Dear Alain, I apologise for the silence. A number or professional and personal emergencies got in the way. I will do my best to react on the points you raise as soon as possible. Best, Andrea Sent from my iPhone On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:59, "Alain Van Gaever" <avangaev@gmail.com<mailto:avangaev@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Andrea, I went through the European Commission's Communication on Internet Governance http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=... And while I do not think the Coop-WG should engage in policy making on Internet Governance – which is mainly what this Commission’s document is about - there is something which caught my eye … … In section 6 of the Commission document it is mentioned: “[…] even where the technical discussion process is open, key decisions are frequently made by technical experts in the absence of broad stakeholder representation. An effective multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet will be based on efficient mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations so that technical specifications more systematically take into account public policy concerns.[…] “ As someone who is interested in bridging the gap between technology and policy/legislation – and having worked in both environments - I am quite interested on how the European Commission sees this in practice. …. I know in that document you propose "workshops", but that seems to signal language that is more easily understood by the policy/internet governance audience than the technical one. This is by no means a criticism I am just trying to understand the meaning and implications of this section better. It would be much appreciated if you would be able to expand on that ? * What would this mean in practical terms for the technical community? * What would "good look like" once this "multistakeholder approach to specification setting" is put in place ? * Also, what is the distinction between the European Internet Industry and what I imagine to be the Rest-of-the-World Internet Industry? Thanks ! Alain Van Gaever Co-Chair Coop-WG On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:08 AM, <Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.GLORIOSO@ec.europa.eu>> wrote: [ I sent an almost identical message to the IAB InternetGovTech mailing list, so apologies for duplications ] Dear all, a few words to introduce myself: I'm Andrea Glorioso (Mr - I'm Italian). I work at the European Commission, in the Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology (sorry for the mouthful - we call it DG CONNECT). I have been one of the persons working on the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance which our former colleague, Gordon Lennox, has kindly shared on this and other lists (they were on my list but Gordon spared me some typing :). I just wanted to say that I'm delighted - honestly - that the Communication seems to have already sparked some discussions on this and other lists. We are very much in listening mode and to the extent possible I'll be glad to react to your points, questions, comments and criticisms. There might be cases in which I will want to double check the position of the European Commission on any particular matter, and this might produce some delay in the exchanges; but I'll do my best to be as quick, open and transparent as possible. Thanks, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682<tel:%2B32-2-29-97682> M: +32-460-797-682<tel:%2B32-460-797-682> E: Andrea.Glorioso@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.Glorioso@ec.europa.eu> Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin

Hi Andrea, Thanks for having taken the time to answer my questions. For ease of readability I will give my main observations immediately below (I will put smaller comments inline). (1) My initial remark/question on why the Commission's Communication refers to the "European" Internet was apparently not sufficiently clear. Rest assured that I did not expect you to give me a legal definition of what is the "European Internet".... What I actually would hope to see clarified is that the Commission understands that there is only ONE Internet. And that decisions made by a particular government/community in one part of the network have an immediate and huge impact across the entire network. So referring to a "European Internet" is in that respect confusing and may I add a bit worrying. (2) On my main question around section 6 (which is also being debated on the IAB mailing list) and how the Commission expects to engage with the technical community in practical terms: My impression is that both the technical community and the government community both feel that they are not sufficiently kept "in the loop". Yet both parties do make conscious efforts to get all stakeholders involved. Both parties seem to welcome input at an early stage - and have established processes to allow stakeholders to engage. However it is quite striking that the processes/language used by one party is completely different from the process/language used by the other (You might consider using translators to bridge that gap ...) It is my understanding that with Section 6 of the current Communication the Commission would like to improve the "government-to-technical-community-process"; which is a respectable objective to have. However while the current "stakeholder-involvement" process (both on the government side and on the technical side) is by no means perfect please do consider that in general terms it works. It delivers. Hence why I want to underline the importance of ensuring that everyone around the table has a very clear understanding of "what exactly" you want to change in this process and "how" you plan to bring this change into being. In your reply you describe the key characteristics of a fruitful mutual engagement as being "structured", "regular", "early" and "inclusive"; which seems reasonable enough. I know you draw the distinction between "open" and "inclusive". And while I would like to re-iterate that the existing process in the technical community works pretty well I understand your point of view that this does not mean that it cannot be improved. But saying something needs to be improved and actually being able to make that change happen is an entirely different matter. First of all, it needs a deep understanding of "what exactly" you want to change, and I question whether that is already the case. Secondly once you have established "what exactly" you want to change you need to have a good idea on "how" you are going to make this happen. You replied that the Commission does not want to be overly "prescriptive". Yet without having a clear idea on what prescription you plan to administer I am not sure your medicine will have the desired effect. In fact, I would bet it would be a rather bitter pill to swallow ... How to avoid creating yet another government process with the associated meetings which in actual fact does nothing to improve the current process at all? And although I believe the intentions are good, one can only express the hope that the Commission has passed its anatomy exams before its start performing surgery on a healthy patient. While I realise I might come across as pretty critical (in actual fact I probably am), I do welcome the dialogue and I hope this debate can bring more clarity to this discussion. I would just like to make sure that we do not fix anything and leave it worse than it was before. In the Commission's communication you propose a Workshop. Let's have one. But let us have one which follows a language/process the technical community actually can understand. Preferably even on the technical community's playing field - so that a maximum of those who will potentially be affected can engage. Is this something which is on the Commission's Yearly Work programme? Has the Commission foreseen sufficient financial and human resources to engage with the technical/operational community? Looking forward to your response ! Kind regards, Alain Van Gaever Co-Chair Coop WG On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it>wrote:

