Re: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 20
Dear all, I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects. I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup: The working group discusses the following: 1. The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are *not* to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg>. This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. 2. The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list> mailing list. 3. The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. 4. The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-464>, describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies> (PDP) itself. The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO <http://www.nro.net/>) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group. I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele? best, On Fri, Jun 24, 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: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 (Michael Oghia) 2. Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:44:21 +0300 From: Michael Oghia <mike.oghia@gmail.com> To: Constanze.Buerger@bmi.bund.de Cc: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net>, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16 Message-ID: <CAMCMt7oat=fWQxn_kOub6cbdq1Mu_os172J3nWiHHb-d_= oVxA@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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.
Good questions. The charter is for us to rewrite if it seems useful. At at the same time a charter has to represent a really solid consensus if it is to mean that people will work. It has of course to be sufficiently long lasting to be useful. And of course any work or product has to fit well with the rest of RIPE. The topic area is obviously important. But the work has been effectively split/shared between the WG and NCC. NCC has sensibly evolved its approach to its roundtables since the beginning, from short-day meetings in Schipol to full days in Brussels. On the individual points. 1. I always felt some of this to be excessively optimistic for the WG. Governments en masse are not going go turn up for a full RIPE meeting. We do not even have an outbound mailing list. 2. Here NCC has the lead. 3. We have done this - with the active participation f NCC. But it is difficult. And slow. But we know how to do it. 4. The fact that the document dates from 2009 perhaps says it all. By the way I am still amused by the idea that “enhanced cooperation” was a term coined during the WSIS. “Enhanced cooperation” is a term of the art. It is a EU term and was probably introduced by the EU. Check Wikipedia. It was meant to imply that without overall agreement in the UN, ITU, wherever some countries could still go ahead and cooperate. I think the goals for the WG should be ** information sharing when it comes to policy initiatives and regulatory implementation. Problems anticipated and encountered. ** helping with individual action. Draft letters and information on who to contact. ** collective out-reach - with NCC of course. I think the first point is being dealt with more and more. It should be obvious that any charter should reflect the realities of what we actually do and what would be reasonable to aspire too. Gordon
On 24 Jun 2016, at 13:13, Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I want to quickly revisit a comment made by Michele, who mentioned that many other working groups have a more steady flow of emails (although we seem to be doing a pretty good job of late) because they are working on specific projects.
I had a look on the RIPE website and found the following description of the workgroup:
The working group discusses the following:
The working group will primarily discuss outreach from the traditional RIPE community to everyone else, especially governments, regulators and NGOs, all of whom we are trying to bring into our community. Topics are not to duplicate issues discussed in other working groups <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg>. This working group should complement the other working groups and help participants engage in appropriate work. The RIPE NCC's current outreach activities will be reported, and the RIPE NCC will seek advice and guidance on future activities. This is to make the discussions more focused - currently the only forum for these discussions is the ripe-list <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list> mailing list. The working group will develop and clarify the RIPE community's position on issues that are of relevance to the public sector or on which a community position has been sought. The working group will be responsible for maintenance of the RIPE Document produced by the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-464>, describing the RIPE community, existing policy development processes and outreach programs. The working group explicitly does not have change control over the RIPE Policy Development Process <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies> (PDP) itself. The working group is also an important channel through which the RIPE community can communicate with others in the Information Society. The Chairs are not to become special Ambassadors for RIPE. Their role is the same as other RIPE Working Group chairs, which implies they of course could be asked now and then what the status of the working group is. The process by which RIPE and RIPE NCC respectively coordinate with other bodies (such as the NRO <http://www.nro.net/>) and communicate (mostly via RIPE NCC or the chair of RIPE) is not changed by creation and existence of this working group.
I was wondering how we are working on issues 1,3, & 4? Perhaps people with a longer history in the group could elaborate so we can discuss how to move forward, and perhaps address some of the concerns raised by Michele?
best,
participants (2)
-
Corinne Cath -
Gordon Lennox