In message <9CC88415-3FD6-4540-9A59-1C877A900F0F@gmail.com>, at 15:42:19 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> writes

Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question.

Yes, it is. Who delivers their regulatory monitoring function these days (I know Bijal has taken on the secretariat after Serge moved to RIPE NCC).

Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage with the WG

Which is why I suggested someone familiar with the CoOp-WG (although several other operators, and Euro-IX, will also be). And in terms of engagement, why did this happen (I only just noticed it had become inactive). Inactive RIPE Working Groups EIX Working Group The EIX working group provided a means for the RIPE Internet Service Provider (ISP) community to find out about the status and activities of Internet Exchange Points (IXP) within the region. It was discontinued at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens in October 2013. -- Roland Perry

In message <52A5DF86.2050504@inex.ie>, at 15:19:34 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> writes

...

Inactive RIPE Working Groups EIX Working Group

The EIX working group provided a means for the RIPE Internet Service Provider (ISP) community to find out about the status and activities of Internet Exchange Points (IXP) within the region. It was discontinued at the RIPE 67 Meeting in Athens in October 2013.

The reasons for closing the WG are all in the archives.

I'm sure they are, but not everyone has the time to trawl through megabytes of user-unfriendly html discussion lists.

It's been replaced by the Connect working group, which aims to deal with general interconnection issues rather than issues specific to european ixps.

Perhaps a note to that effect should be attached to the EIX 'obituary'. Then we could rapidly direct people to that WG to find people meeting the OP's requirements who are also engaged with RIPE. -- Roland Perry

In message <5F15A4E8-F4E4-45A8-9F03-DF401A9D8714@netflix.com>, at 07:25:23 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Nina Bargisen <nihb@netflix.com> writes

Hi Roland

A connect-bof exist in order to develop into an Internconnection Working Group as described here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/bof/connect-bof

Thanks, I noticed the BOF [1] but hadn't realised it was already a WG (as Nick suggested). It's obviously much better for continuity that the new WG gets running in time for the next RIPE meeting.

I think it would be possible that we can find people both knowledgeable and willing to participate. I also think it important that this is a person who both the know the IX model, but also know the MPLS VPN Interconnections models and the Private Interconnections that networks are also engaging in. IX interconnection is an important but but not the only way that Networks connect.

It doesn't have to be just one person - but there are many knowledgeable people out there; although I'd also add experience of D.50 to the list of requirements. [1] Birds of a Feather, the RIPE jargon for an informal discussion group, for those suffering acronym overload. -- Roland Perry

Thanks Gordon, "Whether the European Institutions would want to engage with us ? " Guess it depends on what we have to offer - I happen to think we could offer some valuable technical expertise :-) But before we start inviting them over, I think it is up to us to pay them a visit "hat in hand" so to say. Therefore it would be useful to know who can paint a good picture on IP interconnection. And who knows ... they might actually find it very helpful :-) Alain On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>wrote:

Euro-IX is one obvious place to ask your main question.

Anyway while I too believe that it would be worthwhile to engage with European institutions I much less clear on whether they want to engage with the WG.

Who do you and the other co-chairs plan to invite to Warsaw?

Your point about "assured service quality"? Oh dear... Some folk are indeed getting desperate.

Gordon

On 9 Dec, 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever <avangaev@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one?

Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of “assured service quality” on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing.

*Background:*

The European Commission has proposed a new regulation for the European Telecoms market. This proposal is of interest to those dealing with IP Interconnection, as an article is proposed regarding IP Interconnection with Assured Service Quality (ASQ)).

Following this proposal the ITRE committee in the European Parliament dealing with this proposed new regulation has issued a draft report in which it proposes to delete this article regarding IP interconnection AND mentions *“Regarding the proposals on wholesale access products and ASQs, after carefully considering stakeholder views, the Rapporteur addresses these issues by requiring the Commission to conduct a comprehensive consultation and present proposals in the review of the entire framework. “ *

Draft report (MEP Del Castillo) on the Single Market Regulation can be found on: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/draft-reports.html#menuzone

Note also tthat today (9 Dec) in Strassbourg the ITRE Committee in the European Parliament is discussing the Single Market / Connected Continent regulation.

Alain

In message <9C407555-733C-4A43-B0A7-FCD6482708EA@gmail.com>, at 10:02:07 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> writes

So your thought is that you and maybe a few more should go to Brussels as representatives of the WG? 

What would you say? On behalf of the WG rather than as an individual that is.

On the other hand you may like to talk to Maria and Patrik about their efforts to bring Brussels and other government people to WG meetings and how that worked out

There are two parallel processes in the RIPE community. I'm very sure that the one most likely to produce the results you seek are getting a speaking slot at a Roundtable, the next of which happens to be in Brussels: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/roundtable/february-2014 There are many structural reasons why the Roundtables are a better channels for this particular activity[1] than RIPE CoOP-WG meetings, so I strongly recommend that this subject is put on that agenda, and even more so that any such agenda is promoted sufficiently ahead of the meeting that potential attendees can out it in their diaries. Currently, the attendee list is just three "insiders"... Not to undervalue the worth of their participation, but with the Xmas season so close, and event bookings pretty much in suspense until Mid-January (especially in the absence of a confirmed agenda) it would be good to see more external attendees registering by now. [1] The CoOp-WG's strengths lie elsewhere. -- Roland Perry

From experience I would argue that those are NOT necessarily the same

Hi all, thanks for your useful input! And yes a presentation at the RIPE NCC Roundtable in Brussels (19 Feb) is definitely a good idea; I will check straight away with RIPE NCC to see whether they can give us a slot on the agenda. Next to the RIPE NCC Roundtable, there might also be value to actually go and talk to the officials in Brussels who prepare the legislative texts. people as those who attend the RIPE NCC Roundtable meetings. I think Gordon is right that it is very hard to get them to join us at the RIPE meeting in Warsaw. So maybe we have to reach out in a different way? So what if a small group of technical experts would actually prepare a technical presentation (e.g. on IP interconnection, IXP’s,...- subject to the needs of our audience) and go to Brussels and actually provide an overview to the officials in the units dealing with drafting those legislative texts? This seems perfectly in line with the ‘Proposed Workplan for the coop-wg’ (see mail of Maria on 30 Nov). What do you think? Alain On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:

On 9 dec 2013, at 13:21, Alain Van Gaever <avangaev@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I believe it is worthwhile to engage with the European Institutions to provide expertise on IP Interconnection. (see also background below). Who would be the technical experts available to explain to a non-tech audience the technical & business model of Internet Exchange Points, including on how the European model differs from the US one?

There is a larger issue here, and that is that we have three categories of people:

- The ones that understand how Internet works, and based the world view on it

- The ones that do not understand how the Internet work, and continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks

- The ones that understand how Internet works, and [because of this] continue to apply traditional connection oriented thinking on packet based networks

...

Also there seems to be a concern that the lack of “assured service quality” on IP interconnections might actually prevent the introduction of pan-European health services and video-conferencing.

See above.

Patrik

Let us take a few steps back. ;-) When I first started turning up at RIPE - which was a few years ago! - the attitude was that as the meetings were open anybody who wanted to turn up could do so. And that obviously included government folk. There may also have been the feeling that as "the Internet is not regulated" then the need for involvement with governments was low. There has been a definite change regarding that latter point and indeed, as the recent proposed Regulation and as the "leaked" Communication make clear, better contact is more and more required. In parallel there have been changes in how that contact has been organised. A particular WG, the Cooperation WG, was set up and NCC organised Roundtables. I seem to remember that early roundtables were organised at Schipol to make it as easy as possible for government people to attend. When even that was seen to have its limits then the Roundtables were organised in Brussels. From what I have heard that works. Not only do people from the Commission attend but also people from other states who either work in Brussels or travel in for the day. And by the way, picking up on Roland's point, it is probably more the familiarity of Brussels as a destination than allows people from out of town to attend rather than the issue of expenses. They can also add in some side meetings which adds value. So all in all the Roundtables are appreciated and working. There have also been efforts to get people to come to talk to the WG. That has been perhaps less successful. But we have had Commission staff making presentations. And perhaps with this fresh start we can bring new ideas. More on that later. The WG though is about people coming together either at RIPE meetings or here on the mailing list - and not necessarily at a Roundtable. It is about sharing information and concerns in those two main WG contexts. And when warranted it is about communicating common views and concerns to others on behalf of the WG. Of course individuals may decide that they have a particular concern and decide to take it up with their local regulator or government or with the Commission. It good that people do this. Maybe they could even share their experiences! I think though that it is recognised that there is a problem with small groups of people or even individuals going to Brussels and claiming to represent the WG - unless of course there has been discussion and consensus on the message to be passed. Maybe other people think otherwise. Maybe we need to discuss this I also have a variety of problems with the notion of "free consultancy". I won't try to cover them all here and now. But the Commission spends a lot of money on acquiring information: from research projects, to studies, to workshops, to consultation processes. So they are paying people. They are also surrounded by a mass of local lobbyists all also giving them information. A lot of groups either have offices or people in Brussels, including ISOC, CENTR and ICANN. So many people in the Commission probably think they are already getting all the information they need. So we in turn would need to be clear about the added value and who would do the work and what process we would use and so on. And by the way the Commission has continued to send people, and sometimes significant numbers of people, to meetings considered more important, such as ICANN and the IGF. So what can be done within the WG to engage with policy makers? 1) We now have two co-chairs who have very good knowledge of the Commission. I think it would be good if the co-chairs wrote seeking a commitment to send somebody to future meetings - not necessarily always the same person. I think the scope could include, as appropriate for different meetings, Internet governance, telecoms regulation, broadband initiatives and research. 2) I think it would be useful to expand the scope of those we invite. Involving local government folk has already proved useful. So who in Poland? And other organisations. The OECD has done and is doing interesting policy work. Then we have folk from BEREC and ENISA and the Data Protection agency. 3) I think we can also use "proxies". People have said to me that they find Commission documents "difficult". So why not invite people who have already analysed them to make a presentation? A good presentation and a good discussion may encourage people to go back and look again. I would also be tempted to consider inviting ETNO or GSMA or ETSI. 4) Finally I think it would be good to invite other groups to talk about their policy concerns and what they are doing in that direction. The people are probably already there. But Euro-IX? CENTR? ISOC? This is of course in addition to the excellent feedback we tend to get from people going to the IGF and the EIF and so on. Pause... Gordon On 11 Dec, 2013, at 11:08, Roland Perry <roland@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

