>
> On 23 Oct 2019, at 22:04, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My high-level take (which I haven't managed to formulate) is that we must
> ask/counsel that in the different connection points, what the expected
> ownership of liability is. Maybe that's a "US"-centric point of view, so my
> understanding is the European view would ask: "who does the regulator fine”.
Dear colleagues,
Just to say thank you for all the positive responses I received both here on
list, as well as In private conversations, much appreciated. I also would like
to thank those who have made comments to the contents of the draft, making
suggestions towards a possible response.
Partially responding to Michael’s question above and some other things raised
over the course of last week. Let me try and clarify a few points.
First towards the process, me and my colleagues are of course available to help
with the drafting, serving in our role as secretariat. I’m also happy to chime
in on this list with some on-the-fly editing or too summarise responses, if the
community appreciates that. But of course, as explained in my presentation, we
need some clear guidance from the community on the contents to start this
drafting process.
To Micheal’s question and some other comments regarding the expected outcome. I
don’t think at this stage BEREC is aiming to get a single solution, the draft
lists a few different options and I expect that most will remain in the final
version. My current assessment is that they are mostly seeking feedback on the
rationale for the different scenarios and the criteria under which diversions
from a particular ruleset are allowed.
I don’t feel this is about “who to fine?”, obviously in the end this is about
regulation and there might be repercussions for entities that are found in
breach of the law. However this is not in BEREC’s mandate at the moment. The
aim for this process, and BEREC’s role here, is really to create some
consistency in interpretation of this directive and the resulting legislation,
also in how to resolve conflicts with other texts. Especially since it rubs
against some other directives, most importantly the net neutrality one, which
might be a source of conflict where one directive says A and the other says B.
The EECC in this context I think is a bit more loosely defined than the net
neutrality guidelines, which appear a bit less open to interpretation. At the
same time, the current draft guidelines on the NTP to seem to take the account
the “technical realities” a bit more, where it tries to identify reasons why
diversions would be allowed.
Hope this clarifies and looking forward to your feedback on the text.
Regards,
MarcoH
_______________________________________________
connect-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg
