Based in London
Articles
Likes on articles
Andrew Campling runs 419 Consulting Ltd, a public policy and public affairs consultancy focused on the tech and telecoms sectors, working with clients on a range of marketing and policy-related projects. He is also a Trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation, a charity which works to eliminate child sexual abuse imagery online, preventing the ongoing victimisation of those abused in childhood and making the Internet safer for all. Andrew is involved in the development of Internet standards and Internet governance, with much of his current activity in this area captured in blogs and podcasts on his company website. He is also working with others on PARCEP, a proposal for an open standard that will make parental controls more effective and easier to operate for parents and carers, improving the protection of children against online harms.
• 8 min read
Evidence suggests that criminals may control a substantial share of new gTLD registrations. Although the precise scale remains contested, the article asks whether current DNS Abuse measures adequately address wider misuse of domain names.
• 10 min read
This article provides an update on developments in encrypted DNS and related protocols and their potential impact on cybersecurity. In particular, it highlights how applications are making it increasingly difficult for both enterprises and consumers to monitor their in-bound and out-bound communica…
• 7 min read
While it remains to be seen what conclusions Mozilla will reach after public consultation into their Trusted Recursive Resolver policy, their initial reaction to the input received has led to positive change. That said, a closer look at responses to the consultation shows more work is needed before…
• 5 min read
The European Resolver Policy is intended to provide reassurance to end-users and other stakeholders that personal data gained in the operation of DNS resolution services will not be misused. In this guest article, Andrew Campling talks about the aims and benefits of the policy.
• 8 min read
DNS-over-HTTPs (DoH) has come a long way, but there's still plenty of work to be done. Here's an update from Andrew Campling on developments in DoH.
Showing 5 article(s)
“Disclosure: I am one of the founders of RIPE and both the first and a current employee of the RIPE NCC. I have also been an IETF participant, working group chair and chair of the Internet Society board of trustees and as such have played a role in IETF governance. Dan, No, the IETF is not perfect and neither is the RIPE community. We all carry the history of actions and prejudices of our individual and collective past into our current structures and attitudes. This is no different elsewhere. As an exercise I advise any representative democracy and their rites, unwritten laws and sometimes obscure networks. Whenever I wish to engage a new group I have to do my homework like you started to do. Nowhere have I succeeded in demanding to re-visit previous beliefs and decisions without knowing them and basing my proposals for a big part on the previous work and traditions of the group I am engaging. Neither have I had much success with challenging the attitudes and customs of the group I wish to engage. "As a new attendee, I argued both that I was not part of or aware of previous discussions (which is reason in itself to reassess the previous consensus), and also that the imminent adoption of online safety regulation in the UK and EU is a strong reason to revisit these discussions." will get you nowhere, neither here nor at the IETF and for a reason. Best Daniel”
Daniel One of the contradictions that I have observed in the IETF is that the community maintains a position that it addresses technical issues and not policy, when in reality it sometimes does address policy matters quite explicitly (eg RFC 7258 - Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) and often does so implicitly (many of the technical decisions have policy implications). Suggesting therefore that it is unreasonable to highlight changing circumstances in legislation etc (the imminent adoption of online safety regulation in the UK and EU) as a possible reason to revisit previous community consensus positions, especially if some time has passed since those positions were reached, seems itself to be unreasonable. The IETF does not operate in a vacuum! Separately, the research referenced by Dan mentions the lack of diversity within the IETF community on a number of axis including gender, ethnicity, geography and thought. It is something of an outlier compared to, for example, the IGF, in that regard and has yet to find a way to embrace the multistakeholder model despite some proposals from the IAB (see RFC 8890 - the Internet is for End Users). I note that we also have a problem engaging newcomers, with significant attrition after they have attended a single meeting. Whilst some of this will be due to some taking advantage of the proximity of a particular meeting with their home base, the culture of the community must also take some of the blame. It should be possible to address the cultural challenges. From my own limited experience of RIPE, the community feels very welcoming, and I'm told that the same is true is other organisations such as ETSI. If we are to cite consensus documents as the reason for doing (or not doing) something, we should take care to ensure that the community is as diverse and representative as possible, otherwise our consensus will not carry very much weight. Andrew
With great timing to coincide with the presentation and discussion at the DNS WG today, AdGuard has confirmed that it has adopted the European Resolver Policy. See https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-dns-adopted-european-resolver-policy.html for more details.
“I cannot resist to point out that the privacy policy on the web site of this initiative says: 'Privacy Policy coming soon'.”
Hi Daniel Thank you for highlighting the omission. Human error, now fixed.
“Hey Andrew, Thanks for this, appreciate the efforts here. What I was wondering, is there a direct link with the DNS4EU initiative as it was presented in the EU's Cybersecurity Strategy that was published late 2020, quoting from the document (JOIN/2020/18): "With a view to reducing security issues related to market concentration, the Commission will encourage relevant stakeholders including EU companies, Internet Service Providers and browser vendors to adopt a DNS resolution diversification strategy. The Commission also intends to contribute to secure Internet connectivity by supporting the development of a public European DNS resolver service. This ‘DNS4EU’ initiative will offer an alternative, European service for accessing the global Internet. DNS4EU will be transparent, conform to the latest security, data protection and privacy by design and by default standards and rules and form part of the European Industrial Alliance for Data and Cloud". Is this initiative seeking to be an implementation of this or could it be? Thanks, MarcoH (Manager Public Policy and Internet Governance, RIPE NCC)”
Hi Marco Thank you for your comments. With regards the EU Commission's DNS4EU initiative, there is no direct link between this and the European Resolver Policy, the latter of which comes from industry. However, it is entirely possible (and desirable in my view) that the DNS4EU initiative may specify that resolvers should adopt and be compliant with the policy in order to meet the criteria that you have quoted in your message. Would this have the support of RIPE? This is certainly a point that could be raised during the Commission's next HLIG meeting. Andrew
Showing 4 comment(s)