From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Mar 10 14:45:25 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:45:25 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Contributions of the European Commission to the NETmundial meeting Message-ID: Dear all, of possible interest to the members of this list, the European Commission has submitted two contributions to the NETmundial meeting, which will take place on 23-24 April 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil. They are available at: ? Principles: http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176 ? Roadmap: http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177 Best regards, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From secretariat at persianigf.org Tue Mar 11 08:40:02 2014 From: secretariat at persianigf.org (IGF Secretariat) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:40:02 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Formation of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group of the Persian Internet Governance Forum (PersianIGF) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings from Persian IGF Secretariat, We are delighted to announce that the call for applications for membership of the new Persian Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (Persian MAG) for the year 2014-2015 has been issued, with application window open until 21 March 2014. Applicants from Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan and other Persian speaking individuals and entities are welcome to submit their application. Kindly find attached the Full announcement and application form, or follow the link: http://goo.gl/6tjanR ?? ???? ? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????. ????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ??????. ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? http://goo.gl/yjzcpy ???? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????. Best Regards, Persian IGF Secretariat | PersianIGF | secretariat at persianigf.org | www.PersianIGF.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3933 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Formation of the First Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the PersianIG.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 321895 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Persian IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (PersianMAG) Application Forum.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 3673752 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ???????.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 466393 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chrisb at ripe.net Tue Mar 11 10:20:38 2014 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:20:38 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] NRO Contribution to the NETmundial References: <33B7B0F3-0A9B-425B-93DB-ADD893575E89@ripe.net> Message-ID: <33C97E8E-8827-4F69-A9DD-476FA3162204@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The Number Resource Organization (NRO), on behalf of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), AFRINIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, and the RIPE NCC, has submitted a contribution to the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, also known as NETmundial. This contribution addresses each of the two NETmundial submission topics: ?Internet Governance Principles? and ?Roadmap for the Further Evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem?. You can read the full submission here: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/NetMundial-NRO.pdf In total, 189 contributions to NETmundial were received by the 8 March deadline. These contributions can be read at: http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC From chrisb at ripe.net Sat Mar 15 14:09:02 2014 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:09:02 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Fwd: Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress References: <932d3f9cc92059bff5548924698f7071@ripe.net> Message-ID: <411BCCCE-6B7D-4A37-9F9A-B5B77B3646A3@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC Begin forwarded message: > From: nick > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > To: ripe-list at ripe.net, ncc-announce at ripe.net > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > Their complete statement can be found here: > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress > > > Regards, > Nick Hyrka > Communications Manager > RIPE NCC > > > > From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat Mar 15 14:10:36 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:10:36 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The NTIA - ICANN thing Message-ID: <4916A1E2-95DE-4F25-98C2-2D968B601343@gmail.com> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress/ Just in case somebody had not heard or anybody here wants to share a comment... Gordon From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Mar 15 14:27:08 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:27:08 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The NTIA - ICANN thing In-Reply-To: <4916A1E2-95DE-4F25-98C2-2D968B601343@gmail.com> References: <4916A1E2-95DE-4F25-98C2-2D968B601343@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <4916A1E2-95DE-4F25-98C2-2D968B601343 at gmail.com>, at 14:10:36 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Gordon Lennox writes >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions > >http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2014-2/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress/ > >Just in case somebody had not heard or anybody here wants to share a comment... NTIA is cutting the apron strings, but I'd be interested to hear who (if not ICANN) anyone thinks might be running the IANA Function towards the end of 2015. That's bearing in mind there might be some functional separation between policy and delivery. -- Roland Perry From avangaev at gmail.com Tue Mar 18 14:20:06 2014 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:20:06 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] IANA Globalization Progress Message-ID: Thanks Chris for keeping us in the loop! While I will not put forward an opinion of my own on these announcements (I am not sufficiently informed to do so). I did find two articles that ask some relevant questions regarding these developments . http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140316_if_the_stakeholders_already_control_the_internet_netmundial_iana/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140317_is_ntias_transition_decision_right_doze_of_chemotherapy_to_repair/ Alain Van Gaever Co-chair Coop WG On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Chris Buckridge wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > For those not on other RIPE mailing lists, significant announcements were > made yesterday by the US government and the "I*" group of Internet > technical organisations (including the RIPE NCC) regarding the oversight > arrangements for the IANA functions. Details available via the URL below. > > I look forward to the RIPE community discussion of what these developments > will mean for RIPE, the RIPE NCC and the RIR communities more broadly. > > Best regards, > Chris Buckridge > Senior External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: nick > > Subject: [comms] [news] Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA > Globalization Progress > > Date: 15 March 2014 12:33:53 GMT+1 > > To: ripe-list at ripe.net, ncc-announce at ripe.net > > > > Internet Technical Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress > > > > The leaders of the Internet technical organizations responsible for > coordination of the Internet