Archives

The Cooperation Working Group session commenced as follows:

SPEAKER: We are going to wait another few minutes to wait until people find this room. We will wait another few minutes.

CHAIR: So I think we should start. I am Patrik Falstrom, one of the two co?chairs of the Cooperation Working Group.

MARIA HALL: Nice to see you again, it was clear quite a while since I was here at a RIPE meeting. I am Maria Hall.

CHAIR: Today we have an agenda is not as packed as it is normally is, but I think we still will run all the way until coffee because we have a couple of issues on two presentations under any other business.

We have a scribe. Good, Chris is the scribe. And we have monitors for the chat. Thank you very much. Regarding the microphones, when you go to the microphone please state your name, etc., following the instructions on the pieces of paper. And the agenda looks like this:

That we have an update on the ?? on IGF and what is happening regarding the enhanced cooperation processes. That consists of two parts, the first one is Paul that will give a presentation and talk about NRO participation in this process. The second part of the IGF update is Maria, that will explain from a government's point of view where we are and what happens the next couple of months, and as far as ?? as I understand, also maybe some request for help from governments. Normally governments sort of come here and try to help us, maybe we should do it the other way around this time.

After the IGF update, we keep Maria on the stage to give an update on what happened during the plenipotentiary meeting in Mexico. After that, Alice will give a presentation and talk a little bit about activities in ICANN, GAC, government advisory committee, and after that we see if we have some burning issues.

But some other business, we have Paul that will give a normal update on the RIPE and NRO activities and we have Constance that will give us the normal update on IPv6 in Germany, and I think other countries now should like catch up because we ?? and show that you are doing better than Germany. But it will be nice to see a German update again. So with that, Paul.

PAUL RENDEK: Hi everyone. My name is Paul Rendek. I am from the RIPE NCC and I am going to giving to give the first part of presentation, of update on IGF. It's actually great to be on the stage with Maria, we have done this before so I think the idea here is that I will walk you through what the NRO or what all of the RIRs collectively, we call ourselves NRO and we work collectively, what we have done in the last IGF and even some of the things that we have been doing just generally in the Internet governance arena. Maria will come back up after me to say what her perception is from the government's side and how we can bring this thing together, give you a good idea of what sides, an area that is multi?stakeholder arena that we are working in here.

So, this is another presentation I am going to give, not this one. You will see this presentation, but not now. Sorry, I think we need to just load that one. So in the meantime I can keep you busy with something. We had a pretty busy IGF this time, the technical community in general, not just the RIRs. I think that, you know, as the RIRs we certainly have a mandate of what we do in IGF, in the governance arena, but together we work hard with a number of industry partners such as ICANN, the IETF, ISOC, for instance, IANA, there are a number of organisations that come together. It's very funny to see when we have a common cause like this, where people want to see all the areas of what the technical community does we do tend to come together quite nicely, it shows how resilient and how much cooperation there is within our community and that is actually really quite nice to see. And I think that now that we have come up to the fifth IGF, you can see that we work quite closely together and we have shown the rest of the world in this multi?shake holder arena we can work quite closely together so I am hoping I can present part of that here.

That is the same one.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Will we take Maria first? We were just checking whether we should change the order of the speakers, but as we are blocking the computer we are using for the presentation anyway. We will wait a little longer and see if it's resolved.

MARIA HALL: While we are waiting for this presentation, I could actually ?? maybe I could say a few words that, to start with, I actually said before I am very happy to be here again and having the opportunity to share in this Cooperation Working Group has been very great for me during all this multi?shake holder activities and I have been doing for the Swedish Government since the last two years, it felt very important for me to come back and see you all and have the opportunity to see what has happened for and tell you what has happened during this two years. The IGF is one of the processes, of course. And also for listen to you and all the questions that I hope that you have during this presentation, and never, ever has it been so important, actually, to talk about cooperation and collaboration between governments and technical community, business sector, academia and so on. So it's been obvious that it was a very, very good initiative, what we did a couple of years back when we started this Cooperation Working Group and now we can see it all over the place. The need and the urge of actually having this kind of dialogue, and hopefully in the end of this Cooperation Working Group, we could maybe have a little bit higher, what you say, little bit higher demands on what we can do with the Working Group. Maybe we can have ongoing dialogue between the meetings with the mailing list and so on. Very good.

PAUL RENDEK: We are ready to go now, I apologise for this.

OK. The last IGF was held in I will have knee us in September, roughly 1,800 attendees from 107 countries so this is extremely well attended event. People come from all walks of life, you have governments, people from civil society, from business, the technical community of course, and actually, it's a great place to meet people from that kind of all different sectors and from different influence levels and that is quite important because I think that most people that come to the IGF meetings, they are very open to meet new people from different areas and actual collect as much information as they can because everybody is scampering at the moment to gain visibility in this new multi?shake holder arena we see forming around us. At this IGF we saw 98 workshops, absolutely if you look at the agenda over the course of those days, you have no idea really what you should be attending. Thank God it's colour coded, you tend to follow the colour that fits with what you need to be doing there. But the main sessions, the most important one for this community would be the critical Internet resources, it is the session and even the break out workshops that take place, it is the most important for the RIRs so we are quite visible in this arena.

So workshops. The NRO actually collectively got together and organised two workshops at this event, the first one we did was IPv6 around the world. We actually show cased all of the efforts that the RIRs are putting into the deployment of IPv6. We did it, we had people on the panel from Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa and South America, for instance Yaun which many of you know from Slovenia, with Go6 was talking about the initiatives that are taking place there. I think a lot of governments were quite surprised to see how forward Slovenia was, the ministry and the government working together with industry and the technical community in getting v6 rolled out into Slovenia. Brazil, we had someone speaking, we also had the German government on the panel. We did not, unfortunately the chairman of Nenog could not show up so I provided the presentation for the Middle East and I think from ?? after I had delivered that presentation, I actually had quite a few governments from the Middle East approach me and say oh, we have got some work to do and we need to make sure we are tuned in so that was quite exciting and we had some other initiatives that spring out of that and I will be talking about those later.

