[cooperation-wg] Minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in Warsaw - Part 2

Dear all,

The text in my mail yesterday was the summary of the IANA discussion - the
full minutes of the working groups session are now below.
My apologies for the confusion!

Alain

>
> -------  Beginning of Minutes -------
>
> Cooperation Working Group Draft Agenda
>
> Thursday, 15 May, 11:00 – 12:30
>
> A. Administrative Matters
>
> The co-chairs opened the meeting. New co-chairs Meredith Whittaker and
> Alain Van Gaever introduced themselves and briefly outlined their hopes for
> the working group, specifically ensuring that the content is relevant and
> of practical use to the RIPE community.
>
> The minutes from RIPE 67 were approved, as was the agenda for RIPE 68.
>
>
> B. Content Blocking
>
> • B1. A Technical Overview of Content Blocking Methods – Pier Carlo
> Chiodi, Olaf Kolkman
>
> Olaf Kolkman gave an overview of the work done by Pier Carlo Chiodi on
> content blocking on the Internet and other work in the same area. Outlining
> a number of strategies employed by those wishing to block content, he noted
> that blocking is done most effectively at the end-point (or origin of the
> content), and that blocking in the network involves a variety of trade-offs.
>
> Lars-Johan Liman noted that even “legitimate” blocking has collateral
> damage, and pointed to the example of the hotel network, where the
> interception of traffic prevents the use of DNSSEC. He suggested that in
> such situations it is best if the effects of the blocking are stated
> upfront for users.
>
> Andrei Robachevsky recalled a paper produced by ISOC (prepared around the
> time of the SOCA/PIPA/ACTA legislative proposals), and noted that security
> and hidden costs are all important, and public policy makers need to be
> made aware of these negative impacts. Olaf pointed out that users will do
> whatever they can to get to blocked content, and that this can also have
> potential negative effects (including a greater viral footprint or exposing
> backdoors to computer systems).
>
> Alexander Isavnin asked participants in the room who thought their
> countries were doing blocking, and whether they thought it was being abused.
>
> Richard Barnes noted that these issues reinforce the importance of an
> end-to-end strategy, and agreed that the hotel network is a good example of
> how blocking can break important security elements like DNSSEC.
>
> Jim Reid noted that blocking access to specific content can mean that
> broader services are blocked. He noted a case that he had provided advice
> on, where one of the questions asked was "what would happen if we switched
> off port 80 access on this particular domain?” - the only person who knows
> is the webmaster of the domain, but that person is unlikely to happily
> cooperate in the blocking of their domain.
>
> • B2. Telex: A Proposal For Circumventing Censorship in the Network – Eric
> Wustrow
>
> Eric Wustrow outlined the Telex project, which has been developed to
> circumvent content blocking measures. The system provides a means of
> connecting users to blocked content via a mechanism that is invisible to
> the censoring technology. He encouraged ISPs to contribute to the work with
> advice and prototype deployment assistance.
>
> Robert Kisteleki noted that PGP key distribution may be a bottleneck in
> the Telex system. Eric noted that the paper discusses some of these issues,
> including preventing censors from distributing “bad” public keys. He
> suggested that having a central Telex entity that is known and trusted will
> be important to mitigate these risks. He also noted that getting
> information into areas subjected to censorship is often less difficult than
> might be supposed.
>
> • B3. Web Censorship Circumvention: Challenges and Opportunities – Walid
> Al-Saqaf
>
> Walid Al-Saqaf outlined his project to map URL filtering via
> crowdsourcing, which is developing longitudinal data, while allowing
> contributing users to access blocked websites via his own servers. He
> presented a range of data and analysis obtained from this work, including
> content blocking methods and strategies. He noted the need to make people
> more aware of the range of circumvention tools and solutions available, and
> that speed, security and anonymity are all important to users. He also
> described his plans for the future, including open-sourcing his own project
> and cooperating with similar projects.
>
> Andrei Robachevsky asked whether the project looked at which means of
> blocking were most common. Walid stated that he has done some analysis of
> this, using the packet headers - the more data he can get, the better this
> analysis will be.
>
> Meredith Whittaker noted that the Open Observatory of Network Interference
> (OONI) project, coordinated by the Tor team, is also doing work in this
> area and is generating public data.
>
> Alexander Isavnin suggested that a RIPE task force might be a useful
> vehicle for RIPE community members interested in this issue. Walid agreed
> that the technical community, and particularly its relationship to civil
> society actors in this space, needs to be further explored and understood.
>
> C. IANA Transition
>
> Chris Buckridge and Paul Rendek of the RIPE NCC presented background
> information on the U.S. Government’s announcement of its intention to
> transition out of its IANA functions oversight role. They noted that any
> proposal for a future model of IANA administration needs to come from a
> global, multi-stakeholder development process, and that RIPE and the RIPE
> NCC are key IANA stakeholders. They suggested that the RIPE community’s
> discussion of these issues should be centred around the Cooperation Working
> Group, with the RIPE NCC assisting in facilitating input to that process
> from regional events and voices.
>
> Rob Blokzijl warned that any process involving ICANN will necessarily be
> complicated and political. On a technical point, he noted that future RIPE
> NCC presentations on this subject should include the RIPE NCC’s reverse DNS
> interactions with IANA, which may be more regular than the number resource
> requests already noted. He further noted that the RIPE NCC’s direct
> interactions with the NTIA itself were non-existent, and stressed that the
> processes developed by RIPE and the other RIR communities already met the
> requirements laid out by the NTIA as necessary for oversight of the IANA
> functions.
>
> Danniel Karrenberg recalled that this is not the first time this
> discussion has taken place, and that the RIPE community has been vocal in
> its preference for the US government stepping away from this oversight role
> since the late 1990s. He stressed the success of the RIR community
> processes in policy-making and argued against over-complicating the
> situation. He also noted that the IANA is three distinct groups of
> functions (number resources, the DNS root zone and protocol parameters),
> and the RIPE community discussions should focus primarily on the number
> resource functions; if difficulties in defining governance processes for
> the DNS root zone threaten to derail the oversight transition process, the
> community should be explicitly prepared to propose unbundling those
> functions and taking oversight of the numbering functions.
>
> Malcolm Hutty disagreed with the perception that NTIA oversight was not
> important, and stressed that this oversight has protected the policy-making
> relationship with ICANN itself. He noted that policy regarding the DNS is
> determined by the ICANN community and imposed on registrars, meaning that
> users essentially have to submit to ICANN policies. RIPE and the RIR
> communities determine their own policies with regard to Internet number
> management, but it may be conceivable that ICANN would decide it wants to
> set these policies in future and impose them on the RIPE community. He
> argued that a credible external oversight function must be retained to
> prevent this.
>
> Nurani Nimpuno argued that the RIR communities should take ownership of
> this issue, as custodians of the Internet number resources, and that the
> community members should be contributing to the broader discussion, while
> maintaining a focus on the numbering functions. She also stressed that the
> communities should be pro-active in defining terms like “multi-stakeholder”
> and “openness” which appear in the NTIA requirements.
>
> Jim Reid agreed with Malcolm Hutty on the importance of preventing ICANN
> mission-creep, and on the need to tightly define the relationship between
> the IANA operator and the RIR communities. He also warned that achieving
> consensus on a community proposal may be difficult, and suggested that
> there should be a fallback position to allow for RIPE and the RIPE NCC to
> make a meaningful contribution to the global discussion.
>
> Jari Arkko noted the evolution that has occurred in how the IETF and IAB
> manage oversight of the protocol parameters and their relationship to IANA.
> He agreed that the RIPE community needs to take ownership of this and take
> charge of what needs to change or not change.
>
> Olaf Kolkman, also an active participant in the IETF, noted the efforts in
> the IETF to align on a principle-based approach, with the most important
> principle being that the IETF controls its own destiny. Ensuring that
> people are empowered to participate in these discussions will help the
> debate going forward, and the community needs to provide guidance -
> developing a set of principles may be a good first step. Olaf suggested RFC
> 6220 as a good starting point.
>
> Salam Yamout provided some perspective from the government side,
> particularly in the Arab world - notably the perception that the United
> States has control of the Internet, and governments’ strong focus on
> DNS-related issues. She noted that governments concerns centre primarily
> around ICANN.
>
> Phil Rushton urged the community to be aware of events in other forums,
> including the UN, WSIS and the ITU - while there is not the need for
> everyone to be directly involved, we need to be aware of what governments
> are thinking and the where they still need to be convinced by the RIR
> communities.
>
> Daniel Karrenberg argued that the community does not need another level of
> oversight for protection, and noted that the RIR communities already have
> solid agreements in place with ICANN, which ICANN cannot unilaterally
> change. He stressed the importance (and his optimism) of achieving
> community consensus on a proposal. He again suggested that the RIR
> communities should make every effort to unlink the number-related IANA
> functions from the DNS.
>
> Paul Wilson noted that the IANA functions comprise three quite different
> areas (numbers, protocol parameters and DNS), and that only one of these
> (the DNS) is controversial - the IAB has stated its readiness to take
> responsibility for the protocol parameters, and the RIR communities should
> also, in the very near future, be ready to make such a statement regarding
> the number functions. He and Adiel Akplogan agreed that strengthening the
> RIR processes, ensuring that they are consistent, clear, accessible and
> well documented, is vital.
