[Bp_certs] [Bp_spam] IGF BPF follow-up

Thu Apr 28 12:16:13 EDT 2016

Hi Nick, all,
Thank you for reminding me. At the recent MAG meeting/open consultations earlier this month, we discussed thepossible themes for BPFs.  I reported back, conveying the message there was a general appetite among the experts to continue to deal with issues related to  cyber security. This message was well received and we have an agreement in principle to have a new BPF with a theme that would have to be defined. It is the MAG that will take the decision, but I think input from the experts would be very helpful.
You are starting the discussion, suggesting a BPF dealing with DNSSEC. Are there any other suggestions?
Please also note that the call for workshop proposals has been opened:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf16-workshops
 Anyone is free to submit a proposal!
Best regardsMarkus

From: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:11:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [Bp_spam] IGF BPF follow-up
To: markuskummer at outlook.com
CC: runnegar at isoc.org; bp_spam at intgovforum.org; bp_certs at intgovforum.org

All,
Has there been any further thought on the approach to take this year, and are there any plans afoot to submit workshop proposals etc for Mexico?
I'm keen to build on discussions last year to explore how the global community can promote broader adoption of DNSSEC.
Kind regards,
NickNick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet GovernanceDepartment for Culture, Media & SportHM Government | United Kingdom
Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.ukTel: +44 (0)7741 256 320Skype: nick.shoreyTwitter: @nickshoreyLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin

On 25 February 2016 at 16:59, Markus Kummer <markuskummer at outlook.com> wrote:

Hi Nick,

Thanks for your feed-back and your interest. The revitalized BPFs are a relatively recent innovation -- they started in this format in 2014 -- while the Dynamic Coalitions have been with us since the IGF's inception. The DCs evolved by and large in the margins of the IGF, but last year we made an attempt to bring them in the mainstream. Now we are also in the process of developing some common norms and procedures. However, they are fairly free to decide themselves what they want to produce in terms of substance.

Having said that, this is not about choosing between a BPF and a DC. A DC can be set up if there is sufficient appetite to do so. This can be done in a true bottom-up manner, without any need to ask for approval by the MAG. In addition, the MAG may well decide to continue a security related BPF or even continue one or two of the existing ones. That will will be up to the  MAG to decide. Either way, it would be good to have some expert input into the April meeting in light of the WSIS+10 outcome document.

I hope this helps.

Best regards
Markus

From: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:23:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [Bp_spam] IGF BPF follow-up
To: markuskummer at outlook.com
CC: runnegar at isoc.org; bp_spam at intgovforum.org; bp_certs at intgovforum.org

Hi Markus,
Thank you for the email on this.
Admittedly I am still relatively new to the IGF, so not as informed on the finer details of BPF and Dynamic Coalition operating procedures.
What I did feel was very positive about the BPFs during last year, was the formalised process for producing a recommendations document at the end of IGF10 - which would feed into the final outcomes document. The structure provided through this process, and the 'product' at the end of it, helped to give the BPFs focus.
What structure, processes and mechanisms exist within the Dynamic Coalitions which will support continued inclusive and successful activity in these areas through 2016?
Grateful for your thoughts.
NickNick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.Senior Policy Officer, Internet and International ICTDepartment for Culture, Media & Sport
Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.ukTel: +44 (0)7741 256 320Skype: nick.shoreyTwitter: @nickshoreyLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin

On 25 February 2016 at 13:43, Markus Kummer <markuskummer at outlook.com> wrote:

Thanks, Christine. I coudln't agree more -- this is precisely the point I was trying to make: as a follow-up to last year’s exercise, I wanted o start the discussion on what Internet security related BPFs might make sense for 2016.

Nobody is concerned about the closure of BPFs as such. However, the MAG had a discussion last year and there was a general feeling that they should not be automatically renewed and two iterations of the same theme theme might be the maximum. Expert input on what might make sense would be most welcome.

We also had a discussion whether it would make sense to form a Dynamic Coalition. This is up to the experts to decide.

Best regards
Markus

> From: runnegar at isoc.org
> To: markuskummer at outlook.com
> CC: bp_certs at intgovforum.org; bp_spam at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [Bp_spam] IGF BPF follow-up
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:25:46 +0000
> 
> Thanks for the update Markus.
> 
> I don’t think we should be concerned about the closure of the BPFs. 
> 
> I think it is a good sign for BPFs to pop into existence to develop some needed best practices and then close down so people can move on to the next area that needs attention.
> 
> Perhaps a useful discussion would be what Internet security related BPF might we need to emerge for 2016.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Christine
> 
> > On 24 Feb 2016, at 10:54 AM, Markus Kummer <markuskummer at outlook.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > We had a preliminary discussion last year how best to follow-up on the BPFs. There was a general feeling that much work remained to be done and several options were considered, such as proposing a renewal of the BPFs on CSIRT and spam, a merger of both or continuing as a so-called Dynamic Coalition.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, the WSIS +10 review process has produced an outcome document that has a strong focus on "building confidence and security in the use of information and communications technologies". You will find this in Chapter 3 of the outcome document: http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UNPAN95735.pdf
> > 
> > This is new, compared to the Tunis Agenda adopted in 2005.  Also, there is a greater emphasis on government involvement. While this is not surprising, given the growth and increased importance of the Internet in the past 10 years, there is nevertheless the danger that it could lead to a dilution of the multistakeholder approach. All the more reason therefore to have this discussion in the IGF, where we have a well-established and well-functioning multistakeholder dialogue.
> > 
> > The first meeting to discuss the 2016 agenda will take place in early April. The MAG meeting/open consultations are expected to take stock of last year’s meeting and discuss how to prepare for the 2016 IGF, including the intersessional process. The most unlikely scenario is a renewal of all existing BPF mandates. A possible scenario could be the formation of a new BPF, taking on board elements of last year’s BPF’s on CSIRT and spam and taking into account the WSIS+10 outcome document, maybe best with a new title.
> > 
> > The easiest scenario would be the formation of a Dynamic Coaltiion of those institutions and individuals interested in carrying the work forward. This could be done irrespective of whether or not the MAG agrees to set up a new BPF for dealing with these issues. Forming a Dynamic Coalition is a light-weight process. We are about to develop common rules and procedures, but they are still very loose and very open. All that is asked for is that the group is open and inclusive. The main conditions are: having a website, an open mailing list, an open archive and open membership for any interested participant.If there is appetite for forming a Dynamic Coalition, it would need to be announced to the IGF Secretariat.
> > 
> > I am happy to organise a call, should there be interest in discussing the various options.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Markus 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bp_spam mailing list
> > Bp_spam at intgovforum.org
> > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org
> 

_______________________________________________

Bp_spam mailing list

Bp_spam at intgovforum.org

http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_spam_intgovforum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_certs_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160428/38df61ce/attachment.htm>