The main points came out of the IPv6 workshop were the business case which I think everybody in here already knows, so nothing is being talked out there that isn't talked about in here and that governments need to be a key pusher of the technological innovation. I think everyone in that room, and there were of course quite a few governments in that room, were agreeing with this point, so and it was actually nice to see Constance is here, she was on that panel from the German government. It was great to see that she led that and showed the other governments what they had done, I think they were quite surprised with the work that has been done in German with rolling out IPv6.

The other workshop was a workshop on enhancing transparency in Internet governance. This was something that we put together as the NRO and it was something that the multi?stake holder advisory group was looking for, they were looking for somebody to actually organise something on transparency in Internet governance, we put up our hand and picked it up as the NRO and ran with it. We had speakers from business there, we had folks from PayPal, we had the head counsel, the head lawyer from one of the ?? one of the head lawyers of Horizon business, we had the Kenyan government on the panel, the Swedish government there, the RIPE NCC was on the panel as well, it was brilliant. We had also somebody from civil society there. And there was a round table discussion really talking about what transparency means and how we can improve this in each sector. I have to say I am very thankful to Maria who actually co?organised that event with us and we worked pretty hard to get all that moving there. And the points that came out of that, very interesting, I mentioned earlier on that visibility is kind of what everybody is scampering and doing in this kind of governance arena, I think we are doing the same thing as RIRs or NRO, out there making sure that everybody who is seen or wants to be a player in Internet governance, that they actually know what we are all about, and what we think about Internet governance and where we fit in, as a technical community.

So one of the big points that came out of that was that visibility is just a first step, I think everybody realises that. I think in order to move forward there has to be a lot of understanding. This was a very big word that was used inside that workshop because we also had a member of the European parliament that was on this panel, and she was quite adamant in saying that if we don't have an understanding of each other, business and technical community, how can we have transparency? How can we work together? That was a very big point that came up. Also, we need to define with a Internet governance means. I think Internet governance means something very different to me than Maria. We are in totally different sectors, so of course it would. I think everybody needs to understand what is that definition, what does that mean to you.

And then of course, at the end, they were saying that law enforcement, government and industry, actually really need to work together and so, actually, as a spring out of that, I think when you throw something that becomes a little bit popular, you all of a sudden have people coming up to you wanting to repeat it. I know that Eurodig, which is the European IGF, is very interested in having this transparency workshop there as well, the Council of Europe has been looking at this, they are interested in this, I know the East Africa IGF is going to have a transparency workshop as well. I think we have started a nice trend actually, in bringing everyone together. I imagine that if we see the success of this what we'd like to do the NRO would like to lead this workshop again at the next IGF and see where we can take this, see if we can move this on.

So other NRO involvement: Funny enough, this year I can speak from the RIPE NCC, I know the other registries also had quite a few staff there, we had a lot of ?? go to the IGF that probably wouldn't normally attend a governance?style meeting. There was a workshop on RPKI and we sent our CTO, it was the first time ever went to a governance forum, he sat on that panel and spoke there. Our chief financial officer, he was also there, he was asked to be on a panel for Cyber Security working with a law enforcement. So this is just where the RIPE NCC actually had a presence at the IGF outside of the workshops he did as NRO. I can tell you the other registries also had workshops that they were involved in so it's nice to see that we have been invited to our workshops because they feel that technical community definitely has something to contribute there.

The last thing that happens in IGF is once all the workshops are complete for a particular track everything comes together in kind of a plenary session and that is critical Internet resources, that was definitely about IPv6 adoption, very focused on that and naturally, we had planted all the people we felt we needed to have from our community there in that room and there was a lot of people running to the microphones, but there was great to see governments standing up and supporting and you can see that everybody was actually taking the initiative to say what they wanted to see in this critical Internet resource plenary session.

So, the last thing I wanted to say about this is I know these URLs are crazy, the Internet Governance Forum, they have asked us after you do provide them with a workshop, they want to have a summary of what happened there, so we had scribes from the RIRs as well there take the notes down, making sure that we can tell the rest of the world what happened there, these slides are of course going to be up, you can go there and see what has come out of those sessions.

Does anybody have any questions?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Jim Reid, just some random bow bozo off the bus. We were ?? back at the Prague meeting, the RIPE asked to monitoring developments and there was a meeting there in Geneva to do with the ITU proposals about becoming a regional Internet registry. Now, I don't know if there has been any communication back for this RIPE meeting and perhaps one of the other Working Groups or plenary slots, if you want to say something about this now or ??

PAUL RENDEK: I can talk about that quickly now, have I got time, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Yes.

PAUL RENDEK: Right. There was an IPv6 Working Group, so to speak, they call it a correspondence group, inside the ITU circles, that was formed by ITU to take a look at the ITU becoming a registry to distribute IPv6 address space. Now, naturally, the RIRs had followed all of this. I can tell you in another presentation I have, the RIPE NCC is is a sector member in the ITU of sector D and T so we are invited to all their meetings, we are a member of the ITU so we do get all the documentation and we get to go to all their consultations and meeting. Naturally we jumped on to this as RIRs collectively together as the NRO of course and we went to the first meeting they had in Geneva, as Jim has said. There were a lot of countries there standing up delivering their talks, it's not as dynamic as what you would see somewhere like here, they literally have what they are going to read out and it's been cooked long before they get there. That are that are other governments who have other ideas of what is happening there. Towards the end of that, there was a document that was produced and I ?? later on, if I can just stop, later on at the tend, I can put up the URL of where we can see this document of, somebody can take a read of what came out of that meeting. I can tell that you there were many, many iterations of getting not a very long document published on what was the outcome of this. Because many people had different ideas of what they felt were the outcome of that meeting, oh wow, very interesting, but what what we have seen ?? oddly enough, I am talking about the IGF here, the ITU certainly has a presence at these ITU meetings, it has always done in the past. At this fifth IGF I think it was because he had the ITU plenipotentiary taking place place in Mexico, there was no participation from the ITU on IPv6 panel that we had, we invited them to be on the panel and they didn't send anyone, from their allegation to deal with critical Internet resources at all. They had no presentation, they had nobody speaking in the audience, which I actually was quite amused by. But, OK, such is life. This is what happens.

So yes, Jim, there is a document that has been published with the outcome of that. I can say that from my own experience because I was at that meeting in Geneva in September, the first one, there were a number of countries of governments that stood up and I was actually quite surprised how well they delivered their idea of how things should move forward or their support for the current structures that we have distributing address space.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you. So the next presentation is, as we saw on the agenda is Maria talking about the IGF.

MARIA HALL: Thank you very much, I am sorry, I am a ?? I am having a little bit of a cold, my voice is a little bit cranky. Anyway, I will try to give you a little bit of an update from a government perspective of the IGF procedure and actually, as Paul said, the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum sprung out of the UN system, the ?? system, that is what we have and the meeting in Vilnius was the fifth and last meeting in the five?year mandate that was decided ? well, five years ago, in Tunis, was in the Tunis agenda.

So what is actually happening right now is what is going to happen next, and of course, we have many governments around the world that see the importance of having this kind of platform and arena that we can meet and what we like to say on a non?binding forum and non?binding platform, and of course, as I told you a little bit before, it was a couple of years since I was at a RIPE meeting so a lot of things have been happening and one of the things that has been very important for the EU and for Sweden actually and for myself, is the Swedish presidency for the European Union, the 27 Member States and of course it was one of the big happenings and one of the big things we were doing, preparing the ?? our 27 Member States, is of course going to the fourth of the IGF meeting in Egypt, this is my minister, he had EU speech and of course we were lifting the very importance of having this platform and not necessarily creating new platforms, tried to focus on this one and only global IGF multi?stake holder platform, and of course, we delivered several messages during that time and are very much up?to?date yet. So what we are trying to do now is negotiating with other countries, trying to create a decision or trying to, what do you say, make the decision of the general assembly which is going to take place in the beginning of December, that we need another five?year mandate. We need this platform for this dialogue, we need to have people or countries and ?? and countries and stakeholders, technical community, business sectors, to have this platform, to continue to have this dialogue; and of course, it needs improvements. We need to have more countries coming there. We certainly need to have more of you guys in the technical community coming there and supporting the discussion on the Internet critical resources, for instance. So this idea for ?? this IGF platform and process, is still very important and that is what we are trying to achieve, to make it another five years.

What is happening also right now is actually, as we speak, I think, is in ?? it's a very interesting procedure in New York where the ?? many of the UN meetings are taking place, my colleagues in the UN, the Swedish representation in New York, is actually negotiating a resolution called iCity for development and that is sent by the G 77, 77 countries, and many things in this I city for development resolution is concerning Internet critical resources, it's a lot of things about the IGF and we would like to the IGF to continue for another five years, we know it needs improvements but we want the improvements to take place within the IGF process, awful us together. We think that IGF is the self?developing process, it's a self?developing platform. We don't want all of the countries in the UN to sit among themselves to decide what is going to happen with IGF because if it is the case that it is a multi?stakeholder platform of course improvements and discussion about IGF should take place. That is not obvious. So that is exactly what we are doing right now, hopefully as we speak. My colleagues in New York, together with our European colleagues and also many other countries, of course.

And what ?? what has been very, very helpful is actually the technical community, in this case, has been ISOC together with ISC C, have created or had a few workshops in New York to help countries with a lot of, well, what can I say, knowledge?based workshops to try to tell what is Internet critical resources, who is dealing with what and how could governments have a role in all this kind of thing and trying to feed that into the process. That has been very, very helpful. And during all this IGF times, both at meetings in Vilnius but also in Egypt in the preparatory meeting, open consultation, whatsoever in the IGF process, it has been helpful to have this dialogue, together with technical community, of course with RIRs but also like everybody, the business sector, the ISPs and so on, so this dialogue is nothing that happens just once at IGF meetings; of course, we are here now at the RIPE meeting, it needs to take place all the time.

So this is a lot of ?? I am getting a bit mixed up, there is a lot of parallel process taking place that actually is so in need on this multi?stakeholder dialogue between the technical community and government, especially with the governments, I have to say. In many cases governments want to speak on their own between themselves, that is very necessary in many cases but when you talk about the Internet and technical development, we certainly need to do it in another arena and we need to do it like we are doing right now, actually, in this Cooperation Working Group, and also in the IGF.

Another process that is taking place is enhanced cooperation, and wait a minute you might say, enhanced cooperation there is nothing strange about that. Well, it is, actually. Since five years or maybe even longer, it has been a big dialogue, discussion, what on effort is enhanced cooperation. For many countries, stakeholders, it's the way you cooperate between countries, inter governmental, you need to have more enhanced dialogue between countries. Yeah, I know that is certainly necessary as well, but from my point of view, from the Swedish point of view and also from European point of view, enhanced cooperation is what we are doing now, enhanced cooperation is taking place in the IGF, it's taking place here, here right now, in all these platforms, all these dialogue between governments, technical community and all of us. So, what I would like to say to you, if you have time, if you think it's necessary, I think it's very necessary, I would like you to actually write what you think about enhanced cooperation. You can do it on that link. Aye sent in a Swedish contribution to this of course, actually they say it's the 15th of November but if you go to that site, it says that preferably, 15 ?? before 15th November, you still have sometime until the end of December, but I would really be very, very happy if you did that because I think many countries going to respond and hopefully ?? even more necessary that actually the technical community and the people from the private sector companies and organisations, civil society and so on is going to correspond or contribute to this open consultation. This is the Swedish answer, a little bit shorter ?? in a shorter way, and of course we are pointing out all the important players actually in the field of Internet. And that it's actually having dialogue with ?? between all the stakeholders, that is what we mean with enhanced cooperation so we don't need ?? don't need enhanced cooperation trek on the side of all the other things happening with IGF and so on, we think everything is the same. You need to have a better dialogue, that is the bottom line. But this is not obvious, so if we are ?? if we are a little bit unlucky it's going to be a trek on its own and nobody knows what that is going to end. It's very bad. Like to have it in one go.

OK. Questions? Actually, I would like to add, Bill ?? Jim said about this IPv6 proposal from the ITU, I am going back to that when I am having my ITU, plenipotentiary presentation. Thank you.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Do we have any questions? In that case, I think you can stay there and talk about the ITU.

MARIA HALL: Thank you. My voice seems to be working or what do you say? Anyway, normally I don't do the ITU things. ITU is a member, a member orientated organisation mainly for countries but of course, you can have sector members like RIPE is, for instance. And it's dealing with a lot of things, standardisation, radio frequency, they have all these three, four weeks meeting every year, I think, with all this planning over the frequency ?? the frequents, radio space on the global platform, that is very complicated. And very messy. But I don't do this kind of things. I am dealing with Internet governance things so I am going to ICANN meetings and I am going to the RIPE meetings and so on, so how on earth did I end up in Mexico? That is a good one. I didn't want to go because I know this ITU and UN things are not really my cup of tea, it's a lot of negotiations, drafting text until 2 o'clock in the morning and it's really messy, not my thing, but what is very important, what we realised, well actually a year back or so is that the ITU are interested in dealing with Internet related issues, Internet critical resources, the IPv6 address allocation policy, blah?blah?blah and a lot of other things. What we also realise which is the way this is working, this plenary potentialry meeting takes place every fourth year, so what is happening, there is actually you make a plan. What should ITU deal with, the up coming four years? So of course, if it is the case they have a lot of issues about Internet related issues and Internet related things on the agenda, we need to go there. So I am also very, very happy that people from ISOC, other players from the technical community, the RIRs, were there and supporting us government, while we were sitting there negotiating with all this text. It was a very, very peculiar thing, I have to say, and you can think that maybe EU, other governmental bodies are very bureaucratic and messy and slow, it's nothing compared to this. I mean, really, it's nothing, you could spend hours to discuss with ICT support telecommunication or the other way around, for three, four hours ?? days, I mean. This is my first meeting, when I went there I said I am never going back there to ITU plenipotentiary meeting. Maybe I have to do that. That depends how good work I make this time.

We have a lot of correlation before this meetings, because countries are sending in countries or organisations like, the CEPT, European organisation, sent proposals for resolutions, what ITU should do or they send new proposals for new things like this becoming an RIR was a new proposal of course, came a few years back but they change of other resolutions, so everything is built on resolutions. And this ?? so the whole three weeks of this meeting was like, the whole purpose for the meeting was trying to make these resolutions good and stringent and need to know exactly what ITU is going to be and what it's going to do and keep to its machined date. The first week was election, I didn't do that, of all the roles in the ITU but the second two weeks was all drafting of text. So the important thing that I was, me and my colleague from my regular authority, regulator focusing on these three things, there were other discussion about radio frequency and standardisations, this is the things I was chatting upon during the ten days I was there. I wasn't there for three weeks, that was for ten days.

Anyway, so the resolution that was actually touching upon these areas was these three ?? I am sorry, but ?? anyway, I hope you see anyway, it's four resolutions that are ?? that has been on the table for the last four years, but there was some severe changes in this resolutions, and as you can see this is exactly what many of you are doing in the technical community. You are dealing with IP networks, managing the Internet critical resource and so on and also Cybersecurity part. I was focusing on 101, 102 and 133 and 133 also about this international domain names.

So another interesting things was, there were three proposals of IPv6. One proposal was coming from the European group, two of the other proposals about IPv6 was from two other countries, and it was a mess, actually, because it was built on a lot of errors, one of the resolutions, I am not going to name the country, but it was like the IPv6 is going to ?? there is going to be much more Spam, it was connected to all this content things, it was just wrong, a lot of things were just wrong, so what we need to do, we had another ad hoc ?? everything is built on ad hoc text when driving this groups resolutions, need to put away all these errors, a huge job that took about five days, many, many hours of drafting. Then we finally had one nice little cute resolution about IPv6, and of course we tried to take away everything that was about monitoring and deciding and dealing with the managing of things that you guys are doing already; we couldn't do that, it's not our job, it's not ITU's job either. In the end when we, finally, the last half hour of the meeting before everybody went home we managed to have a good, what I think is a rather good wordings in these resolutions and one of the things is taking note of the people actually responsible for dealing with IPv6 address allocation. The thing that we had, I mean you know negotiations you have to give and take a little bit, so the maybe not very good wording is the last one when it's talking about monitoring. Hopefully, now, that is not too bad, it's like countries want to have some kind of knot control but they want to know what is happening with the Address Policy, blah?blah?blah, so yeah, of course the ITU is going to wonder how shall we do that? Go to the RIPE meetings and APNIC meetings, just be there and you can do a lot of things, I am standing here talking to you because I am here, I can't decide address allocation, I don't want to do that, I am here and can talk to you. That is the way governments should involve themselves. So I hope, if it is going to be a discussion about this second part here, I hope the message is going to be very good, you are welcome to go to the RIR meetings and then you can do your job, if you are interested.

