased interoperability in terms of identifying and describing issues and approaches for resolution throughout the ecosystem; open information sharing and evidence- based decision making; and expertise- or issue-based organization to allow for both localization and scale in problem solving. ... To continue to be effective, Internet governance will need to be more inclusive and more distributed.?
actually mean in practice and where is this new vision/model to be developed?
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:29:59 +0200 From: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) Message-ID: <576AD927.8080404@julf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote:
Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many of the internet organizations is slowly killing them.
I think that is your personal interpretation of what the document actually says.
Julf
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:00:23 +0200 From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) Message-ID: <A0430C4C-B038-4B6B-A091-274C4706D187@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
That was Kieren and not me. ;-)
I pointed to the article by Kieren which in turn points to the report.
In order to encourage people to at least go and read what Kieren said I supplied a couple of tasty ?nibbles? from his article.
I had hoped that some people would then go on, as Jim has done, and look at the actual report.
:-)
Gordon
On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote:
Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many of the internet organizations is slowly killing them.
I think that is your personal interpretation of what the document actually says.
Julf
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:04:35 +0200 From: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) Message-ID: <576AE143.1090706@julf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
That was Kieren and not me. ;-)
Ah, my apologies - I have been reading the original report, but not Kieren's article, so I didn't realize you were quoting him.
Julf
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:54:13 +0200 From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Copenhagen - The Movie! Message-ID: <76D5EDAA-7FD3-47E3-A03F-09ED358465D6@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
For people who were ?not there? - either not in Copenhagen or just in another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource.
And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business, stuff perhaps of general interest.
So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme.
But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware and that is the ?Net of Rights? video from the screening organised by Corinne.
https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/
Personal takeaways.
The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence.
There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard contradiction there. We are not talking about ?evil regimes? elsewhere. We are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance. ?Snoopers' charter" anyone?
I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet?. That sends the wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the problem. I also don?t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else. Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get it right? with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK.
There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the Internet technical communities, the ?techies? of the IETF and RIPE, were politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was friendly.
A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation from Chris for other possible directions.
Gordon
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:20:03 +0200 From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity offerings? Message-ID: <576BA9C3.4070004@tana.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Thanks for all replies. I note none of them came from Italy or Spain...
On Wed 22/Jun/2016 16:11:00 +0200 Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote:
Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is
something that
is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set up a mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or buy a postbox company in the Seychelles?
There have been several privacy-safeguarding improvements in residential connections. I welcome them.
Requiring a VAT number is different, though. Every Italian citizen has a fiscal code, which is as good as a VAT number for identification purposes. Yet, after years, one of my connection providers still invoices me using my expired VAT number. Could that be rooted in 11-digit VAT numbers vs 16-byte alphanumeric fiscal codes? Hmm... not in this millennium, I'd say.
I'd rule out specific laws, because the other connection provider I have did switch to fiscal code invoicing upon request to do so. However, I doubt they would have offered me that contract if I hadn't have a VAT number at the time.
A third provider, who promised me everything over the phone last month, retracted all /after having laid new fiber cables to my office/, saying they cannot do their "microbusiness" contract without VAT number. They invoiced me zero euro for missing the deal.
Others just quit the conversation as they hear about no VAT number. Note that residential lines, which I use too, are somewhat cheaper for "physical persons" than for businesses.
The only high level manager I spoke with dismissed the argument as obvious, saying "Every provider does so". "You mean in Italy?!" I objected. He said yes.
The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other than that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that companies try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone number on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have gotten an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in the USA...
Postmaster.live.com used to check enlisting requests by (also) writing to WHOIS contacts. Many methods can enforce one another. And yes, it is something of a pita to switch provider on a mail server.
The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same thing as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should give out a copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds the same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security when people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it without questioning the legality of it.
Agreed. BTW, bank payments, along with email addresses, make for trusted IDs. Erogo ergo sum. I don't think FB wants to gain the same level of accountability as, say, PayPal, as an informal ID certifier.
Ale
End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 **********************************************
-- Corinne J.N. Cath
Corinne,
I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest.
Yes, please - I think many of us are very interested!
I think the documentary does not demonize or blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its technical infrastructure.
Yes, they are good questions - but as we know all too well, the problem is not just techies not understanding the political issues, but also politicians not understanding the technology. And that is were we have a great opportunity (and responsibility) to inform and educate people. Julf
Hi all, Corinne: Yes, please do post a summary. I am interested in knowing what was said. Johan: Your points definitely do not fall on deaf ears. You are right! I think important for more to be done in terms of capacity building at the governmental level. Of course, this incites a point of frustration for some in the technical community in that it seems government reps don't always (or sometimes) listen. The good question to brainstorm is what can we as a community do to help politicians and others in government better understand the technology or at the very least, take part in the discussions and listen to the community's point of view? Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia Independent #netgov consultant & editor IGMENA <http://igmena.org/> communications manager 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Corinne,
I can post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest.
Yes, please - I think many of us are very interested!
I think the documentary does not demonize or blame the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its technical infrastructure.
Yes, they are good questions - but as we know all too well, the problem is not just techies not understanding the political issues, but also politicians not understanding the technology. And that is were we have a great opportunity (and responsibility) to inform and educate people.
Julf
Michael,
Of course, this incites a point of frustration for some in the technical community in that it seems government reps don't always (or sometimes) listen.
