Cooperation Working Group Minutes RIPE 89
Thursday, 31 October 2024, 14:00 - 15:30 (UTC+1)
Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek
Chairs: Johan (Julf) Helsingius, Desiree Miloshevic and Achilleas Kemos
Status: Draft
Read the stenography transcript
Administrativia
Desiree congratulated Johan and Achilleas on their re-selection as co-chairs. Desiree then introduced the agenda.
Panel: WSIS+20 Review and GDC
Moderator: Desiree Miloshevic
Panellists: Callum Voge (Internet Society), Tala Debs (WSIS SDGs Project Coordinator ITU), Marlene Straub (German Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport), Nigel Hickson (United Kingdom Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
The recording is available at:
https://ripe89.ripe.net/archives/video/1523/
Desiree introduced the panellists.
Tala explained the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process, which was designed to address challenges in telecommunications with the participation of all stakeholders. She shared the timeline of the process, which officially began in 2005 and would be reviewed in 2025, and which had also established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). She went over the key principles or “action lines” guiding the process, each facilitated by a different governing body. WSIS aimed to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) mandated by the UN. Tala outlined what had been achieved already and noted that WSIS had included many participants under different specialised tracks. She also shared some outcomes of the latest forum event and the preparatory process for WSIS+20, which would be held from 7-11 July 2025 in Geneva. She shared a call for input from participants.
Desiree asked Calum what opportunities there were for the technical community to participate.
Calum said the IGF was a good forum for collaboration and debate. For high-level planning, there was the WSIS+20 Forum and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), which reported on the work of WSIS to the UN. The technical community could contribute to the CSTD’s regular reporting through contributing expertise in ad hoc panels and workshops. And the CSTD was preparing a special report for 2025, which would include in-depth research on technical topics.
Desiree asked if there was anything different about the +20 process versus the +10.
Tala said there had been many changes. At the start of the process, there were far fewer devices and people connected to the Internet. But what had not changed was that the focus was still on the benefits to people, not the technology, and it still involved an inclusive framework designed to be adaptable.
Desiree asked Nigel where the technical community could contribute now compared to 2015, and how the Global Digital Compact (GDC) fit in to this process.
Nigel said the technical community’s role was crucial from the beginning. Now, there were a number of ongoing processes, but the critical discussions would be at the UN General Assembly. The GDC was a good basis for the WSIS discussions, but current geopolitics would also have a major impact. In the meantime, WSIS preparatory meetings had emphasised the role of the technical community. This was important, as WSIS+20 would affect the discussions for years to come, such as at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
Desiree asked Marlene how the technical community could contribute to both the GDC and WSIS without duplicating their efforts.
Marlene said there was indeed a lot of duplication. Collaboration with other organisations was crucial to be able to participate in all of these consultations. The GDC might not necessarily be the basis for future Internet governance discussions, so it was important to get involved and to negotiate with governments, such as at national and regional IGFs. In doing so, the technical community needed to translate their expertise for government officials.
Callum noted that the GDC process had been hard for the technical community to follow, as much of it was not public. People had also been concerned about some of the terminology used that potentially suggested exclusion of the technical community. To help inform the community and governments, the Internet Society had developed matrixes to review the text. But while the GDC was very multilateral, WSIS fortunately seemed more multistakeholder. However, when deciding to endorse the GDC as part of the WSIS process, it was important to think carefully and know that some parts could be endorsed without needing to endorse the whole document.
Desiree asked about the long-term strategy for the digital landscape.
Marlene noted the IGF’s mandate expired next year, but the German government would push for its renewal at WSIS. They were also doing strategic foresight workshops for what would happen in policy so they could be more proactive. There was a generational issue as well, so they would sponsor young people to participate.
Nigel said WSIS should look at development and how to update the original action lines for today. It should say more about different stakeholders’ roles as well, as they had shown to be very critical. Multilateral processes did not suffice.
Farzaneh Badii of Digital Medusa asked what the goal of cooperation was and noted that there were many legal frameworks affecting the open, global Internet. She pointed to a recent instance in Germany where court rulings had interfered with this, even though the national government in Germany had supported the open Internet. She asked how to get different government departments to coordinate on these efforts.
Maria Häll of the Swedish National Research and Education Network agreed that collaboration that included the technical community was important. Local government engagement could be useful, but communication between different countries’ governments was also important. She asked Marlene how much the German government coordinated with other countries.
Nurani Nimpuno from LINX said that the IGF mandate was important to renew. But it was sometimes difficult to get the technical community engaged in Internet governance. It was necessary to make the IGF more relevant for the technical community, not just for governments and regulators. One solution was not to separate policy and technical discussions. The Internet Society’s matrixes had been useful in this regard, and she asked if they would continue with those.
Callum said they would. The Internet Society had done some matrixes for the GDC and for national and regional issues. They had also produced briefs on these topics, although those went very in-depth.
In response to Farzaneh’s question, Marlene said she was familiar with the court cases mentioned and noted that it was hard to communicate the needed technical knowledge to judges. One solution was to make more information available for decision-making. To Maria’s question, she confirmed that the German government did interact with other governments and at the EU level on these issues.
Nigel said they needed to talk to many different groups. For example, the UK tried to engage in many fora so that other countries could understand their perspective. And while the IGF was a great opportunity with many stakeholders, there were also national and regional initiatives of the IGF where technical experts could participate.
Desiree thanked the presenters for their contributions.
Multistakeholder Models to Govern Today’s Internet: Some Open Questions
Chris Buckridge, Buckridge Consultants
The recording is available at:
https://ripe89.ripe.net/archives/video/1526/
Chris introduced a study commissioned by CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registry Authority, that looked into what had been achieved by WSIS. He noted that technical experts might say WSIS had little impact on them. However, he stressed that they had successfully gotten the technical community recognised by governments as a key stakeholder and showed the bottom-up multistakeholder model as the ideal way to operate the Internet through the Tunis Agenda. But the case for this model needed to be made once again, since so much time had passed. The technical community needed to show the model’s successes and how its challenges had been mitigated. He shared where people could contribute with their responses about this.
Hervé Clement of the ASO AC said people should also fill out the ICP-2 questionnaire, which Chris endorsed.
EU Engaging with Governments – Handling Requests for Information
Hisham Ibrahim, RIPE NCC
The recording is available at:
https://ripe89.ripe.net/archives/video/1527/
Hisham gave an update on the RIPE NCC’s engagement with governments. As governments were taking more of an interest in the Internet due to current geopolitics, this presented challenges for the RIPE NCC, with its service region encompassing many different countries. This meant that engaging with these governments was increasingly important, which the RIPE NCC did in a number of ways. Governments and law enforcement agencies (LEAs) particularly struggled with understanding what information the RIPE NCC could share with them. He noted some EU regulations might affect the RIPE NCC’s operations here, such as the e-evidence regulation, data protection regulations and NIS2. And while the RIPE NCC was not beholden to regulations outside the EU, they were conscious that these regulations might affect their members. A possibly solution to these challenges was to work with members on a legal and transparent process for information sharing, a “front-door approach.”
Jim Reid of rtfm lip said this was a good idea and they should think about the potential applications. He suggested someone in the Dutch government could act as an intermediary for this. Overall, they should develop this and look at more solutions.
Hisham agreed with this last point and encouraged more suggestions.
Alex de Joode of AMS-IX said the Dutch government did not want private companies interacting with non-Dutch LEAs, so the e-evidence regulation was needed. EU countries could use the front-door access proposed by Hisham, and other countries in the RIPE NCC service region could use an intermediary, like Jim suggested. One solution would be to point foreign authorities to the IRC, a Dutch police organisation.
Farzaneh Badii of Digital Medusa said the scope of the work should be considered, as information sharing was very broad. She questioned whether WSIS had really been effective if countries still thought of IP addresses as national resources.
Hisham said, on this, it was important for different government agencies to speak to each other. He agreed “information” was perhaps not the best description.
Monika Ermert of eLance asked how the RIPE NCC would deal with requests from LEAs that were in violation of European fundamental rights.
Hisham said they should look at this as a community. More and more countries might implement new regulations. If they did not comply with them, it would make it different to engage with these countries.
Brian Nisbet of HEAnet asked what the timeline of this project would be.
Hisham said he would consult the mailing list to determine a way forward.
Trey Darley of Accenture asked for his thoughts on the UN convention on cybercrime.
Hisham said the RIPE NCC was looking into this as well.
WTSA 2024 Update
Jim Reid, rtfm llp
The recording is available at:
https://ripe89.ripe.net/archives/video/1529/
Jim gave an update on the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), the main decision-making body for the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T). The WTSA happened once every four years and conducted important governance processes for the body. The most recent event had just finished, with some controversy over new leadership positions. Only one resolution had been updated: Resolution 164 now included IP address allocation by the ITU. He noted there was no new discussion on New IP.
Desiree thanked attendees and adjourned the meeting.