Another thing was that, the US government had a proposal to take all this Internet related resolution and write good things and then you are done with it more or less. That was flying for half a day, then it was dead. Then US said wait a minute, we couldn't do that, that is not very popular but we could do another resolution about multi?stakeholder, talk about how important it is and everything, that was flying for ?? for a few hours, I think, three?and?a?half hours, then it was dead. So the result actually, was better than I would expect it ?? week number two when everyone was very, very tired, that is actually ?? we had these wordings that is here on the screen, is in all these four so?called Internet related resolutions these wordings are in all of them, so in all this Internet related issues you need to actually recognise that there are the organisation dealing with this kind of things. And we were spending I think two days, many, many hours, to just discuss whether this was going to abfootnote or not. This little footnote, you don't imagine how many hours was spent, not only me, 100s of persons. So, we managed, actually, that was the ITU secretary general himself, to manage to say, OK, we have the footnote, so now the footnote, it's actually the first document, ITU document that recognises ICANN, for instance. They have told me. So that is ?? this is a success. You think it's just wordings; you know, it's ? dish know it's ridiculous but this is a success, I have to say.

Another thing is, there is a group called the dedicated group that is actually a group under the world summit on information society, forum, which is ITU council group, and ITU council groups are very important, they don't do so much but they seem to be recognised to be very important. So they wanted this dedicated group on Internet related issues to become a council group instead of being under group, subgroup under the basis forum but the negotiation from our part, from Sweden and other countries, was like yeah, OK, maybe it council group but make it open to everybody. We didn't come all the way. It's still only for Member States but it's open for consultations and could invite technical community and other persons, so that is half a success.

What we got this one, so then we have to ?? it was ?? it's give and take in these kind of negotiations but it's a bit interesting.

This made me and my colleagues have bananas, Alice is laughing, because this was also a proposal. Pretty wanted to hijack GAC, you can't take ?? if an organisation has an advisory group you can't take that and put it in your organisation; you can create your own advisory group but you can't take somebody else's advisory group, for instance. And you can't tell the advisory group, blah?blah?blah, powers of supervision over ICANN; who can decide that? We can't do that. So that was removed. It took many, many hours. Many hours we discussed that. Jesus Christ. I was tired, I was sleeping for a week.

Anyway, other hot issues is Cybersecurity. It was many, many parallel ad hoc discussion drafting groups so I was doing the Internet things and my colleagues were doing the Cybersecurity so I don't know is so much but this was equally messy for sure, and of course the definition of Cybersecurity and that makes ?? made some countries and place of course bananas because the definition of Cybersecurity, whether it's going to be consent?orientated, if dealing with national security things, that is really severe things, so according to my colleagues, after all these negotiations and drafting of text it's landed in a pretty good definition so everybody was kind of happy, I think. Thank you very much. Am I keeping my time?

(Applause)

PATRIK FALSTROM: We have some overflow issues on the agenda that we have to excess a little bit, so questions, because this is also important, I think, getting questions I think on both presentations are fine. Axel.

AXEL PAWLIK: Just a quiet remark. I would like to thank you and the rest who gave up valuable lifetime for weeks of drafting cute resolutions and simple seeming footnotes. Thank you very much. You seem rather sane after all that.

(Applause)

PATRIK FALSTROM: I just want to continue what Axel is saying, I was not going to ?? I cannot even pronounce that place, there are a lot of people that sent me e?mails I have now spent 3 days here that I will never get back.

MARIA HALL: 3 weeks.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Naroni from NetNod. I actually don't have a question, I have a few comments. One is that I think the IGF in itself is seen, a lot of people in the technical community see the IGF as this beast, all this political stuff goes on that has nothing to do with what we are doing here. I think more and more people realise that you can't really ignore the IGF process and to be perfectly honest, I think I have actually seen an evolution in the IGF process, the first IGF I went to was completely lost, I didn't understand any of the discussions because they didn't make sense, there were no ?? there was no technical clue in any of the discussions, and I actually think that thanks to both people like Maria, from government, but also people from technical community who have gone there and injected technical clue and realised they have to talk to governments, they have added value to the IGF process, which is why I think a lot of us now are saying that we support this process, it's a useful process, and not only for us to come there and say this is how things work, but there are decisions being taken and if you can do that in a collaborative way, then that is useful.

The other thing is, also, I think your description of the pleny pot shows the difference between those two beasts and the IGF is actually a very open and collaborative forum compared to the pleny pot. After your description, I don't think anyone wants to go there, and I certainly managed to avoid going there, but it's important to have people going there and I think the RIRs did a great job by tweeting from ?? I said the word "tweet" ?? but tweeting from the pleny pot and that highlights the fact that these processs are so close and by having people there tweeting, what is going on, it kind of puts a little bit of pressure on the ITU to open up these processes and I think that is something that we should continue to work on.

My last point was actually to bring up what is happening in Sweden, where you are from, and where I work, and what I think has been fantastic there is that the regulator and the government has reached out to the industry and create a little reference group so we meet up regularly and discuss various issues and help form the Swedish position and that is fantastic because it means that these things don't happen in a vacuum, it happens in a collaborative way. So I guess I'd like to say to people here to actually start talking to their governments and try and get them do the same thing. Talk to the GAC representatives and people who go to the ITU meetings and then the ??

My last point is actually maybe more of a suggestion to this Working Group, to ?? I mean, Maria has been going to RIPE meetings for years so she is not afraid of going here but a lot of governments don't come here and I think we really need to ?? I think the RIPE NCC has done a good job in reaching out to governments but I think we need to do more and not just have reports from what is going on in that world out there, into the world here, but we actually need to try to use this Working Group to communicate and to cooperate with these parties.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you very much. I would like to mention two things before we give the stage to Alice.

The first is to point out that there is cooperation and collaboration also going on between these organisations that we saw named in the footnote, which is very important to point out. I am the liaison from IGF to ITU and we are working together now with shared views of, for example, how each one of us are going to handle and take care of our side of that footnote when ITU is working together with us and that collaboration is working very well, not only like pointed out there was some twittering Internet society, wrote very, very good daily reports, that is something that really was appreciated, I want ?? thank ISOC for the work.

