Re: [arch-d] Matt/Andrei/*: Re: [irsg] IETF and European Commission

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Most relevant, for example, is:
  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017D0168

I sent them some feedback and corrections; for example, "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1" is not the reference for HTTPS. Also note that they don't reference RFC numbers, and some of these titles are ambiguous. 

Perhaps some guidelines about how to reference our standards in legal contexts would help?

Cheers,


> On 18 May 2023, at 1:12 pm, Olaf Kolkman <kolkman=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I am not Andrei, nor Mat but I have some generic background:
> Over a decade ago the commission was revising its standard strategy and there were quite some discussions about what comprises a standard and what doesn’t.
> Other have already said it: standards developed by formal standards bodies (ITU, ISO, CEN/CENELEC, ETSI) can be formally referred to in EU regulation and in procurement. I have been led to believe that government procurement on the basis of RFCs is not legal (yet many procure with it anyway).
> Anyhow the driving regulation is Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 .
> That regulation set forth a mechanism for ‘identification’ of non-formal standards so that they can be used in procurement.
> See preamble 31:
> “Therefore, this Regulation should lay down a procedure for the identification of ICT technical specifications that could be referenced in public procurement, involving a broad consultation of a large spectrum of stakeholders, including the European standardisation organisations, enterprises and public authorities.”
> And further on in Article 13.1
> “..the Commission may decide to identify ICT technical  specifications that are not national, European or international  standards, but meet the requirements set out in Annex II, which  may be referenced, primarily to enable interoperability, in public procurement.”
> In practice the identification consisted out of a submission of a technology by a member state to the Multistakeholder forum for ICT standardization. The assessment if the SDO followed the WTO criteria for standards making and then an approval process by member states informed by the proces in said forum. (Comitologie at work) and finally publication in the EU Journal. (Also see the webpage on this topic).
> I have spend many hours for making lists of RFCs that make up the normative pieces of IPv6, DNS, DNSSEC, and a few others. Just to find the journal reflecting the approval of ‘IPv6’ - and nobody knowing which RFCs they can mention exactly in procurement. All very frustrating. In addition the member states didn’t really care either so this process stalled after a few years and the platform only develops the rolling plan. In other words, there is a lack of energy for the identification of the standards.
> When there was a court case around concrete that produced significant legal uncertainty for the identification process it was put on hold entirely.
> Currently the MSP’s future is under review. A decision about it should have been made, but I do not know its status. I am sure that Andrei and Mat are much more up to speed on the situation.
> Hope this is somewhat helpful.
> Best,
> —Olaf
> On 17 May 2023, at 19:39, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Alissa: Thanks!
> Matt, Andrei:
> There was/is a discussion relating to your work re. EU on the IETF wgchairs mailing
> list, which you can not subscribe to, but which anyone can read with their favorite
> IMAP tools or on the web: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/
> The suggestion was made to move this discuss to the open architecture-discuss mailing list,
> which i am hereby doing.
> Comments:
> a) The work you're doing via [1] looks quite comprehensive, so maybe that would be even
> a better topic for some form of side meeting at IETF117, if people there are interested/have
> questions (or as topic in any fitting other meeting slot...not sure which though).
> b) The archive URLs in [1] (older Rolling Plans) do not work, neither with trac.tools.ietf.org,
> nor with www.ietf.org. Pls. check, most likely they where moved to different URLs on the
> new wiki.
> Cheers
> Toerless
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:31:43AM -0700, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Also, I thought one of the core functions of the EU MSP on ICTs was to use the rolling plan [0] to identify standards produced outside the three European standardization organizations that are relevant to key technology areas, providing a consolidated view for decision makers in national governments and other authorities who may want to reference them in RFPs and other instruments if not in law. The IETF’s contributions are coordinated by Andrei Robachevsky and Mat Ford from ISOC. The 2023 contributions and archives from prior years are available at [1].
> Alissa
> [0] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/rolling-plan-ict-standardisation/rolling-plan-2023
> [1] https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iab/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform
> On May 17, 2023, at 8:47 AM, Benno Overeinder [e-mail] wrote:
> Not EU, but for the Netherlands there are (strongly) recommended open standards for the public sector, the so-called "past toe of leg uit" (apply or explain) list. The standards include IETF standards, as well as other standards from other domains.
> The apply and explain list has been codified by Forum Standaardisatie, see https://www.forumstandaardisatie.nl and https://www.forumstandaardisatie.nl/en/netherlands-standardisation-forum.
> Instrumental in the adoption of Internet standards is https://internet.nl/, which has an API for bulk measurements to create an overview of the public sectors and their adoption of standards such as DNSSEC, HTTPS and TLS, DKIM and DMARC, IPv6, etc.
> Best,
> -- Benno
> On 17/05/2023 03:21, Jane Coffin wrote:
> There is that
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:10 PM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> Should one start to wonder how it can be that the EU relies likely
> almost solely on
> IETF/TCP protocols for their own networks, if not for all the users and
> industries in the EU ? How does that with with harmonization
> requirements ?
> Toerless
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 03:18:42PM -0400, Jane Coffin wrote:
> > Many thanks, Niels.
> >
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 2:42 PM Niels ten Oever
> <[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jane,
> > >
> > > I checked with the excellent Olia Kanevskaia and she confirmed
> what I
> > > said: EU can only refer to harmonized standards because it presumes
> > > compliance with EU directives and regulations.
> > >
> > > This is also why CEN/CENELEC is now playing a role in the new
> draft AI
> > > regulation (even though some academics argue this will not hold
> up because
> > > of inherent democratic deficits [0]).
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Niels
> > >
> > >
