[cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16

To those interested in the next steps of the Bildt report, I am will be
attending a meeting organized by EU MEP Marietje Schaake next week. see:
http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2016/06/european-launch-of-our-internet-the-final-report-of-the-global-commission-on-internet-governance/
Where the report will be discussed with some of the original authors. I can
post a summary of the event to the list, if that is of interest.

On Gordon's comments on the net of rights movie. I appreciate your thoughts
and kind words, but I have to disagree with your assertion that it
demonizes the Internet. I think the documentary does not demonize or blame
the Internet for anything, but rather raises some much-needed questions
about how we can protect human rights online considering the political and
commercial realities we find ourselves in as the people maintaining its
technical infrastructure.

Best

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:

> Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to
>         cooperation-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mailman.ripe.net/
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cooperation-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet     Governance
>       (GCIG) (Jim Reid)
>    2. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance
>       (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius)
>    3. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet     Governance
>       (GCIG) (Gordon Lennox)
>    4. Re: Report from Global Commission on Internet Governance
>       (GCIG) (Johan Helsingius)
>    5. Copenhagen - The Movie! (Gordon Lennox)
>    6. Re: Q: What is the latest trend in Internet connectivity
>       offerings? (Alessandro Vesely)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:28:27 +0100
> From: Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
> To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on
>         Internet        Governance (GCIG)
> Message-ID: <F41783E4-5A03-4150-884C-DA44CC11EF69 at rfc1035.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> This is an interesting document. I?ve only skimmed through and not yet
> read it in detail.
>
> Does anyone know what happens now? Will it be up for
> discussion/consultation at some governance forum like WSIS or ICANN? How
> can people and organisations comment on the report?
> The motherhood and apple pie statements on page viii ("What Happens
> Next??) are rather vague about next steps.
>
> In particular, what does
>
>
> ?... conceive of a new model that embraces greater involvement of those
> whose lives are affected by decisions that govern their ability to use the
> network and to exercise their fundamental rights online. This new vision of
> ?multi-stakeholderism? requires a more collaborative, global and
> decentralized model of decision making; enhanced coordination and
> cooperation across institutions and actors; increased interoperability in
> terms of identifying and describing issues and approaches for resolution
> throughout the ecosystem; open information sharing and evidence- based
> decision making; and expertise- or issue-based organization to allow for
> both localization and scale in problem solving.
> ...
> To continue to be effective, Internet governance will need to be more
> inclusive and more distributed.?
>
> actually mean in practice and where is this new vision/model to be
> developed?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:29:59 +0200
> From: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on
>         Internet Governance (GCIG)
> Message-ID: <576AD927.8080404 at julf.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote:
>
> > Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many
> > of the internet organizations is slowly killing them.
>
> I think that is your personal interpretation of what the
> document actually says.
>
>         Julf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:00:23 +0200
> From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
> To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on
>         Internet        Governance (GCIG)
> Message-ID: <A0430C4C-B038-4B6B-A091-274C4706D187 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> That was Kieren and not me. ;-)
>
> I pointed to the article by Kieren which in turn points to the report.
>
> In order to encourage people to at least go and read what Kieren said I
> supplied a couple of tasty ?nibbles? from his article.
>
> I had hoped that some people would then go on, as Jim has done, and look
> at the actual report.
>
> :-)
>
> Gordon
>
> > On 22 Jun 2016, at 20:29, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 21-06-16 22:27, Gordon Lennox wrote:
> >
> >> Which is a polite way of saying that the old boys network in many
> >> of the internet organizations is slowly killing them.
> >
> > I think that is your personal interpretation of what the
> > document actually says.
> >
> >       Julf
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:04:35 +0200
> From: Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com>
> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Report from Global Commission on
>         Internet Governance (GCIG)
> Message-ID: <576AE143.1090706 at julf.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> > That was Kieren and not me. ;-)
>
> Ah, my apologies - I have been reading the original
> report, but not Kieren's article, so I didn't realize
> you were quoting him.
>
>         Julf
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:54:13 +0200
> From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
> To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Copenhagen - The Movie!
> Message-ID: <76D5EDAA-7FD3-47E3-A03F-09ED358465D6 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> For people who were ?not there? - either not in Copenhagen or just in
> another session - the meeting archives can be a great resource.
>
> And even if you were there it can still be useful over a coffee to revisit
> some of the presentations. There are often issues and unfinished business,
> stuff perhaps of general interest.
>
> So thanks again to Meredith for an interesting programme.
>
> But there was one item that is not in the archives as far as I am aware
