Unless there are others with a more direct stake here, I'd like to volunteer and attend the meeting.
Thanks, and with regards Bastiaan -- Bastiaan Goslings AMS-IX Governance and Policy Officer AMS-IX B.V. tel: +31 (0)20 514 1712 Westeinde 16 fax: +31 (0)20 305 8990 1017 ZN Amsterdam http://www.ams-ix.net [email protected] On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Wouter van Hulten <[email protected]> wrote: > You’re very welcome to join. > For now, it’s Alain, Joy, and Wouter. > > > From: Nina Bargisen <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday 6 November 2013 23:01 > To: Wouter van Hulten <[email protected]> > Cc: Gordon Lennox <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission > > Hi there > > I would like to be part of that meeting. Do we already have some other > participants? > > Rgds > > Nina Bargisen > > Netflix > European Network Strategy > mobile: +45 21287438 > email: [email protected] > > > Den 29/10/2013 kl. 18.32 skrev Wouter van Hulten <[email protected]>: > >> Thanks for this clear summary. >> >> I contacted the ITRE Secretariat last week. Whilst the deadline for the >> feedback is 5 november, the ITRE Secretariat indicated that they will only >> send the documents to translation on 14 november. Also, they are keen to >> receive feedback from RIPE community: “Please make comments”, and "the text >> is very complex, technical, political”. >> >> Also, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake has kindly offered to arrange a meeting in >> Brussels with the ITRE Rapporteur, Mrs Del Castillo Vera. (You may have >> noticed that she wrote the preface to Report of the Dynamic Coalition in >> support of Net Neutrality.) Her assistant has written to ITRE rapporteur >> that "Ms Schaake would like to see whether it would be possible to set up a >> meeting between Mrs Del Castillo Vera, herself and a small delegation (max 5 >> persons) of [representatives] from the RIPE Internet Community in order to >> discuss the Connected Continent proposal.” Tentative dates are 11 >> november after 1pm, or 12 november 1-2pm. >> >> Legislative package: >> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-legislative-package >> >> Impact assessment: >> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/impact-assessment-connected-continent >> >> What’s next? Please submit feedback via WG Chair or the list. If you are >> able to join the meeting, please also send a message. >> That’s all for now, more news to follow from the WG Chair, if I’m not >> mistaken. >> >> Wouter >> >> >> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >> Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation >> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the >> recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder >> consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, >> industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the >> work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder >> input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. >> For more information on the proposal consult EC website >> <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs> >> >> >> >> On 22/10/13 12:55, "Gordon Lennox" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various >>> brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various >>> things together and to try and give some pointers. >>> >>> I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the >>> Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do >>> Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. >>> >>> People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The >>> few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of >>> course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was >>> defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate >>> as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! >>> >>> Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation >>> which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with >>> serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. >>> >>> The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found >>> confusing or even potentially dangerous. >>> >>> Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". >>> Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember >>> correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if >>> you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP >>> interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over >>> IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. >>> >>> Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the >>> problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain >>> Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers >>> felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The >>> problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to >>> interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they >>> really meant. >>> >>> So now we have a new proposed regulation. >>> >>> I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European >>> Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike >>> "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into >>> their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees >>> elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously >>> influence the timetable. >>> >>> There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: >>> ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad >>> way? But if helped it will do good things? >>> ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? >>> ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between >>> who? >>> ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services >>> ** ... and so on >>> >>> The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm >>> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm >>> >>> But the "communication" is probably better: >>> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-european-parliament-council-european-economic-and-social-committee-a-0 >>> >>> Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: >>> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-and-council-laying-down-measures-concerning-european-single >>> >>> If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. >>> >>> There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other >>> various associated documents, here: >>> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-market-growth-jobs >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: >>> >>> Brussels, 11.9.2013 >>> COM(2013) 627 final >>> 2013/0309 (COD) >>> >>> Proposal for a >>> REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL >>> laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic >>> communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives >>> 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and >>> (EU) >>> No 531/2012 >>> >>> <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications >>> markets, each with a >>> limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present >>> in more than half >>> of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators >>> serve a market of >>> 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, >>> regulatory conditions, >>> spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging >>> ways. This >>> patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for >>> operators wanting to >>> provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands >>> in stark contrast >>> with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million >>> customers >>> respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, >>> one licensing system, >>> and one spectrum policy.>> >>> >>> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on >>> reasonable >>> terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to >>> enable new >>> types of online services.>> >>> >>> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of >>> availability of >>> connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of >>> services with >>> assured service quality that enable communication paths across network >>> domains and >>> across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the >>> development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus >>> limiting >>> technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion >>> on a wider >>> scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and >>> provision of IP-based >>> networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in >>> particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, >>> cost-effectiveness and faster >>> provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end >>> users. A >>> harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is >>> therefore >>> necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility >>> of crosssupply >>> by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> >>> >>> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that >>> is made >>> available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers >>> to set up an IP >>> communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several >>> fixed network >>> termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network >>> performance for the >>> provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of >>> a specified >>> guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the >>> public Internet in this region. >>> The second point says an awful lot in a few words! >>> The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if >>> you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are >>> coming from. >>> Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? >>> There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of >>> course. >>> >>> ----- >>> Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: >>> >>> <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation >>> >>> Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the >>> recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder >>> consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, >>> industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the >>> work of the ITRE Committee. >>> The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission >>> proposal by 5 November 2013. >>> For more information on the proposal consult EC website. >>> ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> >>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> So suggestions. >>> >>> I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the >>> material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are >>> available in other languages. >>> >>> I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably >>> taking a risk. >>> >>> I think a discussion here would be much better. >>> >>> If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: >>> >>> ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or >>> MEP. >>> >>> ** or a community input with the help of NCC. >>> >>> One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be >>> useful. >>> >>> Enough for now? >>> >>> Gordon >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect-bof mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect-bof mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof > > _______________________________________________ > connect-bof mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof
