[cooperation-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RIRs Publish Response to ITU WTPF Opinions on Internet Governance

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 at 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 at nominet.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lindqvist Kurt Erik
>>> Sent: 24 April 2013 09:15
>>> To: Paul Rendek
>>> Cc: cooperation-wg at 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 at 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 at 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 -
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20130426/690d07dd/attachment.html>