The next thing I would like to add is regarding participation in this Working Group from various countries in the RIPE region. I would ?? I really, as the Working Group chair here and without asking Maria, I think, I think she supports it as well, I would like you who are coming or are active in countries which have not presented here or talked here, brought up issues from their home region here in the Working Group, go, please, and talk with your regulator or your government and we are happy to help and RIPE NCC can help because we need to ?? we really want to have better participation here so please do that.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Can I add one more time. Well, the other thing is ?? that is important to understand also, is there are representatives the technical community in these forums, so for example Patrik, myself, Andrei Philip from the Chezch TLD, we are actually on the multi?stakeholder advisory group for the IGF. This is something we have sort of had to fight for and as discussions now are coming up about the new formats of the IGF or the future of it, something that is important to continue to push for so even if you can't go to an IGF, you are not interested, it might be good to voice your opinion to answer some of those questionnaires and just make the point that the technical community needs to be part of this.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you. And with that, please, Alice.

Alice: Thank you very much, my name is Alice, I don't come from this region and it's not that you can tell but I am from Kenya, my ?? AfriNIC, I am very pleased and very grateful for RIPE to having invited me to speak about ICANN GAC because I am the Kenyan representative on the GAC. But also because the way RIPE conducts its business, the cooperation between RIPE and European governments is very admirable and something we have been talking about in our region in terms of how AfriNIC must emulate this practice, we it hasn't got tone a level where governments feel comfortable cooperating or working with the technical community. From when I come, Kenya, the IGF, the multi?stake holder is one we have taken very seriously and it's reflected in the way that we conduct our governance processes, policy development process, regulation in terms of ensuring it's a multi?stakeholder, we have adopted that model and take it very seriously and that said I think we, I think ?? I don't know whether any of you attended the ICANN meeting that took place in Nairobi, we are going host in Nairobi hopefully towards the end of the last week of September so we are looking forward to that and hoping it is retained. The Kenyan government is very strong on ensuring that that is ?? that, in particular, is retained.

And I am also very glad that I didn't go to the plenipotentiary because it was very stressful for my colleagues and I was glad that the my government was quite protective of that space in the multi?stakeholder model again. I will be talking what GAC is doing currently and I am not going to pretend to represent the government advisory committee, there are many governments represented there. We have a consensus over a couple of issues and that is what I am going to be talking about and most of them are around the introduction of new generic top level domains and the most controversial is issue of morality and public order. We still think it's very important to develop a stream review process that allows for review and identified ?? identifying processed streams that may be contentious. You know know some of us at ccTLD level have restrictions on certain towns so we feel at the GAC level it's very important to have that review process introduced.

And then there is another issue that route scaling issue that continues to be very important for the GAC members. And GAC is proposing the creation of a procedure that would prevent the root from growing too rapidly and mitigation against any stream.

On issues of market and economic impact, we think that you know we would support any proposal that is consistent with any technical or management practice that is sound. But at the same time, we acknowledge there is some applications that are not controversial and being delayed by this constant discussion and dialogue amongst the various stakeholders so we are proposing those that are not controversial be given the go?ahead and used the fast track used for the IDNs.

Another very hot issue is the registrar and separation of the two, and while we acknowledge there is a lot of significant work has gone towards resolving some of the difficult issues and we also support the studies, we actually feel that there is a need for this to be taken very seriously and be resolved in a sound manner.

Then protection of right owners. We support what we see more as outreach to the business community. We feel ICANN need to conduct a bit more, especially those that are likely to begin definitive registration of names. So we feel ICANN hasn't done enough from that perspective and there is a need to begin to look at with the business community how the cost of that. And ensuring a trademark clearing?house, ensuring that new names are protected. So that is one of the other proposals that we actually are proposing very strongly.

And then of course, you know disputes and how governments should be dealing with disputes. ICANN contends that governments should pay for any disputes but we feel as the GAC, that we shouldn't, we shouldn't have to pay for raising any objections to new TLDs for a couple of very important reasons and one is governments do not necessarily protect commercial interest so we don't see why governments should be forced to pay for it. And then, also, we also believe that the cost of blocking a controversial stream is much more than blocking of the national level, it's much more expensive than upfront costs of opposing it. And also, from a public policy principle, general public policy, and especially most of our countries mention we shouldn't have to be or the public shouldn't have to bear the responsibility of any regulatory response or policy response that pertains to a name.

Another very important issue is just the role of GAC and the role of the government advisory committee, in ICANN it was being discussed at the ITU, that is a different ?? but just the role of ICANN and I think that is what has raised issues within the ITU as well, in that, you know, is it just advice, you know, to what extent is GAC advice taken and does it just make a mockery of government participation in ICANN? And GAC members do ?? most of us do have consents but we also feel that what we need is the the board to thoroughly and give us thorough explanations of most of the decision that is they take because most of them have inpacket, whether it's technical or commercial decisions, they have impact and political and public policy impact and in a way, and not just to the government advisory committee but also our constituency, to the ICANN community so it's not just GAC, it's how the board and ICANN itself responds to advice from supporting organisations and advisory committees. And we feel that there is ?? ICANN's responsiveness will help demonstrate goodwill, the global community and be consistent with its commitment to the affirmation of commitments and also in terms of transparency, and now I'd like to extend this directly to the technical community, the importance of being transparent with your processes and also communicating them. I was reminded of an issue that was raised during the IGF where a government representatives from Botswana asked how much would it cost for us to deploy IPv6 and the once from one of you, somebody from the technical community, was deployment of IPv6 is likely to be more in developing countries. That is not a good answer. I mean, I am lucky that I do understand a little bit of IPv6 but manage if it's somebody who is directly involved in coming up with policy and doesn't understand this, it's not a very good answer and they are likely to go off and try to get responses from other sources, so it's very important to be able to communicate in a transparent way and clearly answer, you know, respond to straightforward questions in a straightforward manner. It's very important, especially with government, and also government needs to do the same with other communities, not just ?? the responsibility must be two?way.