>
> Sandy Murphy warned that the outcome of this process may impact our
> current model of Internet governance, and stressed the need for the RIR
> communities to have their voice heard. She also asked about the ICANN
> consultation timeline, specifically the call for comments on its proposed
> process, and whether this process is now set. Paul Rendek noted that there
> is expected to be more information on ICANN’s planning in time of the ICANN
> 50 Meeting, which takes place in London in June.
>
> Chris Buckridge also noted that all relevant information, including links
> to the relevant ICANN web, is posted on the ripe.net website.
>
> D. Interconnection
>
> • D1. The Internet, the Internets, and Splinternets – Peter Koch
>
> Peter Koch discussed the proposals coming from Germany for establishing a
> separate “German” Internet.
>
> Randy Bush noted the experience of the Saudi industry, after the regulator
> decided that no traffic between two Saudi users should leave the country,
> and pointed out that IXPs are a key element facilitating this.
>
> There was a question as to whether the German-only email system used the
> DNS (which would generate its own cross-border traffic). Peter noted that
> the one he mentioned uses special domains, but DNS leakage was of less
> concern than the actual content of the messages.
>
> Alain Van Gaever asked about the rate of take-up. Peter didn’t have
> figures to hand, but noted that there are incentives, it is early in the
> deployment, and the operators are targeting users of existing email
> services.
>
> Brian Nisbet said that while he can see what’s being attempted, it never
> succeeds and generally breaks things that the users want to do. Peter
> stressed that walking away from the discussion probably isn’t the right
> strategy, and that users often learn what they want from marketing
> campaigns. Expanding on the question of what users want, Meredith Whittaker
> noted that users want security, and the technical community needs to be a
> public voice stating that this is not the way to achieve that.
>
> Marco Davids noted an initative in the Netherlands using a closed user
> group in BGP - this doesn't combat traffic monitoring, but rather helps
> mitigate DDOS attacks, and if users (such as banks) are under attack the
> group can be closed to users outside the Netherlands.
>
> Olaf Kolkman asked whether any EU research funding had been channeled to
> this, and whether the project could lead to some sort of European
> standardisation. Peter noted that the work is based on IETF standards. Jean
> Jacque Sahel noted that the European Commission has publicly said that this
> is all a very bad idea.
>
> Jaap Akkerhuis recalled a proposal from Italy to establish a trusted
> network for digital mail.
>
> Olaf Kolkman and Peter Koch, summarising some of the discussion’s key
> points, suggested that we are moving intelligence to the core of the
> network, and the core is represented by big players. The technical
> community cannot just dismiss these initiatives - there are some laudable
> goals behind them, and we need to engage in the discussion.
>
>
> • D2. Interconnection: Russia, the EU, and Internet Cooperation and
> Governance – Igor Milashevskiy
>
> Igor Milashevskiy, representing the Russian government in its first RIPE
> Meeting, shared some perspectives on that government’s view of the Internet
> and related public policy. The Russian government sees the Internet as a
> driver of development, with the Russian Internet market the biggest in
> Europe - 68 million users, more than 56 million people use Internet every
> day, including a significant percentage outside big cities. The Russian
> language is also the second largest in Internet, there are slightly fewer
> than five million .ru domains and more than 800,000 .рф domains.
>
> Speaking from personal perspective, he noted that the RIPE NCC is a
> reference organisation in the Internet space, and the target is to restore
> trust and confidence to the Internet environment, and develop international
> tools for preventing improper use of the Internet.
>
> Ho noted that the main actor in the Intenet is the user, and if those
> users have certain rights in the offline world - access to information,
> privacy, secrecy of communication and freedom of opinion - we have to
> protect those rights online. The process to do this has just begun, and the
> Russian government believes there are no rights without duties, no freedom
> without responsibility.
>
> He also suggested that the role of governments in Internet governance
> needs to be recognised. NETmundial was a good and innovative attempt to
> include all stakeholders, but the outcome document doesn’t reflect all the
> contributions.
>
> Ciprian Nica, participating remotely, asked how and who should define the
> proper purposes of using the Internet. Igor explained that the Internet is
> a universal tool, and can be used for a wide range of purposes, but that
> its primary purpose should be to make users’ lives richer.
>
> Desiree Milosevich asked if there could be some elaboration on the Russian
> government’s issues with the NETmundial statement. Igor noted that this is
> in the public record of the Russian statements.
>
> Paul Rendek extended his thanks to Igor and the Russian government for
> their increased willingness to engage with the RIPE community and RIPE NCC,
> and welcomed Igor's attendance at the RIPE Meeting.
>
>
> E. Making the Internet a Little Bit Safer Cryptographically - Randy Bush
>
> Randy Bush discussed the development of an open public architecture for
> hardware security modules. The goal is a design (not a product) that is
> scalable, composable and assured. He stressed that the project needs people
> to audit the code.
