[cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14

Dear all,

Reading Gordon's comments, observations and the invitation to speak e.g. with Marietje Schaaken, I reiterate my comment made in Athens two weeks ago, that the RIPE community must seriously contemplate whether it can afford to go without an at minimum semi-permanent person aimed at following and lobbying the European Commission and Parliament. Why?

Policies, whether national or at EU level, are years in the making. The earlier representatives from interested parties speak with the civil servants appointed to work on a policy, the greater the odds that messages come across and positions are understood. Once the wording is more or less set in stone, like when a text is presented to the European Parliament, the civil servants have done most of their work. Lobbying them is then too late and the rest indirect. The window of opportunity at the drafting stage is closed.

Industry lobbies Brussels extensively and at times very successfully. In its own direct interest. The internet related organisations do not. If this is important, and the topics discussed in Athens suggested to me that it is, the conclusion is that an organisation like RIPE can not afford to ignore politics. Only being there from the start gives influence in the drafting and thinking process. Recent actions from e.g. I* show that positions and actions change, but perhaps not rigorously enough.

Internet has become a very political topic. For the internet related organisations the consequence is that politics can no longer be ignored. Hence my advice: Be there from the start from now on and match the more selfish lobbying from corporations with and for the common good. Being there means knowing which fights to pick and the right moment to step in and knowing the right people; efficiency.

The side effect is positive also. The right people get to know RIPE (NCC) and hence will show up at roundtables and meetings more to discuss and participate and learn.

Best,

Wout

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100
> From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by
> 	European	Commission
> To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> While Wouter waits for his clearance to post...
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Wouter van Hulten <wouter at vanhulten.com>
> > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission
> > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET
>
 > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>, 
"connect-bof at ripe.net" <connect-bof at ripe.net>, 
"cooperation-wg at ripe.net" <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> > 
> > 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" <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> 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
> >> connect-bof at ripe.net
> >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof
> >> 
> > 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131029/986d79ee/attachment.html 
> 
> End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
> **********************************************

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
De Natris Consult
Raaphorst 33                                                        Tel: +31 648388813            
2352 KJ Leiderdorp                                                Skype: wout.de.natris


denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl

http://www.denatrisconsult.nl

Blog http://woutdenatris.wordpress.com


> From: cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net
> Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:30 +0100
> 
> Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	cooperation-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	cooperation-wg-owner at ripe.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE Cooperation WG
>       (Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se)
>    2. Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European	Commission
>       (Gordon Lennox)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:39 +0000
> From: <Erika.Hersaeus at pts.se>
> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Candidature Co-Chair for the RIPE
> 	Cooperation WG
> To: <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <F9B35F1FF22AED4B9198995E2F969B801D2F2DA4 at maildb01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> I would like to introduce myself regarding the nomination as co-chair of the Cooperation WG. For those of you who don?t know me, I?m Erika Hersaeus and I work at the Swedish NRA - The Swedish Post and Telecom Agency, PTS, since several years.
> 
> I?m interested in enhancing the cooperation and dialogue between the EU Commission, governments, authorities, and the technical community! I would be taking on the role as a representative of my employer.
> 
> 
> 
> PTS recognize the importance of taking part of the existing processes on Internet Governance, for instance the RIPE meetings and the PDP, and to decrease the gap in the dialogue between governments and the technical community.
> 
> 
> 
> I?ve experience from e.g. regulation, cooperation and promoting Network and Information Security in Sweden. I?ve been attending RIPE meetings since 2008 in order to follow and take part in the development and discussions within the community?s area since PTS is the Swedish sector authority for electronic communications and we need to be updated on what?s going on. For instance I?ve been working with promoting the deployment of IPv6 and DNSSEC in public bodies in Sweden - also in enhanced cooperation. We also have experience from when there has been a lack of dialogue, which did not result in successful regulation, wherefore I?m an advocate of enhanced dialogue between governments and the technical community.
> 
> 
> 
> I?ve also experience from arranging Swedish Cooperation fora since 2007. PTS is the host for RGIG, Reference Group on Internet Governance, where representatives from different ministries, authorities, the private sector and the Internet community, meet three times per year. We use an email list between the meetings in order to distribute information about accurate issues, for instance EU directives, ITU resolutions, information from RIPE, articles etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be glad to make an effort in having more representatives from the regulation side, governments, NRA, etc. taking part of the RIPE Community and enhancing the dialogue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any questions, please don?t hesitate to contact me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erika
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131029/4600b7a9/attachment-0001.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:37:24 +0100
> From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by
> 	European	Commission
> To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <595100F7-911A-48C0-94BC-F0913621ACA0 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> While Wouter waits for his clearance to post...
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Wouter van Hulten <wouter at vanhulten.com>
> > Subject: Re: [connect-bof] Regulation proposed by European Commission
> > Date: 29 October, 2013 18:32:09 CET
> > To: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>, "connect-bof at ripe.net" <connect-bof at ripe.net>, "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" <cooperation-wg at ripe.net>
> > 
> > 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" <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> 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
> >> connect-bof at ripe.net
> >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof
> >> 
> > 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131029/986d79ee/attachment.html 
> 
> End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
> **********************************************
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20131030/ecb3d2cb/attachment.html>