Dear Alain, dear all,

apologies for the belated reply. I had a period of increased workload + some minor (but annoying) health issues in the family.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Alain Van Gaever <avangaev@gmail.com>wrote:

...

Hi Andrea,

I went through the European Commission's Communication on Internet Governance

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/ cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=4453

Congratulations. Now I'm sure that at least two persons on this planet read the whole Communication. ;)

...

I think you are being too modest! The discussion on the IAB is quite

lively!

And while I do not think the Coop-WG should engage in policy making on

...

Internet Governance

Perhaps this is better discussed in another thread, but I'm a bit surprised by this assertion. Why wouldn't the Cooperation Working Group engage on this? Perhaps we have a different notion of "engage", "policy making" and even "Internet governance". ;)

- which is mainly what this Commission's document is about - there is

...

something which caught my eye ...

... In section 6 of the Commission document it is mentioned: *"[...] even where the technical discussion process is open, key decisions are frequently made by technical experts in the absence of broad stakeholder representation. An effective multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the internet will be based on efficient mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations so that technical specifications more systematically take into account public policy concerns.[...]* "

Indeed. However, let me also point out, for those who have *not* read the whole Communication :) that the European Commission's position is also that it "*welcomes the efforts of the technical community to establish approaches to specification setting based on public policy concerns. Positive examples include technical guidance for privacy considerations in new protocols[26], the recognition of multilingualism for internationalised domain names, or accessibility standards for persons with disabilities*". Just to make sure we don't have this conversation on the assumption that the Commission's position is one of outright criticism towards the technical community - it most definitively is not.

...

As someone who is interested in bridging the gap between technology and policy/legislation - and having worked in both environments - I am quite interested on how the European Commission sees this in practice. .... I know in that document you propose "workshops", but that seems to signal language that is more easily understood by the policy/internet governance audience than the technical one. This is by no means a criticism I am just trying to understand the meaning and implications of this section better.

I'm not taking any of this as a criticism and I'll try to answer your (and other WG members') questions to the best of my abilities, but please do keep in mind that in this section, as in most of the Communication, the European Commission is - *on purpose* - not overly prescriptive on the "how", while trying to state as clearly as possible the "what" (i.e. what would be desirable from our perspective).

This is mainly because - even though some people might beg to disagree :) - the European Commission is quite clear on the fact that in many fields, including the Internet / ICT one, a "top-down" approach is not the right one. It is therefore preferable to have a proper conversation on what are the options and try to find consensus, within the constraints each party has (which in the case of the Commission there is certainly applicable EU legislation - i.e. we cannot accept solutions which would violate EU law! But I digress...).

So let me offer some ideas / views, with the understanding that we are truly interested in fostering a conversation about this.

It would be much appreciated if you would be able to expand on that ?

...

- What would this mean in practical terms for the technical community?

It's not easy to assess now what different solutions would "mean in

practical terms", before we flash out better what such solutions might look like.

And to be honest, I am not entirely convinced we are already at a stage in which all various parties agree that the goal is in and by itself valuable. (But I'm confident we'll get there :).

But leaving this aside for the sake of discussion, I'd rather focus on some of the key characteristics that should be present in any process of mutual engagement.

It should be structured, because 'ad hoc' solutions (e.g. someone sends an email to a contact in the Commission, or any other public administration, to enquire whether work on specification X might impact on policy Y) are neither scalable nor sustainable in the long-term. Structure also helps clarify the rules of engagement, the scope of discussion(s) and more generally the expectations on each side.

It should be regular, for almost the same reasons. Regularity also allows "early engagement", which is in and by itself challenging as sometimes public authorities are under different constraints than the technical community in how much they can discuss a policy / law while it is being negotiated. The problem is less acute when we are discussing about existing law / policies, of course.

On the "early", allow me a side note. I heard many times people from the technical community / industry lamenting that public authorities (including, but not limited to, the European Commission) intervene "late" in the discussion and this somehow disrupts the process. I would like some concrete examples of this, but in general I need to observe that one could also reverse the criticism and say that it is actually the responsibility of participants in a technical discussion to make sure that what they are discussing / deciding upon is compatible with applicable law. I think that a more structured system of interaction could benefit all parties, certainly from the perspective of making sure information flows well in both directions.

The system should be inclusive. Here, let me point out that there is a difference between being "open" and being "inclusive". Simply saying that a mailing list or a meeting are open for everyone to participate is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition if one wants to make sure that the "right" persons / organisations (as in: with the right expertise, insights, understanding etc) are around the table. Again to make the counter-example, I could very easily tell people that (1) the yearly Work Programme of the European Commission; (2) the list of on-going / planned public consultations; (3) existing EU legislation in all official languages: (4) reports, studies, impact assessments etc are all publicly available online. Yet, I know very well that for someone who does not work routinely in my environment, most of this information will be lost in a labyrinth. So again, a better structured system / process can be mutually beneficial for all parties.

As a final remark, please do note that while we are obviously particularly interested in the role of public authorities in the process of defining / developing technology, when the latter might have significant impacts on public policy matters (which I *personally* believe is the case for almost all Internet-based technology) what we are suggesting is a system which allows structured engagement with *all* stakeholders, including academia, civil society and others.

...

- - What would "good look like" once this "multistakeholder approach to specification setting" is put in place ?

Sorry, here you lost me. I don't understand the question.

...

Actually I was trying to get a clear understanding what at the end of

the day would be considered a good outcome by the Commission.

...

- Also, what is the distinction between the European Internet Industry and what I imagine to be the Rest-of-the-World Internet Industry?

I don't want to sound flippant, but I find the question a bit strange. To

me, it sounds like asking what is the difference between European industry and non-European industry. You will never find a 100% perfect definition and there will always be corner cases. So, to make sure that I can provide the right answer to your question, could you help me by explaining what is the purpose of the question? (Or perhaps better phrased: what would change, in our discussion, if we were talking about European Internet industry as opposed to Internet industry?)

Ciao,

Andrea

-- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.

Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

Dear Alain, dear all, Responses in-line. From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alain Van Gaever Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 1:30 AM To: Andrea Glorioso Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] On the Communication from the European Commission - eager to hear your views Hi Andrea, Thanks for having taken the time to answer my questions. [AG]: not at all and, in fact, my apologies again for the belated reply. For ease of readability I will give my main observations immediately below (I will put smaller comments inline). (1) My initial remark/question on why the Commission’s Communication refers to the “European” Internet was apparently not sufficiently clear. Rest assured that I did not expect you to give me a legal definition of what is the “European Internet”…. [AG]: as a matter of fact, your question was not what is the "European Internet", but what is the "European Internet industry". Leaving aside for a moment whether a legal definition of the former is possible, the two in my view are not the same. What I actually would hope to see clarified is that the Commission understands that there is only ONE Internet. And that decisions made by a particular government/community in one part of the network have an immediate and huge impact across the entire network. So referring to a “European Internet” is in that respect confusing and may I add a bit worrying. [AG]: since you have made me the courtesy of speaking directly (which I appreciate) let me also be equally direct. The Communication on Internet Policy and Governance (which, it might be useful to keep in mind, is an official statement to which the European Commission is politically and in some cases even legally responsible) states several times that keeping one single, unfragmented Internet is an overarching objective. See e.g.: · "This Communication proposes a basis for a common European vision for Internet governance […] as a single, un-fragmented network"; · "The European Union has always been committed to the Internet as one single unfragmented space, where all resources should be accessible in the same manner, irrespective of the location of the user and the provider" · "Even when faced with complex regulatory or political challenges, filtering traffic at borders or other purely national approaches can lead to fragmentation of the Internet and could compromise economic growth and the free flow of information" · "For over two years, the Commission has advocated an approach summarised by the COMPACT acronym: the Internet as a space of Civic responsibilities, One unfragmented resource […]" · "The Internet should remain a single, open, free, unfragmented network of networks" It seems to me that the position of the European Commission is quite clear. Please also do consider that, as I mentioned above, speaking about a "European Internet" and about the "European Internet industry" (i.e. the "European industry dealing with / based on the Internet", to simplify) are not the same thing. (2) On my main question around section 6 (which is also being debated on the IAB mailing list) and how the Commission expects to engage with the technical community in practical terms: My impression is that both the technical community and the government community both feel that they are not sufficiently kept “in the loop”. Yet both parties do make conscious efforts to get all stakeholders involved. Both parties seem to welcome input at an early stage – and have established processes to allow stakeholders to engage. However it is quite striking that the processes/language used by one party is completely different from the process/language used by the other (You might consider using translators to bridge that gap …) [AG] I completely agree that the language – and even more importantly, the cultural – barrier is an important one. It would be irrealistic to think that it will ever be completely broken down; but we can certainly take steps in the right direction. Very practically, I'm wondering whether some kind of "glossaries" to explain what each party means when they say "X" might be useful. More than once I found myself surprised at how my, or colleagues', or more generally the European Commission's words (very clear to us) were misunderstood. It is my understanding that with Section 6 of the current Communication the Commission would like to improve the “government-to-technical-community-process”; which is a respectable objective to have. [AG] As a matter of fact that's a slight misinterpretation (or perhaps a narrower understanding than warranted) of the text. Let me quote some of the relevant passages of Section 6 of the Communication on Internet Policy and Governance: "technical details of Internet protocols and other information technology specifications can have significant public policy implications […] [and] it also affects other stakeholders […] even where the technical discussion process is open, key decisions are frequently made by technical experts in the absence of broad stakeholder representation […] an effective multistakeholder approach to specification setting on the Internet will be based on efficient mutual interactions between technical and public policy considerations […]The Commission encourages all stakeholders to strengthen (and where appropriate create) structured mechanisms to allow regular, early and truly inclusive upstream participation, review and comment in technical decisions" Nowhere in that Section does the Commission say that the process should only between governments and the technical community. Other constituencies, including e.g. academia, civil society etc, should also be in the best possible position to engage. However while the current “stakeholder-involvement” process (both on the government side and on the technical side) is by no means perfect please do consider that in general terms it works. It delivers. Hence why I want to underline the importance of ensuring that everyone around the table has a very clear understanding of “what exactly” you want to change in this process and “how” you plan to bring this change into being. [AG] No-one is claiming that the current modalities of engagement are terrible. The question is whether they could be strengthened. I'm sorry again to be blunt, but you heard as well as I did how other governments (not only the Commission) pointed out that the current approach certainly poses challenges for public administrations, for reasons of language / cultural barriers, resources, etc. There is currently an interesting on-going thread on the IETF-discuss mailing list touching upon the possible difficulties of engaging with the IETF (and I'm fully aware that some persons find those difficulties overblown or even necessary to "filter" good participants). In your reply you describe the key characteristics of a fruitful mutual engagement as being “structured”, “regular”, “early” and “inclusive”; which seems reasonable enough. I know you draw the distinction between “open” and “inclusive”. And while I would like to re-iterate that the existing process in the technical community works pretty well I understand your point of view that this does not mean that it cannot be improved. [AG] Good, so we agree. But saying something needs to be improved and actually being able to make that change happen is an entirely different matter. First of all, it needs a deep understanding of “what exactly” you want to change, and I question whether that is already the case. Secondly once you have established “what exactly” you want to change you need to have a good idea on “how” you are going to make this happen. You replied that the Commission does not want to be overly “prescriptive”. Yet without having a clear idea on what prescription you plan to administer I am not sure your medicine will have the desired effect. In fact, I would bet it would be a rather bitter pill to swallow … How to avoid creating yet another government process with the associated meetings which in actual fact does nothing to improve the current process at all? And although I believe the intentions are good, one can only express the hope that the Commission has passed its anatomy exams before its start performing surgery on a healthy patient. [AG] I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. The words of the Communication – which, again, have been chosen carefully through a long and frankly painful process – do not say that the Commission will administer any prescription. It says that: (1) The Commission would like to organise, "together with other interested parties" (among which I'd like to count RIPE NCC and the RIPE community) "a series of workshops with international experts in law, ethics, social sciences, economics, international relations and technology [which should produce] concrete and actionable recommendations to ensure coherence between existing normative frameworks and new forms of Internet-enabled norm-setting". Recommendations are not binding law. (2) The Commission "encourages all stakeholders to strengthen (and where appropriate create) structured mechanisms to allow regular, early, and truly inclusive upstream participation, review and comment in technical decisions". An encouragement to other parties to do something – which such parties might think is a good idea to do, or not; it's their call – is not binding law. Anyway, the "what" (the goal) is in my view reasonably clear. It remains to be seen whether the various constituencies and stakeholders working on / with the Internet agree. All the Commission wants to do is raising the question and listening carefully, to see if there is any sort of consensus that, indeed, it is worth exploring the issues we are discussing about. The "how" depends very much on the specific situation, organisation, etc. I personally think that relying only on face-to-face meetings and mailing lists is sub-optimal and that there is space to think how to use ICT tools to ensure a more structured flow of information. While I realise I might come across as pretty critical (in actual fact I probably am), I do welcome the dialogue and I hope this debate can bring more clarity to this discussion. I would just like to make sure that we do not fix anything and leave it worse than it was before. In the Commission’s communication you propose a Workshop. Let’s have one. But let us have one which follows a language/process the technical community actually can understand. Preferably even on the technical community’s playing field – so that a maximum of those who will potentially be affected can engage. Is this something which is on the Commission’s Yearly Work programme? Has the Commission foreseen sufficient financial and human resources to engage with the technical/operational community? [AG] Yes, let's discuss the best time / format / participation for a workshop (among the several ones we'd like to organise together with other interested parties, see Section 6 and my email above). Let me however say that I find your words a bit strange. It is not only the technical community who is potentially affected by a discussion on how we collectively can strengthen multi-stakeholder interactions on the topic of "technology <-> public policy" dynamics. So I'm not entirely clear why the discussion should be on the "technical community's playing field" (and I don't particularly like the notion of "playing field", which seems very adversarial to me). Pardon my bluntness, but I find the approach very defensive and reactive, as if someone was "invading your space". In terms of financial and human resources: first of all let me reiterate that this should not be a bilateral Commission-technical community discussion. We are happy to play a facilitating role if useful, but it is very important that the scope of participation is as large as possible. Anyway, on our side we believe we are doing our homework, within the heavy constraints of budgetary cuts to the EU budget and increasing workload. And since you ask, allow me to ask back: has the technical / operational community foreseen sufficient financial and human resources to engage not only with governments / public authorities, but also with other constituencies and stakeholders? (To be clear, I'd expect a satisfactory answer on both sides would need first a clarification on what "engage" means and what are the metrics on the basis of which we would measure success or failure. So I'd prefer to focus on that, rather than immediately on questions on financial / human resources). Best, Andrea