We are also the ?? GAC is quite active in the whole of this accountability and transparency review and just to let, you know, we are looking at the role of, again, reviewing the government of the government advisory committee and also looking at the GAC operating principles, and there is now an open period for public comment and I think it's very important for each of you to be able to comment on this because it's ?? it's going to impact on the way ICANN moves forward.

And also, now, with the new review team on stability, security and resill yen see, we are going to be expecting you, the technical community, to give us your perspective on how we should conduct this review team and we had ?? we are looking forward to exchange of views and perspective on how to take on this next review which is very important, up from a technical perspective. And I am a member of that team and I think there are quite a number of others who are members of that team, we will be inviting you all to give us your perspective on that. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you, Alice. Do we have any questions? OK. Then, I have a question: You talk about the need for potential verification of the domain, of the top level domains like the string itself, and what I hear you saying is that ?? was it correct ?? is it correct when I interpret what you are saying as if the view of GAC is that as long as a string, a certain string is not acceptable in, for example, one of the countries in the world, then it should not be allocated at all?

Alice: Yes, that is what ?? we don't mean that. I think what we are trying to say here is we need to develop a string review process that looks into it. We are not ?? the GAC is not going to be say Kenya opposes one string and so GAC in union says that it's not acceptable, I think what we are saying is we need a process, we are not really sure what but we need a process that actually reviews these applications at the beginning rather than (union) towards the end where government is forced to block because it finds it offensive or controversial.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Clarifies things.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Just a question relating to what you just asked, what you have responded to. So what would happen or ?? how should I put it ?? has a GAC ever thought about what would happen if, like, a new country would join the GAC which might be unhappy with a delegation that has happened already as in like the current GAC members are quite fine with certain application and so there is no review needed, but later on another country, a a new country joins the GAC which is unhappy about it, that has been thought up already?

ALICE: No we haven't thought about that and I can see that happening, there is a likelihood of that, there are some countries that would join GACs because they begin to see processes that are not acceptable at national level and it's quite a good question and something we must begin to think about. Thank you for that.

MARIA HALL: What we are a little bit afraid of is we are going to have, every time there is a potential sensitive string, we need to go back to our ministers at home and ask them whether this is OK or not, and that process ?? it's not ? not going to work, actually, so we need to have another process. ICANN, together with advisory committees, need to have a process for the whole thing, actually.

PATRIK FALSTROM: I think ?? you told me off separate comment or is it corrected to this.

PAUL RENDEK: Connected to this actually, more of a comment. I am going to attempt to answer Jim's question later if I could, but I ?? I just wanted to stand up here and say the reason why we actually have invited Alice here. We work very closely and super to work with you, but we brought Alice here because she is a vice?chair on the ICANN GAC and so is Maria hall, and that is the reason we brought both together for that particular ?? for this particular agenda item, so what I would like to urge you to do is if you have any recommendations for the ICANN GAC or if you'd like to speak to both of them, they are here, they are here to listen to you. I am sure they will bring back anything you have to say to the ICANN GAC members.

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you very much and thank you, Alice.

(Applause)

PATRIK FALSTROM: So, Paul. You promised to be short so we can listen to Constance.

PAUL RENDEK: Very short, I am only going to answer Jim's question. I can't, unfortunately I can't ?? I can't send around the URL to that document. I am working in an open environment here and I have to go back to the closed environment when I deal with the ITU deal. Those documents can only be read by ITU Member State reps, I can't pass them around. I am going to attempt to kind of tell you what has happened in here so that it gives you a little bit of idea what came out of those two, because there were two Working Groups, correspondence groups is what had he call them, the IPv6 group in ITU set up.

Now, the first one, actually, dealt with human capacity building, so deployment of IPv6 globally, really. What happened there is that basically what that Working Group was set up to do, was to collect all the different kinds of efforts that are taking place to deploy IPv6, there are quite a lot of them, the RIRs have played their part and so have other technical or parts of the technical community so we have done what we can to document what we have done, we have come up with a whole bunch of activities together with NROs do and we have made that very well?known inside of that cooperation group. So, we continue to contribute to this IPv6 group in this manner.

The second correspondence group was the hot one, actually, that we were watching; that was the one that was set up to identify the issues, and I love this quote?unquote, issues with the current registry system or the current way we allocate address space. And of course, looking into the ITU becoming a registry. Both of these correspondence groups were closed in September, OK? The IPv6 group inside of ITU still continues to move on. The reason why the second one was closed is because, after all ?? after the two meetings that they had and the period of consultation in between where people were allowed to actually submit documentation and issues that they had with the current system, there were no issues raised in that actual correspondence group. So, towards the end, there were some submissions that were made, and two I would like to mention in particular: One was made by Saudi Arabia and one by Syria. Those submissions were handed to the technical community and we are actually going to liaise on those and actually provide our feedback on that. We have been given that opportunity, so we will provide our feedback in March next year when the ITU IPv6 group comes together again. So, that is what has happened out of those two correspondence groups. Does that answer your question, Jim?

JIM REID: Yes, Paul.

PATRIK FALSTROM: With that, Constance, please, your turn.

CONSTANCE BUERGER: First of all, thank you to be here and to have the opportunity to speak and I want to say thank you to Paul and Maria for engaugement in so special organisations and to bring the focus for themes that we should engage in and I think it's necessary to do this because there is two less experience in our side and we have to learn about this process in GAC or ITU or IGF and so, I am very thankful to hear some recommendations and to be ?? or to show what is going on in Germany and so we are here to say hello and to update your knowledge about our projects and I want to show you some slides about this on ?? first, my first IGF meeting was in September and Maria and Paul told you a lot of things but it was very impressive for me because there was so many people, they ask about our process in deployment of IPv6 and it was very good discussions because we learned a lot about other people and other countries and other roles and culture and it's necessary to understand for governments to learn the different cultural things. And in the end I got a signature from wind surf, you see the IPv6 signing, I was very proud of this.

