Dear Richard, Thank you for your post. Before getting to the substance of your note, I’d like to draw attention to one small, but significant point - this is a response from the RIPE NCC, not from RIPE (the community). It’s an important point because, while the RIPE NCC’s position is always informed by the RIPE community’s positions and discussions, the submission itself was not developed through a community process (such as might be facilitated through this working group) and should not be considered as representing or on behalf of RIPE. (Of course, if there was community interest in developing input via such a process, the RIPE NCC would be happy to help facilitate that!) On the substance, the straightforward answer is that, while aware of these issues, the RIPE NCC has not engaged closely with the discussions surrounding digital governance in the World Trade Organization. While there are obviously limitations on our organisational resources, we’re happy to hear from the community about venues and spaces where we could usefully promote or defend the model and principles that we’ve described in our response to the UN HLPDC. In the meantime, thank you for the links you’ve shared, and I’d encourage you (and anyone else with an interest) to elaborate on the pertinent issues here for the RIPE community (and the RIPE NCC!). Best regards Chris —— Chris Buckridge Head of External Relations RIPE NCC

On 30 Sep 2019, at 17:54, Richard Hill <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:

Thank you for this. I note that RIPE’s formal response states:

“we support a next-generation model of digital governance that maintains the core values of inclusiveness, transparency and a multistakeholder approach.”

Given that statement, I presume that RIPE will join those of us who are opposing current efforts to move digital governance (including Internet governance) into the World Trade Organization and free trade agreements, which are not inclusive, not transparent, and not at all multistakeholder. For a critique of such efforts, see for example:

https://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2019/Digital_trade_2019-04-01-en.pdf

https://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2019/Digital_trade_WEF.pdf

https://ourworldisnotforsale.net/2019/WTO_12_reasons_v2.pdf

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/burcukilic/big-tech-is-pushing-for-a-ne...

Best, Richard

From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Suzanne Taylor Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 14:38 To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Our Response to the UN High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation Report

Dear colleagues,

Some of you may be aware of the report released by the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation in June, titled "The Age of Digital Interdependence”. The report lays out a set of three different proposals for advancing global digital cooperation, one of which is an “IGF Plus” model.

Given our long involvement with the existing IGF and our vested interest - as part of the Internet technical community - in maintaining a multistakeholder approach to Internet governance, the RIPE NCC has submitted a formal response to the UN panel's report through EuroDIG’s and the IGF’s dedicated channels.

You can learn more and find our full response on RIPE Labs:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/suzanne_taylor_muzzin/our-response-to-the-un-h...

Please feel free to discuss, ask questions, etc.

Best regards,

Suzanne

_______________ Suzanne Taylor External Relations RIPE NCC

From my point of view, this is a crass violation of the generally accepted view that discussions related to Internet governance should be open,

Trade negotiations, including for e-commerce, which includes issues related to Internet governance, are discussed in specialized circles, typically within Ministries of Economics (but in the USA there is a specific office for this). Those circles are typically quite closed, restricted to government officials and a few representatives of big companies or industry lobbying groups. Written inputs to the national and international discussions are often not made public. In the past, the European Commission even refused access to members of the European Parliament. Europe has since changes its policies and does make most of its input papers public. But other countries don't, and the negotiating texts are still typically not public. transparent, and multi-stakeholder. For more details on e-commerce and its relation to Internet governance, please take a look at the links I provided in my first e-mail, and for WTO in general see: www.ourworldisnotforsale.net Best, Richard

-----Original Message----- From: Lars-Johan Liman [mailto:liman@netnod.se] Sent: mardi, 1. octobre 2019 23:31 To: Chris Buckridge Cc: Richard Hill; RIPE Cooperation Working Group Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Our Response to the UN High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation Report

Hi Richard!

chrisb@ripe.net:

...

... ... On the substance, the straightforward answer is that, while aware of these issues, the RIPE NCC has not engaged closely with the discussions surrounding digital governance in the World Trade Organization. ... ...

Just curious: where/in which circles are such discussion being held?

Cheers, /Liman -- #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------