Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance
Paul, The various IXP associations may be interested in working with the NROs on a statement on Option 1: "Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity". As it stands, the RIR_WTPF13_2 document suggests that the NRO gives the ITU blanket support for their position: "The RIRs support this Opinion." There are pre-existing structures in place for fostering IXP growth, and the ITU's involvement in creating new structures would probably be quite unhelpful. Nick On 23/04/2013 09:34, Paul Rendek wrote:
[Apologies for duplicates]
Dear colleagues,
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) in Geneva this May. This event is being convened specifically to look at Internet-related public policy matters.
The primary input document to this meeting is a report by the ITU Secretary General, including six Opinions agreed to by an Informal Experts Group (IEG) that met three times over the past year. These Opinions touch on issues including management of Internet number resources, encouraging IPv6 adoption, support for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), multi-stakeholder governance and Enhanced Cooperation.
The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have drafted responses to the five Opinions that relate directly to the RIRs' areas of expertise and coordination. A document containing these responses has been published at: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR_WTPF13_2.pdf
The full Secretary General's report (including the six Opinions) is available at: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en
I invite you to post any questions or comments regarding this document to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list (cooperation-wg@ripe.net).
Best regards,
Paul Rendek Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC
Hello Nick, Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups. There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1. Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message. I look forward to seeing you in Dublin. Cheers, Paul On 4/23/13 6:09 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Paul,
The various IXP associations may be interested in working with the NROs on a statement on Option 1: "Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity".
As it stands, the RIR_WTPF13_2 document suggests that the NRO gives the ITU blanket support for their position: "The RIRs support this Opinion."
There are pre-existing structures in place for fostering IXP growth, and the ITU's involvement in creating new structures would probably be quite unhelpful.
Nick
On 23/04/2013 09:34, Paul Rendek wrote:
[Apologies for duplicates]
Dear colleagues,
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) in Geneva this May. This event is being convened specifically to look at Internet-related public policy matters.
The primary input document to this meeting is a report by the ITU Secretary General, including six Opinions agreed to by an Informal Experts Group (IEG) that met three times over the past year. These Opinions touch on issues including management of Internet number resources, encouraging IPv6 adoption, support for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), multi-stakeholder governance and Enhanced Cooperation.
The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have drafted responses to the five Opinions that relate directly to the RIRs' areas of expertise and coordination. A document containing these responses has been published at: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR_WTPF13_2.pdf
The full Secretary General's report (including the six Opinions) is available at: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en
I invite you to post any questions or comments regarding this document to the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list (cooperation-wg@ripe.net).
Best regards,
Paul Rendek Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC
On 23 apr 2013, at 16:40, Paul Rendek <rendek@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups.
There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1.
Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message.
I look forward to seeing you in Dublin.
I think the NRO text is troubling. It talks about multistakerholderism but it fails to invite, or as I would prefer recommend (not to say demand) that the ITU work and support inside existing frameworks rather than create competing efforts. I think it's important that this is clearly spelled out and not just talked over or mentioned. If the NRO isn't changing this statement (that I think is far from clear) then I really hope that ISOC includes this and stresses the importance of the ITU not working against or outside established and well working efforts. Best regards, - kurtis -
+1 -----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lindqvist Kurt Erik Sent: 24 April 2013 09:15 To: Paul Rendek Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; Sally Wentworth Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance On 23 apr 2013, at 16:40, Paul Rendek <rendek@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups.
There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1.
Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message.
I look forward to seeing you in Dublin.
I think the NRO text is troubling. It talks about multistakerholderism but it fails to invite, or as I would prefer recommend (not to say demand) that the ITU work and support inside existing frameworks rather than create competing efforts. I think it's important that this is clearly spelled out and not just talked over or mentioned. If the NRO isn't changing this statement (that I think is far from clear) then I really hope that ISOC includes this and stresses the importance of the ITU not working against or outside established and well working efforts. Best regards, - kurtis -
I agree as well - I stated simular worries earlier towards the Dutch delegation re draft opinion #1 -Bastiaan Skickat från min iPad On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:03, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
+1
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lindqvist Kurt Erik Sent: 24 April 2013 09:15 To: Paul Rendek Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; Sally Wentworth Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance
On 23 apr 2013, at 16:40, Paul Rendek <rendek@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups.
There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1.
Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message.
I look forward to seeing you in Dublin.
I think the NRO text is troubling. It talks about multistakerholderism but it fails to invite, or as I would prefer recommend (not to say demand) that the ITU work and support inside existing frameworks rather than create competing efforts. I think it's important that this is clearly spelled out and not just talked over or mentioned. If the NRO isn't changing this statement (that I think is far from clear) then I really hope that ISOC includes this and stresses the importance of the ITU not working against or outside established and well working efforts.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
Hello All, Thanks very much for your comments. I can see your point and I ahve had some discussions with Bijal (Euro-IX) who said she would work on some text that we can use to address your concerns. This text I think should be coordinated together with ISOC if they plan to provide a more detailed submission to Opinion 1. I await your text suggestion, but please be aware that time is now not on our side and I will need to have all five RIRs agree this text. If I cannot get text that suits in time we might have to consider removing any submission from the RIRs to Opinion 1. This may be better than a contribution that is not suitable for our community. Cheers, Paul On 4/24/13 1:10 PM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
I agree as well - I stated simular worries earlier towards the Dutch delegation re draft opinion #1
-Bastiaan
Skickat från min iPad
On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:03, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
+1
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lindqvist Kurt Erik Sent: 24 April 2013 09:15 To: Paul Rendek Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; Sally Wentworth Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance
On 23 apr 2013, at 16:40, Paul Rendek <rendek@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups.
There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1.
Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message.
I look forward to seeing you in Dublin. I think the NRO text is troubling. It talks about multistakerholderism but it fails to invite, or as I would prefer recommend (not to say demand) that the ITU work and support inside existing frameworks rather than create competing efforts. I think it's important that this is clearly spelled out and not just talked over or mentioned. If the NRO isn't changing this statement (that I think is far from clear) then I really hope that ISOC includes this and stresses the importance of the ITU not working against or outside established and well working efforts.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
Dear All, Firstly thanks to Paul and the RIPE NCC for giving us the opportunity to work on the text, this is a great example of the community coming together to work on something we feel passionate about! With input from Patrik Falstrom and Nick Hilliard I would like to propose the following revised text for Opinion 1: Opinion 1: Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity The RIRs support the position that Internet Exchange Points provide a long term solution to advancing connectivity and note the development of the existing IXP community via a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder process. Several independent, collaborative studies have demonstrated the efficiency of IXPs in furthering this aim and reducing the cost of Internet access for all. We support and recognise the success of, the existing efforts of associations that promote best practices amongst IXPs. These include Af-IX, APIX, Euro-IX and LAC-IX, specifically as they also serve to support new entrants into IXP markets. We also note the inherently multi-stakeholder approach that the Opinion invites Sector and State Members to adopt. These cases effectively illustrates the shared responsibilities of stakeholder groups in facilitating infrastructural developments that has successfully advanced Internet growth, improve quality and stability. Since IXPs play a critical role in promoting the efficient interconnection of ISPs through peering arrangements, the RIRs, in coordination with other Internet organisations, are also strong supporters of existing community and industry processes that promote and facilitate these arrangements. In particular, these include global and regional peering forums, including the recently launched African Peering Forum (AfPIF), the Middle East Peering Forum (MPF) and the long standing APRICOT (Asia Pacific) Peering Forum meetings, Network Access Points Forum from Latin America (NAPLA) and NANOG (North America) Peering Track. This needs to be approved by the RIR's and Paul will coordinate this. And we will continue to work with Jane on ISOCs position. Kind regards, Bijal Sanghani Head of Secretariat Euro-IX On 25 Apr 2013, at 16:14, Paul Rendek <rendek@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello All,
Thanks very much for your comments. I can see your point and I ahve had some discussions with Bijal (Euro-IX) who said she would work on some text that we can use to address your concerns.
This text I think should be coordinated together with ISOC if they plan to provide a more detailed submission to Opinion 1.
I await your text suggestion, but please be aware that time is now not on our side and I will need to have all five RIRs agree this text.
If I cannot get text that suits in time we might have to consider removing any submission from the RIRs to Opinion 1. This may be better than a contribution that is not suitable for our community.
Cheers, Paul
On 4/24/13 1:10 PM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
I agree as well - I stated simular worries earlier towards the Dutch delegation re draft opinion #1
-Bastiaan
Skickat från min iPad
On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:03, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
+1
-----Original Message----- From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lindqvist Kurt Erik Sent: 24 April 2013 09:15 To: Paul Rendek Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; Sally Wentworth Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance
On 23 apr 2013, at 16:40, Paul Rendek <rendek@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups.
There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1.
Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message.