>
> Aaron Kaplan asked where to get a development board. Randy noted that the
> boards are available for 170 USD. Aaron also noted that it would be a good
> idea to have the testing procedure online and publicly available.
>
> Eric Wuster agreed that this is good work and asked why go the FPGA route
> rather than using a small embedded chip. Randy noted that some of the
> applications need speed, particularly some of the encryption stuff.
> Regarding chips though, Randy noted that the FPGA Verilog was first done in
> Python, meaning there is a Python version and a Verilog version.
>
> Eric also asked about how the project is sourcing hardware random number
> generators. Randy replied that they are currently investigating this issue.
>
> F. Policy Radar
>
> • F1. RIPE NCC Updates, including NETmundial and IGF Developments – Chris
> Buckridge
>
> Chris Buckridge gave an update on the wide range of Internet governance
> events taking place in the coming months, including the ITU Plenipotentiary
> 2014 that is scheduled to take place in October. He highlighted the links
> between many of these events, particularly in terms of broader strategies.
> He noted suggestions from earlier sessions that the RIPE NCC provide more
> targeted information for the community, and reported that the RIPE NCC is
> investigating the best method for doing this.
>
> Phil Rushton noted that the technical community can have significant
> impact on events at the Plenipotentiary via their input to Member State
> delegations. He also noted that while NETmundial produced a good outcome
> for the multi-stakeholder model, other forums, such as the CSTD Working
> Group on Enhanced Cooperation, saw much less support for multi-stakeholder
> processes and governance.
>
> • F2. Co-chair Updates and Working Group Initiatives
>
> Meredith Whittaker closed the session by reiterating the goals of
> co-chairs, particularly the need to engage people who are affected by
> Internet governance and public policy issues, but don't currently take an
> active interest. She noted options such as producing white papers, using
> RIPE Meeting time for more workshop-style events, and other ideas for the
> working group to serve as a RIPE community “brains trust” for those
> involved in public policy discussions.
>
> Nurani Nimpuno noted her support for the co-chairs’ approach and stressed
> the need to bring discussions back to specific issues and make the topics
> practical for RIPE community participants.
>
> The co-chairs closed the meeting.


--------------------- End of Minutes ---------------------------------


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Alain Van Gaever <avangaev at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Please find below the minutes of the Coop-WG meeting during RIPE 68 in
> Warsaw.
> WG members are welcome to suggest further edits or changes.
>
> Hope to see you all in London for RIPE-69 !
>
> Meredith, Maria & Alain
> Co-Chairs of the Coop-WG
>
>
> PS Thanks for Chris for producing the notes!
>
> ---- beginning of minutes ----
>
> Location: Warsaw, Poland
>
> Attendance: Approximately 150
>
>    - Minutes of the session
>    - Full transcript of the session
>    <https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/steno/39/>
>    - Video of the session and information slide-pack
>    <https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/216/>
>
> Major points coming out of the discussion:
>
>    1. The RIR communities need to assert their ownership of issues
>    regarding the distribution and registration of Internet number resources.
>    This transition is an opportunity to more solidly formalise that ownership,
>    with minimal change to the existing policy-making and operational processes.
>    2. While the IANA functions (as a bundle) present a number of complex
>    issues, identifying a future model for the IANA Internet number registry
>    functions should be straightforward. The policy-making and operational
>    processes relating to the IANA Internet number registry functions are solid
>    and have been in place for many years, and they have never included an
>    explicit oversight role for the NTIA.
>    3. The Regional Internet Registries must ensure that their processes
>    and policies are clearly defined, well documented, transparent and
>    accessible.
>    4. While the RIPE NCC will facilitate discussion of these issues
>    throughout the service region (including at community regional events), the
>    RIPE Cooperation Working Group will serve as the central venue for RIPE
>    community discussion and development of any proposal relating to the future
>    of the IANA functions.
>
>
>
> Some additional points made during the discussion:
>
>    - Speakers reported on the progress of the Internet Architecture Board
>    (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in establishing their
>    ownership and authority over protocol parameter registries maintained by
>    IANA.
>    - Several speakers noted the dangers arising from this process,
>    particularly the potential for an outcome that does not solidly define and
>    protect the community-driven, bottom-up control and development of IANA
>    policy.
>    - Several speakers noted the interest that governments throughout the
>    world are taking in this process and that government voices will be a
>    factor in the final outcome.
>    - Several speakers stressed the importance of reaching RIPE community
>    consensus on a proposal or position, with this process potentially seen as
>    a test-case for bottom-up policy making.
>    - Several speakers argued strongly that any RIR proposal should aim to
>    separate the IANA number management functions from oversight of the other
>    IANA functions.
>
>
>
> --------- End of minutes ------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140605/a9d42f73/attachment.html>