> > > [0] See for instance para 52-57
> > >
> https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=526026122121112015065079030079002004021019084010061003029097008119085101094126103098117019034042056022028000080068074000030123105078049036082098020111006082021085011024058017110080086095027094117113097001118001069071065103108101124116068023026122020020&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUEhttps://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=526026122121112015065079030079002004021019084010061003029097008119085101094126103098117019034042056022028000080068074000030123105078049036082098020111006082021085011024058017110080086095027094117113097001118001069071065103108101124116068023026122020020&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
> > >
> > > Veale, Michael, and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius. 2021.
> “Demystifying the
> > > Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act—Analysing the Good, the
> Bad, and the
> > > Unclear Elements of the Proposed Approach.” Computer Law Review
> > > International 22 (4): 97–112.
> > >
> > > On 16-05-2023 18:32, Jane Coffin wrote:
> > > > Hi Niels -
> > > >
> > > > I had an inkling it was something like this as a UK colleague
> was quite
> > > clear that the UK carefully went out of its way to include IETF
> vis-a-vis
> > > standards.
> > > > Let me find out more re that.
> > > >
> > > > It would be great if you could ask your legal colleagues re this.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jane
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 12:28 PM Niels ten Oever
> <[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]
> mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jane,
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know, in its legislation the European Union
> (EU) can
> > > only refer to 'harmonised standards'. A harmonised standard is
> a European
> > > standard developed by a recognised European Standards
> Organisation: CEN,
> > > CENELEC, or ETSI. This is why, for instance, CEN adopts ISO
> standards in
> > > Europe, through the prefix “EN ISO” (see also Vienna
> Agreement). So it are
> > > just CEN, CENELEC and ETSI standards that are commonly referred
> to in
> > > European legislation and policies.
> > > >
> > > > Through CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI international standards
> also often
> > > get translated to national standards bodies (NSBs)(but
> sometimes they also
> > > get translated directly from ISO/IEC to NSBs). Then countries
> can refer to
> > > it in national legislation as well in my understanding.
> > > >
> > > > But I can ask my law colleagues to verify.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Niels
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 16-05-2023 17:39, Jane Coffin wrote:
> > > > > All -
> > > > >
> > > > > Some countries - like Armenia (or at least in 2006) --
> indicated
> > > in the Telecoms Law that ITU standards were part of their national
> > > standards fabric. Whether they actually put this into practice
> is a
> > > separate issue (they definitely did on spectrum - Radio Regs -
> Treaty).
> > > > > I think the UK (when part of the EC) had to amend some
> of its
> > > laws (or codes, procedures, you get the point) to include
> standards other
> > > than ISO, ITU, and specifically include IETF protocols/standards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the EC officially accept IETF standards in their
> roster of
> > > standards?
> > > > > Did some EC countries have to specifically change
> > > laws/codes/other/other to include IETF standards outside of any EC
> > > processes?
> > > > >
> > > > > I ask this Q as it might be helpful to know at least
> whether the
> > > EC officially accepts IETF standards, and this flows down to all EC
> > > members? I use the word "accept" as a placeholder for "include by
> > > reference in leg, incorporate by ref, other, other appropriate
> term".
> > > > >
> > > > > Jane
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:05 AM Mallory Knodel <mknodel=
> > > [e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]>
> <mailto:
> > > [e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]
> mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Others will have more context, likely, but I've
> engaged with
> > > this content rather extensively and it largely focusses on
> > > national/regional standards efforts, not international bodies
> like the
> > > IETF, though it does make mention and understand rather well,
> in my view,
> > > the relationship between different actors.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mallory
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/16/23 8:59 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Anyone aware of any relationship between the IETF and
> > > the European Commission ICT initiative?
> > > > >> European Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT
> Standardisation |
> > > Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu http://europa.eu
> <http://europa.eu http://europa.eu> ) <
> > >
> https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/multi-stakeholder-platform-ict-standardisationhttps://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/multi-stakeholder-platform-ict-standardisation
> > > <
> > >
> https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/multi-stakeholder-platform-ict-standardisationhttps://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/multi-stakeholder-platform-ict-standardisation
> > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> Rifaat
> > > > >>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Mallory Knodel
> > > > > CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
> > > > > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071
> 0C32 A271
> > > BD3C C780
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Niels ten Oever, PhD
> > > > Co-Principal Investigator - critical infrastructure lab -
> University
> > > of Amsterdam
> > > > Assistant Professor - Department of European Studies -
> University of
> > > Amsterdam
> > > >
> > > > W: https://criticalinfralab.net
> https://criticalinfralab.net <https://criticalinfralab.net
> https://criticalinfralab.net>
> > > > W: https://nielstenoever.net https://nielstenoever.net
> <https://nielstenoever.net https://nielstenoever.net>
> > > > PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Niels ten Oever, PhD
> > > Co-Principal Investigator - critical infrastructure lab -
> University of
> > > Amsterdam
> > > Assistant Professor - Department of European Studies -
> University of
> > > Amsterdam
> > >
> > > W: https://criticalinfralab.net https://criticalinfralab.net
> > > W: https://nielstenoever.net https://nielstenoever.net
> > > PGP: 4254 ECD5 D4CF F6AF 8B91 0D9F EFAD 2E49 CC90 C10C
> > >[e-mail] mailto:[e-mail]
> --
> Benno J. Overeinder
> NLnet Labs
> https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/--
> [e-mail]-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> Principal, Internet Society Tweets as: @kolkman
> Toots from: social.secret-wg.org/@olaf
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/