I look forward to seeing you in Dublin. I think the NRO text is troubling. It talks about multistakerholderism but it fails to invite, or as I would prefer recommend (not to say demand) that the ITU work and support inside existing frameworks rather than create competing efforts. I think it's important that this is clearly spelled out and not just talked over or mentioned. If the NRO isn't changing this statement (that I think is far from clear) then I really hope that ISOC includes this and stresses the importance of the ITU not working against or outside established and well working efforts.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
On 24 Apr 2013, at 09:15, Lindqvist Kurt Erik <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
I think the NRO text is troubling. It talks about multistakerholderism but it fails to invite, or as I would prefer recommend (not to say demand) that the ITU work and support inside existing frameworks rather than create competing efforts. I think it's important that this is clearly spelled out and not just talked over or mentioned. If the NRO isn't changing this statement (that I think is far from clear) then I really hope that ISOC includes this and stresses the importance of the ITU not working against or outside established and well working efforts.
+100 One sentence is particularly disappointing and IMO should not have been there: "ITU members should build on these initial steps to take this evolution to the next level – an all-encompassing multistakeholder ITU will be essential to the organization's future relevance and authority." If it's not too late, I hope it can be removed because it does not come across as something which helps to foster a co-operative relationship. Imagine how we'd react if the ITU used similar megaphone diplomacy to tell us how RIPE had to radically re-organise its business and procedures to ensure RIPE's future relevance and authority. It's not clear to me if an evolving, all-encompassing multistakeholder ITU would be a Good Thing either, but let that pass.
Paul,
The various IXP associations may be interested in working with the NROs on a statement on Option 1: "Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity".
As it stands, the RIR_WTPF13_2 document suggests that the NRO gives the ITU blanket support for their position: "The RIRs support this Opinion."
There are pre-existing structures in place for fostering IXP growth, and the ITU's involvement in creating new structures would probably be quite unhelpful.
Nick
On 23/04/2013 09:34, Paul Rendek wrote:
[Apologies for duplicates]
Dear colleagues,
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the Fifth World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF) in Geneva this May. This event is being convened specifically to look at Internet-related public policy matters.
The primary input document to this meeting is a report by the ITU Secretary General, including six Opinions agreed to by an Informal Experts Group (IEG) that met three times over the past year. These Opinions touch on issues including management of Internet number resources, encouraging IPv6 adoption, support for Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), multi-stakeholder governance and Enhanced Cooperation.
The five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have drafted responses to the five Opinions that relate directly to the RIRs' areas of expertise and coordination. A document containing these responses has been published at: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/RIR_WTPF13_2.pdf
The full Secretary General's report (including the six Opinions) is available at: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en
I invite you to post any questions or comments regarding this document to
dear all, we are going on to check, what we can do from gov site. regards constanze ____________________________ Constanze Bürger Dipl.Inform. Referat IT 5, IT-Infrastrukturen und IT-Sicherheitsmanagement des Bundes Bundesministerium des Innern Hausanschrift: Alt-Moabit 101 D; 10559 Berlin Besucheranschrift: Bundesallee 216-218; 10719 Berlin DEUTSCHLAND Telefon: +4930186814357 Fax: +49301868159090 Mobil: +4916090872556 E-Mail: constanze.buerger@bmi.bund.de Internet: www.bmi.bund.de, http://www.cio.bund.de -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Paul Rendek Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. April 2013 16:40 An: cooperation-wg@ripe.net; nick@inex.ie; Sally Wentworth Betreff: Re: [cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance Hello Nick, Thanks very much for your suggestion. While we will submit the text, we plan to speak further to it during the WTPF and will highlight the role of regional peering groups. There is a reason that we did not provide a more detailed response to Opinion 1. An initial response on this opinion was given by ISOC and I believe they intend to submit a more thorough response to this particular opinion. I suggest you speak further with ISOC regarding their planned text submission on Opinion 1. Please contact Sally Wentworth @ ISOC about this. She can be reached at <wentworth@isoc.org> and I have CC'd her in this message. I look forward to seeing you in Dublin. Cheers, Paul On 4/23/13 6:09 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: the RIPE Cooperation Working Group mailing list (cooperation-wg@ripe.net).
Best regards,
Paul Rendek Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC
participants (8)
-
Bastiaan Goslings -
Bijal Sanghani -
Constanze.Buerger＠bmi.bund.de -
Jim Reid -
Lindqvist Kurt Erik -
Martin Boyle -
Nick Hilliard -
Paul Rendek