And sometimes they listen very selectively... :)
The good question to brainstorm is what can we as a community do to help politicians and others in government better understand the technology or at the very least, take part in the discussions and listen to the community's point of view?
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom. Julf
Johan,
And sometimes they listen very selectively... :)
Indeed ;)
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom.
That's a good point. And I recognize it's difficult to talk about either politics or mobilization in a constructive way when there is no single or set position, one way or another. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Michael,
Of course, this incites a point of frustration for some in the technical community in that it seems government reps don't always (or sometimes) listen.
And sometimes they listen very selectively... :)
The good question to brainstorm is what can we as a community do to help politicians and others in government better understand the technology or at the very least, take part in the discussions and listen to the community's point of view?
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom.
Julf
I agree. One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and you get a response. But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong disagreement about values. I would add though that often it is not even just about “governments”. Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And it is not always the “good guys” who have clue. Gordon
On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom.
I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen to listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work with diplomats and a lot of training with government. In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of politics and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, etc. -- are still people. Just people. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree.
One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and you get a response.
But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong disagreement about values.
I would add though that often it is not even just about “governments”. Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And it is not always the “good guys” who have clue.
Gordon
On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom.
We should go on and make them aware from what we learned: For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content – we have the process. ☺ For you interest our bp from the last 6 months: New role of public administration and governments The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 solutions, worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running and we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. About this communication way and the role of public administration in the community I told you last year. But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well. The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. In hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but we have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a problem because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups. So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels . . To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to figure out a new “Thinking” and new “Cooperation Forms”. Regards Constanze Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Michael Oghia Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 An: Gordon Lennox Cc: Cooperation WG Betreff: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 I completely agree with you Gordon, good points. My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen to listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work with diplomats and a lot of training with government. In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of politics and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, etc. -- are still people. Just people. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com<mailto:gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree. One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and you get a response. But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong disagreement about values. I would add though that often it is not even just about “governments”. Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And it is not always the “good guys” who have clue. Gordon
On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom.
Thank you for sharing this Constanze! Indeed, the more we work together, the more we will accomplish things. I am sure of that. Collaboration is how we built the Internet, and and I firmly believe collaboration and openness is how we will continue to ensure it evolves in a way that is advantageous and beneficial to humanity. -Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM, <Constanze.Buerger@bmi.bund.de> wrote:
We should go on and make them aware from what we learned:
For all politicians there is the aim to bring in content – we have the process. J
For you interest our bp from the last 6 months:
New role of public administration and governments
The world of Internet is growing. In this global Internet world not only ISPs are the legitimate users and stakeholders but also citizens at home with upcoming smart home solutions, companies with industry 4.0 solutions, worldwide located enterprises or governments and public administrations. The deployment of IPv6 is the main issue to keep the internet running and we have to ensure requirements of all new stakeholders into account. About this communication way and the role of public administration in the community I told you last year.
But now we furthermore see a change in hierarchic organizations as well.
The work of multistakeholder groups is based on maillinglists. These are driven by events , have topics for specialists and need fast decisions. In hierarchical organizations we can join these lists on working level, but we have to use the decissionmaking process to continue. And this is a problem because this structure is to slow to work with multistakeholder groups.
So we need more longterm strategies on high levels and concrete concepts and the mandate to bring in decissions on working levels .
. To reflect more security, technical, organizational, economic, social and political constraints and to ensure the internet rules, we have to figure out a new “Thinking” and new “Cooperation Forms”.
Regards
Constanze
*Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Im Auftrag von *Michael Oghia *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 23. Juni 2016 16:12 *An:* Gordon Lennox *Cc:* Cooperation WG *Betreff:* [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16
I completely agree with you Gordon, good points.
My strategy that I've really learned from others is to positively impact decisions through relationship building. I find it an effective one, and once a decision maker understands that the community's intentions are positive (or at least non-threatening), then perhaps they are more keen to listen. With that said, DiploFoundation, for instance, does a lot of work with diplomats and a lot of training with government.
In the end I think it's important to remember that, regardless of politics and power, the people making decisions -- the politicians, bureaucrats, etc. -- are still people. Just people.
-Michael
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree.
One of the nice things about this community is that you ask a question and you get a response.
But when it comes to governments, both politicians and officials, it is not always about a lack of understanding. It can be about a very strong disagreement about values.
I would add though that often it is not even just about “governments”. Even in a government from a particular culture and of a certain flavour there can be very strong internal / inter-departmental disagreements. And it is not always the “good guys” who have clue.
Gordon
On 23 Jun 2016, at 15:37, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
The tricky ones are the ones where the views of the community and the views of (some) governments are in conflict, and activism, rather than education, is what is needed. In that case we need to be very clear about who represents whom.
On 23 Jun 2016, at 12:07, Corinne Cath wrote:
Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors.
A number of us wrote various pieces of the report, or the background reports that is the foundation of the main report. And you will see presentations on the various pieces here and there the next year I guess. No.33 on fragmentation due to interest of market economy forces <http://ourinternet.org/research/market-driven-challenges-open-internet-standards> I presented Tuesday this week in Slovenia at their Go6/SovenianNOG meeting, and you can find the video recording here: <https://video.arnes.si/portal/asset.zul?id=d1KGQcgHUhRaGXngplfQhYKn> Patrik
participants (6)
-
Constanze.Buerger＠bmi.bund.de -
Corinne Cath -
Gordon Lennox -
Johan Helsingius -
Michael Oghia -
Patrik Fältström