[address-policy-wg] RIPE (NCC) engagement with LEA and government

On 2 Jun 2011, at 10:20, Gert Doering wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:11:10PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
>> the fact that NCC had a happy-clappy "very cordial" meeting with
>> SOCA (yes, the Internet is Serious and Organised Crime in the UK)
>> makes me wonder.

About what Sacha? Do you think it's a Bad Idea for the NCC to engage  
with law enforcement and have a good relationship with them? If so, why?

FYI SOCA currently has responsibility for dealing with computer crime  
in the UK. From a practical point of view, this is very helpful. For  
example, there's a single point of contact and a clear process to  
follow, both for the NCC and the cops. The NCC doesn't have to deal  
with local UK law enforcement or figure out if a request from  
Detective Sherlock Holmes of Strathclyde Police is genuine or not.  
We've also had SOCA come to the co-op WG at RIPE meetings a few times,  
something we should welcome and encourage because that helps develop  
mutual understanding. I wish other LEAs would do this too.

> One of the tasks the NCC is mandated by the NCC members to do is  
> "make sure
> that the governments of our region understands how the Internet works,
> how Internet self-regulation works, and that it's better to leave us
> alone".  This is why those good people attend ITU meetings, meet with
> LEAs, etc. - to make sure those "political accidents" that everybody  
> is
> afraid of do *not* happen.

Exactly!

> There's serious dangers here, like "why should a private entity be  
> allowed
> to rule address governance in Europe?  The european commission and the
> national governments are much better suited to do that!" - and the NCC
> works togethe with these folks to make them see that our way *works*  
> and
> we need no extra regulation...

I'd express this a little more diplomatically Gert. [What?! Me  
diplomatic?! :-)] By engaging with governments, regulators and LEAs,  
we can show how their concerns about the usual public interest things  
-- fairness, transparency, consumer confidence, monopoly  
considerations, etc -- are being addressed and that the mechanisms  
which are in place are satisfactory to deal with those issues.

Followups on this thread probably should move to the co-op WG list.