Based in Amsterdam
Articles
Likes on articles
Chris Buckridge is an independent Internet governance expert, currently serving as a member of the UN Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the Co-Chair of the MG Working Group on IGF Strategy and Strengthening. From 2006-2023, he was an employee of the RIPE NCC.
• 6 min read
So the WSIS+10 (the United Nations General Assembly’s ten-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society) is done. A process that has been the source of much fretting in Internet governance circles over the past few years has delivered its outcome. And the result? Actually it’s pretty g…
• 10 min read
The ninth annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ran from 1-5 September in Istanbul, Turkey, attracting nearly 2,500 participants on-site and more than 1,000 online to participate in wide-ranging Internet governance discussions. As part of ongoing efforts to ensure a strong technical community voi…
• 8 min read
When it comes to RIPE community discussions of Internet governance, the role of government in relation to the Internet and Internet-related public policy, there is one player that it's impossible to ignore.
• 15 min read
Internet governance is an important area of resource investment for the RIPE NCC. This article looks at some of the major Internet discussions taking place in 2013.
“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)