Do We Need The IGF? Now More Than Ever!
• 7 min read
One month out from the 2021 Internet Governance Forum, some reflections on the value of the IGF in a rapidly evolving Internet governance environment.
Chris Buckridge
Based in Amsterdam
25
Articles
418
Likes on articles
Based in Amsterdam
Chris Buckridge is an independent consultant on Internet governance and digital policy. He currently serves as a member of the UN Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF MAG) and the ICANN Board of Directors. From 2006-2023, he was an employee of the RIPE NCC, and prior to that of APNIC.
“Let’s Go Virtual!”: Reflections on a Community Discussion
• 4 min read
Recently, the RIPE NCC and LINX held an online discussion with around 50 people to consider the impact that our COVID-19 era “remote only” approach to events has had on the Internet technical community. In this article, we’d like to try capture some of the key insights and perspectives that came th…
COVID-19: Changing the Internet Governance Landscape
• 7 min read
I recently had the opportunity to speak in a webinar organised by the ISOC UK England Chapter on “COVID-19 and The Future of Internet Governance”. The session looked at the diverse impacts of COVID-19 on Internet governance-related issues. In this article, I want to discuss two of these impacts fro…
2019 (and 2020) in Four Words
• 9 min read
A look back at the RIPE NCC's year that was and to the year ahead.
RIPE NCC Country Report: Saudi Arabia
• 2 min read
The Internet may be a global network of networks, but for many stakeholders, understanding what is happening with the Internet in their own country is fundamental to helping them contribute to its development and continuous improvement.
ITU Plenipotentiary 2018: What Just Happened?
• 9 min read
As the ITU’s Plenipotentiary wraps up, we look at the outcomes and what it means for the Internet community, and for the ITU itself.
PP-18: An Update at the Halfway Point
• 4 min read
Here's an update from the RIPE NCC on the ground in Dubai as the ITU Plenipotentiary reaches its halfway point.
Why the ITU Plenipotentiary Matters in 2018
• 9 min read
Within the RIPE community, it’s easy to take for granted that Internet policy will continue to be developed by the technical community for the benefit of all Internet users – but the open, inclusive, bottom-up model of Internet governance is one that needs to be explained and, at times, defended on…
IGF 2017 Liveblog
• 41 min read
The 12th annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) runs from 17 - 21 December 2017 in Geneva, and the RIPE NCC will be liveblogging key moments from the event. Check back on this page from Sunday afternoon for regular updates on the issues, arguments and ideas from RIPE NCC staff and RI…
EuroDIG 2017 Liveblog
• 16 min read
The RIPE NCC is liveblogging the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) across 6-7 June. Check back for updates to this page!
“As a community we know quite well what RIPE is about. People are here for a reason. I am not convinced that we need another meta discussion. Talking about principles we should remind ourselves of those we have had from the very beginning of RIPE: the "RIPE Terms of Reference" https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001. For a document written in 1989 this co-author believes that it holds up pretty well. Even the essence of "a globally interoperable, unfragmented Internet" is there, worded more than 30 years ago as: "RIPE promotes and coordinates interconnection of IP networks within Europe and to other continents." Personally I am happy with these principles even after more than 30 years. They guide us well. Maybe we just need to remind ourselves of these principles from time to time and interpret them in the current context. Should we agree that we need to work on revising our principles, we should start from ripe-001 and word them as much as possible in terms of what we actually *do* .”
Thank you for this, Daniel. As I wrote, there's a case to be made that this is already handled (or rather, one must first make a case that it's *not* already handled), and I take it that's your position. I've been a bit lax on making the necessary connections, but I was interested to see at RIPE 84 (the RIPE Meeting after the one at which I presented the argument above) that Jelte Jansen led a brilliant BoF session on 'Properties of Today's and Tomorrow's Internet' (https://ripe84.ripe.net/presentations/21-introduction.pdf) - I felt that the discussion there circled some of the same issues (though perhaps from a somewhat different perspective), and that may indicate a continuing desire to understand, define, or even evolve the identify and role of RIPE. Or perhaps it simply suggests a need for us to better understand our history and touchstones?
I noted in the article that a report from the Expert Group Meeting held at the beginning of April was soon to be published. It's now online, and open to public comment: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/report-from-expert-group-meeting
Thank you for sharing this, Nadia! It's interesting to consider the limitations imposed by an "inclusion according to stakeholder group" approach (while accepting that it may well be the best approach we've currently come up with!). Multistakeholderism is hard...
Hi Mat, Mihnea - to respond to your questions: At this point, the communication with the Dutch regulator has been of an informal nature. We plan to communicate more explicitly to the community when the official decision regarding Dutch essential services is made public. However, the key points in our communication have centred around the fact that a single root server operator, due to the distributed nature of the DNS, should not be considered an Operator of Essential Services under the NIS Directive. Regarding the RIPE NCC's position on some of these regulatory proposals, the RIPE NCC is not taking a position on whether such regulations are good or bad - our goal is to raise awareness with our community and membership of measures that could affect their operations. We believe (based on our discussions with our contacts and consulting agency in Brussels) that the current proposals would have an impact on development in these spaces, but as you note, this may well be in line with the broader preferences of the community. The key point for us is that our community (members of which are involved in the development of IoT and big data applications) be aware of this potential impact.
“Who is Vint Cert? ;-)”
Glad to see you're reading, Daniel! :) I'd just assumed Vint had his own Computer Emergency Response Team now!
Thanks for your comment, Alexander. The RIPE NCC supports a wide range of community events, including NOGs and local Internet governance events - details of this activity can be found in the Draft Activity Plan & Budget 2017 (section 3.5 - Member Outreach). These are specific, one-off events and activities, and therefore they don’t generally involve any formal agreements between us and another party. The agreements we have included on the new webpage and that I'm discussing in this article are more general, ongoing agreements of cooperation between the RIPE NCC and other organisations. I hope that distinction makes sense. In both cases, we’ve tried to make our involvement clear and transparent.
Showing 6 comment(s)