infrastructure (IETF, IAB, RIRs, ccTLD ROs, > ICANN, ISOC, and W3C), welcome the US Government's announcement of the > suggested changes related to the IANA functions contract. > > > > Their complete statement can be found here: > > > http://www.nro.net/news/internet-technical-leaders-welcome-iana-globalization-progress > > > > > > Regards, > > Nick Hyrka > > Communications Manager > > RIPE NCC > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wim at centr.org Wed Mar 19 10:46:15 2014 From: wim at centr.org (Wim Degezelle) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:46:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: [cooperation-wg] FW: [rtldo] the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper Message-ID: <024201cf4358$16ae2bd0$440a8370$@org> Hi All, We've just published a background paper on IANA - IG debate. Best Wim From: Wim Degezelle [mailto:wim at centr.org] Sent: woensdag 19 maart 2014 10:41 To: ga at centr.org Cc: rtldo at aptld.org; igf at centr.org Subject: [rtldo] the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper Hi All The announcement of the United States Government of its intent to transition key Internet domain function has created a lot of commotion in the Internet Governance ecosystem. It is probably one of the most important events that will determine the current and future Internet Governance debates. CENTR has put together a concise background paper to help all interested to take a step back and get some background and basic insight to better understand the ongoing discussion and why it is relevant for ccTLD registries. You can download the paper on the CENTR website: the Future of IANA - CENTR background paper https://centr.org/Future_of_IANA-CENTR_background_paper-March-2014 Kind regards Wim signature2 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtldo+unsubscribe at aptld.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 15818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Wed Mar 19 16:23:40 2014 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:23:40 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? Message-ID: Hi all, Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. The press releasestates that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. Thoughts? Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From meredithrachel at google.com Wed Mar 19 17:24:05 2014 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:24:05 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the pointers, Wouter. Does anyone know whether there are efforts from the technical community to weigh in here? I would be interested in understanding better, and understanding the forces behind the current formulation of the legislation generally. Cheers, Meredith On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > Hi Meredith, > > > > Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: > > > http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet-traded-off-in-telecoms-package/ > > > > http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-allow-isps-prioritize-specialized-services/ > > > > If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 > januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles > http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--1002723 and > > http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-door-europa/ > . > > > > regards, > > Wouter > > > > Colocation Research > > www.coloresearch.com > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] > on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel at google.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM > *To:* cooperation-wg at ripe.net > *Subject:* [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast > Lane provisions? > > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected > Continent legislation. > > The press releasestates that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of > higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical > data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere > with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's > how it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 17:43:25 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:43:25 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <963E9775-72D4-402A-8E37-57ED02878D61@gmail.com> Remember this was a committee vote. It still has to go to plenary. However the question is still a good one. I would suggest ignoring press releases a little and reading the latest text. Anyone got a pointer? The last text I saw did not make sense: not to me and not to the person who was seeking my advice. Gordon On 19 Mar, 2014, at 16:23, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. > > The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 17:51:04 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:51:04 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A043EAC-C97F-4DFF-9F96-997A345D22F6@gmail.com> For some background see: https://edri.org/ep-committees-broadly-positive-votes-net-neutrality/ I think it is way too late for the "technical community to weigh in here". Especially if the plenary vote is indeed at the beginning of April. If folk wish to influence legislation then they have to align with the process. Meanwhile looking at ETNO's inputs/reactions might give you some insights. Gordon On 19 Mar, 2014, at 17:24, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > Thanks for the pointers, Wouter. > > Does anyone know whether there are efforts from the technical community to weigh in here? I would be interested in understanding better, and understanding the forces behind the current formulation of the legislation generally. > > Cheers, > Meredith > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > Hi Meredith, > > > Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: > > http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet-traded-off-in-telecoms-package/ > > http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-allow-isps-prioritize-specialized-services/ > > > If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--1002723 and http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-door-europa/. > > > regards, > > Wouter > > > Colocation Research > > www.coloresearch.com > > > From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel at google.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? > > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. > > The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Wed Mar 19 18:34:58 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:34:58 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello everybody, regarding the "fast lane provision? and the ITRE voting of yesterday (18 March). The real problem is not really with the ?specialized service? provision, because the current definition: 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications service optimized for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control from end to end. It is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and applications available over the public internet access service;] If this is the text approved by ITRE, it is is sufficiently precise, although it would have been better if the Trautman amendment (the one in brackets) had been approved too (but it was not). The real problem for me derives from the ability of ISPs to discriminate online service by charging different kind of connectivity prices. This could create a 2-tier Internet scenario. I mentioned this risk in my blog: http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/lights-and-darkness-of-the-ep-net-neutrality-reform/ Marjete Schaake is right in being worried, because this reform (if approved in this form) would make the Dutch NN legislation to be contrast with EU law. In fact, the Dutch rules prohibit price connectivity differentiation when aimed at discriminating online services. Kind regards, Innocenzo (Board member Euroispa) ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 19/mar/2014, alle ore 17:51, cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net ha scritto: > 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. EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? > (Meredith Whittaker) > 2. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Meredith Whittaker) > 3. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Gordon Lennox) > 4. Re: EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane > provisions? (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:23:40 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker > Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast > Lane provisions? > To: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected > Continent legislation. > > The press releasestates > that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of > higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical > data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere > with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how > it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140319/b617e56d/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:24:05 -0400 > From: Meredith Whittaker > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet > Fast Lane provisions? > To: Wouter van Hulten > Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thanks for the pointers, Wouter. > > Does anyone know whether there are efforts from the technical community to > weigh in here? I would be interested in understanding better, and > understanding the forces behind the current formulation of the legislation > generally. > > Cheers, > Meredith > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > >> Hi Meredith, >> >> >> >> Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: >> >> >> http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet-traded-off-in-telecoms-package/ >> >> >> >> http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-allow-isps-prioritize-specialized-services/ >> >> >> >> If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 >> januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles >> http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--1002723 and >> >> http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-door-europa/ >> . >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> Wouter >> >> >> >> Colocation Research >> >> www.coloresearch.com >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] >> on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel at google.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM >> *To:* cooperation-wg at ripe.net >> *Subject:* [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast >> Lane provisions? >> >> Hi all, >> >> Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected >> Continent legislation. >> >> The press releasestates that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of >> higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical >> data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere >> with the internet speeds promised to other customers." >> >> This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's >> how it's being read in the US trade press. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Meredith >> >> -- >> >> Meredith Whittaker >> Program Manager, Google Research >> Google NYC >> >> > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140319/7b603bad/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:43:25 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet > Fast Lane provisions? > To: Meredith Whittaker > Cc: "cooperation-wg at ripe.net" > Message-ID: <963E9775-72D4-402A-8E37-57ED02878D61 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Remember this was a committee vote. It still has to go to plenary. > > However the question is still a good one. I would suggest ignoring press releases a little and reading the latest text. Anyone got a pointer? > > The last text I saw did not make sense: not to me and not to the person who was seeking my advice. > > Gordon > > > On 19 Mar, 2014, at 16:23, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. >> >> The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." >> >> This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Meredith >> >> -- >> >> Meredith Whittaker >> Program Manager, Google Research >> Google NYC >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140319/8b553e2e/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:51:04 +0100 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet > Fast Lane provisions? > To: Meredith Whittaker > Cc: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Message-ID: <4A043EAC-C97F-4DFF-9F96-997A345D22F6 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > For some background see: > > https://edri.org/ep-committees-broadly-positive-votes-net-neutrality/ > > I think it is way too late for the "technical community to weigh in here". Especially if the plenary vote is indeed at the beginning of April. If folk wish to influence legislation then they have to align with the process. > > Meanwhile looking at ETNO's inputs/reactions might give you some insights. > > Gordon > > > On 19 Mar, 2014, at 17:24, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > >> Thanks for the pointers, Wouter. >> >> Does anyone know whether there are efforts from the technical community to weigh in here? I would be interested in understanding better, and understanding the forces behind the current formulation of the legislation generally. >> >> Cheers, >> Meredith >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Wouter van Hulten wrote: >> Hi Meredith, >> >> >> Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: >> >> http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet-traded-off-in-telecoms-package/ >> >> http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-allow-isps-prioritize-specialized-services/ >> >> >> If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--1002723 and http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-door-europa/. >> >> >> regards, >> >> Wouter >> >> >> Colocation Research >> >> www.coloresearch.com >> >> >> From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel at google.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM >> To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net >> Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? >> >> Hi all, >> >> Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. >> >> The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." >> >> This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Meredith >> >> -- >> >> Meredith Whittaker >> Program Manager, Google Research >> Google NYC >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Meredith Whittaker >> Program Manager, Google Research >> Google NYC >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20140319/b0da1de1/attachment.html > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 > ********************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avangaev at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 19:09:44 2014 From: avangaev at gmail.com (Alain Van Gaever) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:09:44 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: <963E9775-72D4-402A-8E37-57ED02878D61@gmail.com> References: <963E9775-72D4-402A-8E37-57ED02878D61@gmail.com> Message-ID: Also after having gone to plenary on the 3rd of April it still has to go to Council. So there could be still some amendments/changes before the package reaches the end-station .... A. On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Remember this was a committee vote. It still has to go to plenary. > > However the question is still a good one. I would suggest ignoring press > releases a little and reading the latest text. Anyone got a pointer? > > The last text I saw did not make sense: not to me and not to the person > who was seeking my advice. > > Gordon > > > > On 19 Mar, 2014, at 16:23, Meredith Whittaker > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected > Continent legislation. > > The press releasestates that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of > higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical > data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere > with the internet speeds promised to other customers." > > This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how > it's being read in the US trade press. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Meredith > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Wed Mar 19 19:17:31 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 19:17:31 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: <963E9775-72D4-402A-8E37-57ED02878D61@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think we have the real chance NOW, because this session will take please just before the European elections, therefore the MEPS would be under pressure: they can?t afford to go back to constituency with the reputation that they have broken the Open Internet. After the elections, both the Council and the EP will feel less political pressure ? ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 19/mar/2014, alle ore 19:09, Alain Van Gaever ha scritto: > Also after having gone to plenary on the 3rd of April it still has to go to Council. > So there could be still some amendments/changes before the package reaches the end-station .... > > A. > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > Remember this was a committee vote. It still has to go to plenary. > > However the question is still a good one. I would suggest ignoring press releases a little and reading the latest text. Anyone got a pointer? > > The last text I saw did not make sense: not to me and not to the person who was seeking my advice. > > Gordon > > > > On 19 Mar, 2014, at 16:23, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. >> >> The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." >> >> This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> Meredith >> >> -- >> >> Meredith Whittaker >> Program Manager, Google Research >> Google NYC >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 20:13:51 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:13:51 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications service optimized for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control from end to end. It is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and applications available over the public internet access service;] And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the problem? And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end network controlled by the service supplier. I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. Gordon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Wed Mar 19 20:26:59 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:26:59 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: <963E9775-72D4-402A-8E37-57ED02878D61@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes... Well... Maybe... But text is always needed. And people - MEPs - who will propose things. The EP will not just throw out the whole text at this stage. They have been discussing this package for a while. Rejecting the "roaming" part, for example, is not going to be that popular. So what exactly are you suggesting? Gordon On 19 Mar, 2014, at 19:17, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > I think we have the real chance NOW, because this session will take please just before the European elections, therefore the MEPS would be under pressure: they can?t afford to go back to constituency with the reputation that they have broken the Open Internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 20 00:03:01 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:03:01 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna > wrote: > >> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications >> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, >> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity >> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not >> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; >> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and >> applications available over the public internet access service;] > > And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the problem? > > And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end > network controlled by the service supplier. > > I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. > I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get reordered). Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher than some SLA for end users paying less). What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 291 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From inno at innogenna.it Thu Mar 20 00:30:51 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:30:51 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no Internet. ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m ha scritto: > > > On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna > > wrote: >> >>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications >>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, >>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity >>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not >>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; >>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and >>> applications available over the public internet access service;] >> >> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the problem? >> >> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end >> network controlled by the service supplier. >> >> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. >> > > I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk > about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". > > In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all > packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. > > If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets > equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). > If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then > by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get > reordered). > > Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can > be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher > than some SLA for end users paying less). > > What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: > > - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their > customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what > other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) > > Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. > > Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have > wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. > > Patrik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Mar 20 00:44:46 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?windows-1252?