> and that is the ?Net of Rights? video from the screening organised by
> Corinne.
>
> https://hrpc.io/net-of-rights/
>
> Personal takeaways.
>
> The density of clue in the room made an interesting counterpoint to the
> presentation by Chris and the discussion that followed. The big problem is
> that elsewhere there are groups who would really like to govern the
> Internet, to make decisions about the Internet and Internet users, and
> there the desire for power sometimes outweighs any notion of competence.
>
> There was another remark as to the extent we are "at war" with
> governments, with our democratically elected governments. I found that a
> useful concept and one I tend to identify with. There is a hard
> contradiction there. We are not talking about ?evil regimes? elsewhere. We
> are talking about our own countries, countries whose values we to a very
> large extent subscribe too. But to what extent do people feel they are
> obliged to collude with governments when it comes to surveillance.
> ?Snoopers' charter" anyone?
>
> I felt the film was to an extent "demonising the Internet?. That sends the
> wrong message. I think that it is wrong from several perspectives. Various
> players are abusing the openness of the Internet: their actions are the
> problem. I also don?t like the notion that the early implementers foolishly
> somehow did not get it. I think more that many of them knew they did not
> know where the road was going. But they made good decisions. Anyway those
> who did "get it" in that other sense largely failed. We in Europe had
> several programmes - RACE, ACTS, Telematics - to produce something else.
> Governments everywhere supported OSI standardisation. And where we did "get
> it right? with GSM we had a product that was in part built for the
> agencies. I have good friends who still complain about the embedding
> MAC-addresses in IPv6 addresses and yet find IMEIs totally OK.
>
> There was a view in the past and elsewhere of course that the folk in the
> Internet technical communities, the ?techies? of the IETF and RIPE, were
> politically naive at best but more likely a bunch hippy anarchists! That
> does not correspond with what I have seen over many years. I was in
> Washington when the IETF discussed interception. The debate was reasoned
> and mature. I remember when I helped bring the chair of the ETSI WG on LEA
> interception to RIPE. The WG session was not at all hostile. It was
> friendly.
>
> A stronger, perhaps more coordinated, presence in the EU-wide debates by
> the local technical community might be be useful. But see the presentation
> from Chris for other possible directions.
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:20:03 +0200
> From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it>
> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] Q: What is the latest trend in Internet
>         connectivity offerings?
> Message-ID: <576BA9C3.4070004 at tana.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Thanks for all replies.  I note none of them came from Italy or Spain...
>
> On Wed 22/Jun/2016 16:11:00 +0200 Julius ter Pelkwijk wrote:
> >
> > Concerning registering yourself before you can use a network is
> something that
> > is governmental-related. In case of problems they can point at you as the
> > culprit. However, since anyone can register a domain, you can also set
> up a
> > mule that buys the domain while you keep ownership of that domain, or
> buy a
> > postbox company in the Seychelles?
>
> There have been several privacy-safeguarding improvements in residential
> connections.  I welcome them.
>
> Requiring a VAT number is different, though.  Every Italian citizen has a
> fiscal code, which is as good as a VAT number for identification purposes.
> Yet, after years, one of my connection providers still invoices me using my
> expired VAT number.  Could that be rooted in 11-digit VAT numbers vs
> 16-byte
> alphanumeric fiscal codes?  Hmm... not in this millennium, I'd say.
>
> I'd rule out specific laws, because the other connection provider I have
> did
> switch to fiscal code invoicing upon request to do so.  However, I doubt
> they
> would have offered me that contract if I hadn't have a VAT number at the
> time.
>
> A third provider, who promised me everything over the phone last month,
> retracted all /after having laid new fiber cables to my office/, saying
> they
> cannot do their "microbusiness" contract without VAT number.  They
> invoiced me
> zero euro for missing the deal.
>
> Others just quit the conversation as they hear about no VAT number.  Note
> that
> residential lines, which I use too, are somewhat cheaper for "physical
> persons"
> than for businesses.
>
> The only high level manager I spoke with dismissed the argument as obvious,
> saying "Every provider does so".  "You mean in Italy?!" I objected.  He
> said yes.
>
> > The onliest thing that links an IP to a person is the endpoint. Other
> than
> > that, there is no possible way to verify someone. The same way that
> companies
> > try to validate someone by "sending an SMS". Anyone can get a free phone
> number
> > on a SIP server and use that to "verify" themselves, That is how I have
> gotten
> > an american phone number from Google and how I call customer support in
> the USA...
>
> Postmaster.live.com used to check enlisting requests by (also) writing to
> WHOIS
> contacts.  Many methods can enforce one another.  And yes, it is something
> of a
> pita to switch provider on a mail server.
>
> > The registry should be a "best guess" method, or they should do the same
> thing
> > as banks and Facebook and start "enforcing" the fact that you should
> give out a
> > copy of your ID card, and make sure that the ID card is valid and holds
> the
> > same data as you entered on your account. Its a false sense of security
> when
> > people can give out a random number and the registry will accept it
> without
> > questioning the legality of it.
>
> Agreed.  BTW, bank payments, along with email addresses, make for trusted
> IDs.
>   Erogo ergo sum.  I don't think FB wants to gain the same level of
> accountability as, say, PayPal, as an informal ID certifier.
>
> Ale
>
>
>
> End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 16
> **********************************************
>



-- 
Corinne J.N. Cath
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160623/8cf4571a/attachment.html>