The next thing I want to inform you is about the guide, the security guide, IPv6 network architecture, our federal office of information security set up this guide and there is an introduction to IPv6 for admins and network architects, requirements for IPv6 enabled network components and configuration advice. Complemented checklists, too, and it's available by end of 2010. And very important persons like Mr. /TK*EUT Lar worked on it so I am proud to produce or to offer this in this end of this year. You can download from the site I wrote down, BSI.bunde.

A few words to the proposal from Slovenia. Germany appreciate the proposal for IPv6 profiler ICT equipment. Our experiences are in the deployment that there are so many devices not in this case IPv6 ready than we need this. And we we need some more informations and so we have some comments for improvements but the support and this proposal is very necessary for us. We would wish us some more details than RFC level. We would ask you, as community, how we should deal with the optional fields defined in some RFCs. We would recommend a matrix which matches legal requirements and policies also of different sectors to certain IPv6 functions, and in the next step we could imagine IPv6 software requirements. And I think a very important thing is getting the support from the EU Commission to spread this requirements in Europe and so we try to set up to inform, to build the awareness on the EU Commission to bring this to other Member States and to get the support from other Member States to this proposal.

And some technical informations. We have two big projects. We started to modernise the communication infrastructure in Germany of our public administration based on IPv6. And our first technical slide from me. And first, you will see our main project infrastructure serving federal government states and municipality, Deutschland infrastructure, and you will see DOI backbone, IPv6 and IPv6 ready in production in the next year, in February, and the problem is firewalls and crypto systems and security operations and services should be enabled but it's not so easy because the devices and software things are not so ready, I told you, and so we have a lot of things to do because our security systems are not ready for IPv6.

That is one of our biggest problems.

We have a pilot started on our DOI network and we have participants from central government, federal states and municipalities. Then we have another where common network for federal administration and this is very important network because it's very modular designed, development, allocation with central control in central service organisation and the involvement and we want to have more services through government IT providers for critical secure and operational modules and we think ?? or we promise thank there will be more monitoring by government, it reduces dependency from single companies, it increases security and economic efficiency and flexibility is also there ?? oh, there was a word, just for Axel. And in the end, I want to hand over to my colleague, Mr. ?? just for two slides, it's possible? From the military. To show you the pilot process in Bundeswehr.

JOERG WELLBRINK: Behind every successful man there is a successful woman. In Germany ?? so Constance is the successful woman and I am right behind here, I am representing the German army or German /PW*UDZ, working for the ministry of defence and when I present here the first time in Lisbon, I showed you what are we doing IPv6 in the German armed forces. There was a time we still apply for address space via Constance because the entire governments that we apply for one address space for all government organisations. So meanwhile we got our address space and i'd like to show you a little bit how far we are ahead now. We are still facing some issues with our infrastructure, actually. And it took us about six months and I think it's important to tell you guys how long it takes in a governmental organisations to get certain things going that are technical. So it took me about six months to get the signatures of all the important people in the ministry of defence to get the signature for what I would call our Address Policy of the German Bundeswehr.

Should I start all over again? No, I won't. I can hear me now. I am doing it fast. For you guys to understand it takes a lot of time in a governmental organisations to get things going but once you do they are stuck. In this policy, one example, we say there is not going to be any network address translation any more. Period.

(Applause).

And of course getting an address space also requires us to see how we can come up with deconflicted address plans. That is what we are working on right now and the next slide should show that and ?? we have two main providers, one is industry provider, he is doing all the network stuff in Germany and the other one, it's ourselves, it's for all deployments. And we try to modernise our infrastructure in Germany, first of all it's very expensive and it takes longer than we wanted it to take. We had a contractual obligation to provide a certain address space to this contractor which we could achieve so we are save there, but Murphy's law states once you have the address space the guy who needs it cannot use it because they don't have the hardware yet but they are working on it. We call it the green IT so the IT we are using during deployments, this is working just fine so we have been able to send a ping over all communications satellites with two of those in the space and we have been able to send a ping down all the way to our radio, our signal equipment. That is not good enough obviously, because it's only a ping so we need to even look deeper into it. Some of the issues we are doing research and development is IT security, so are we going to change the system we have been using so far, and if so, how are we going to do? I am pretty sure we have to change the way we have been doing business with IT security, because we just need to come up with ideas how to connect ad hoc mobile networks with L Is, so we cannot use German security systems to do that, I don't think we can convince the Americans to buy our stuff so we have to come up with some other things. So thank you for the time. I hope I stayed within the time. And have a good day.

(Applause)

PATRIK FALSTROM: Thank you very much. Was there a question?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Basically, it's not a question; it's a statement. Jan from Slovenia, I am the original author of that proposal for IPv6. I would like to thank Constance and the German government for supporting our proposal with IPv6 requirement and ?? how much time do I have?

PATRIK FALSTROM: 17 seconds.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: We can't go back to that slide with the improvements?

PATRIK FALSTROM: We can find it.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: That is comments. I think we will just try to put the paper as is to the best current practice, and after the last call we can work on a published paper and add the comments and suggestions to go more in detailed into RFCs, is that OK? Thank you.

(Applause)

PATRIK FALSTROM: And thank you very much for the presentation. So now we are in the part of the agenda where we are thinking about having a long and deep discussion on this Working Group and what we are going to do in the future and I see we have about 71 seconds to go before the coffee break. So I think we go and have Working Group meeting now, go and have coffee and talk to each other during the break and homework, think about who you are going to talk to in your government and ask them to come to the next meeting. Thank you very much for today.

(Applause)

LIVE CAPTIONING BY AOIFE DOWNES RPR

DOYLE COURT REPORTERS LTD, DUBLIN IRELAND.

WWW.DCR.IE