In message <CANeNdN+yL6MQyJw-totvNVf4pMV1ivLy9DXyYRZE8b9=hcDvWw@mail.gmail.com>, at 21:45:53 on Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Alain Van Gaever <avangaev@gmail.com> writes

...

Next to the RIPE NCC Roundtable, there might also be value to actually go and talk to the officials in Brussels who prepare the legislative texts. From experience I would argue that those are NOT necessarily the same people as those who attend the RIPE NCC Roundtable meetings

That's right, the Roundtables are more for invitation-only "Heads of Department", who are also the people who can more easily arrange to spend a day out of the office 'on expenses'[1].

I never organised a Roundtable in Brussels, but it would make sense to me that it should be slightly more of an 'open house' for local officials.

Perhaps the date for the Roundtable has been chosen as the day after an EIF meeting, so there might be more industry folks in town that day too.

[1] The difficulty of which is often much underestimated, and is a major reason for poor attendance at a 2hr RIPE-WG session in an 'exotic' location. -- Roland Perry

On 11/12/2013 23:12, Dmitry Burkov wrote:

It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region.

+1 Nick

In message <C6FD09BB-9228-431C-9E2F-CD4455D6BD8D@burkov.aha.ru>, at 03:12:21 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru> writes

just one remark - RIPE region is not equivalent of EU region at all.

And unfortunately we have issues with involvements from others countries of our region. I think it should be also special point on our agenda.

An just - for example - for them it is not one day roundtrip at all.

Yes, there are even parts of the EU which are not a comfortable round-trip to Amsterdam (even less so Brussels as it's a much smaller airport). By comfortable I would say within 90 minutes flying time and planes arriving and departing at the required times.

Sometimes it could require some obligations and someone can expect some concrete results from such trips.

It is just a fact - but I think that we seriously should discuss how we can outreach the whole region.

RIPE NCC has Regional Meetings which can include aspects of outreach to governments. I see there was also a Middle East Regional Roundtable in 2011. -- Roland Perry

On 12 Dec, 2013, at 11:44, Roland Perry <roland@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

In message <E4316CBB-6978-4217-ABC4-F60293516819@gmail.com>, at 18:34:31 on Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> writes

...

I seem to remember that early roundtables were organised at Schipol to make it as easy as possible for government people to attend. When even that was seen to have its limits then the Roundtables were organised in Brussels.

That makes it sound like all of them are now Brussels-based but in fact they appear to be alternating, with one each in Brussels and Amsterdam each year. 2014 will be the third year.

...

From what I have heard that works. Not only do people from the Commission attend but also people from other states who either work in Brussels or travel in for the day. And by the way, picking up on Roland's point, it is probably more the familiarity of Brussels as a destination than allows people from out of town to attend rather than the issue of expenses. They can also add in some side meetings which adds value. So all in all the Roundtables are appreciated and working.

Yes, looking at the records (on the RIPE NCC website) the attendance from out-of-town has been maintained and the Commission has risen from typically one or two attendees (in Amsterdam) to between six and eleven (in Brussels).

Thanks for the clarification.

...

I think though that it is recognised that there is a problem with small groups of people or even individuals going to Brussels and claiming to represent the WG - unless of course there has been discussion and consensus on the message to be passed. Maybe other people think otherwise. Maybe we need to discuss this

If the material presented is simply "this is what the WG does, these are its working methods, some of the topics discussed recently and how to get involved", then I don't think that should be a problem.

Agreed. Particularly "how to get involved".

In the past the Roundtables have had presentations about the proceedings of the RIPE 'Policy' workgroups.

...

I also have a variety of problems with the notion of "free consultancy". I won't try to cover them all here and now.

But the Commission spends a lot of money on acquiring information: from research projects, to studies, to workshops, to consultation processes.

Feeding into consultations, either in writing or much better by attending hearings, is a very good way to "get involved" in the flow of information.

Indeed signing up as an "expert" means that you can even be paid. "Experts" are used for proposal evaluation and project reviews. Both give a really good insight into how some things work. Signing up is not difficult. But you then need to contact the appropriate services and project officers. Recommended for those with the appropriate skills.

-- Roland Perry

Gordon