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:44:46 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> Message-ID: <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 network. If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? Patrik On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no > Internet. > > ----------------------------------------- > Innocenzo Genna > *Genna Cabinet Sprl * > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > Skype: innonews > Twitter:@InnoGenna > Email: inno at innogenna.it > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com > > > > Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m > ha scritto: > >> >> >> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: >>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna >> >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications >>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, >>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity >>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not >>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; >>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and >>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] >>> >>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the >>> problem? >>> >>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end >>> network controlled by the service supplier. >>> >>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. >>> >> >> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk >> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". >> >> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all >> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. >> >> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets >> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). >> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then >> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get >> reordered). >> >> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can >> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher >> than some SLA for end users paying less). >> >> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: >> >> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their >> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what >> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) >> >> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. >> >> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have >> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. >> >> Patrik >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 291 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From wouter at vanhulten.com Wed Mar 19 17:03:42 2014 From: wouter at vanhulten.com (Wouter van Hulten) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:03:42 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? Message-ID: Hi Meredith, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog: http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet-traded-off-in-telecoms-package/ http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-allow-isps-prioritize-specialized-services/ If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--1002723 and http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-door-europa/. regards, Wouter Colocation Research www.coloresearch.com ________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces at ripe.net] on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel at google.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? Hi all, Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation. The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers." This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press. Thoughts? Cheers, Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net Thu Mar 20 11:32:33 2014 From: bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net (Bastiaan Goslings) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:32:33 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 19 Mar 2014, at 17:03, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened For what it's worth, some are already anticipating. Ren? Obermann, CEO of the largest cable operator in NL Ziggo, announced in an interview on the 8th of March: 'We want to build an internet platform that provides access to external parties: the right speed, with minimal delay. Think video services like Netflix, but also to emergency centers, medical care or remote communication between devices. These include services that are not "elastic" are [in contrast to loading a webpage, red] and a guaranteed network quality demand.' and: 'This should be an open platform, accessible to small and big players. Definitely not a walled garden which Ziggo determines what to do. Our video application will be one of the TV services, in addition to those of others. The article goes on to say that: 'Obermann looks with interest to a recent agreement between Netflix and the major U.S. cable operator, Comcast. Although the details are unknown, it is clear that Netflix will pay extra for guaranteed good transmission. The network provider is no longer a neutral intermediary, critics say. But this could be a source of revenue for cable operators as consumers en masse exchange their television subscription for Internet services. (Google translate, from Dutch newspaper NRC http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/maart/08/te-snel-voor-een-logge-tanker-1352508 . Behind a login btw, I can share the text.) I recently had a call with the EC who are doing preliminary research on the announced take over of Ziggo by Liberty Global (owner of the second largest Dutch cable network). Currently both Ziggo and Liberty Global/UPC already have regional monopolies, and together they own 90% of the Dutch cable market. http://www.telecompaper.com/news/dutch-regulator-to-ask-ec-for-say-on-ziggo-upc-merger--993449 It seems likely though that when the merge happens, the cable-networks will have to be opened up for other service providers. In the meantime I hope the Dutch can defend their net neutrality principles in the Council negotiations as well as afterwards (codecision) -Bastiaan From meredithrachel at google.com Thu Mar 20 15:18:17 2014 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:18:17 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Your take is really interesting, Patrik, and exactly the kind of knowledge I think RIPE and the broader technical community could inject into these processes. Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based > network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. > That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results > in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get > whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or > whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 > network. > > If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? > > Patrik > > On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > > In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no > > Internet. > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Innocenzo Genna > > *Genna Cabinet Sprl * > > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > > > Skype: innonews > > Twitter:@InnoGenna > > Email: inno at innogenna.it > > > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > > > > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com > > > > > > > > Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m > > ha scritto: > > > >> > >> > >> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna >>> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications > >>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, > >>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity > >>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not > >>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; > >>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and > >>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] > >>> > >>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the > >>> problem? > >>> > >>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end > >>> network controlled by the service supplier. > >>> > >>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. > >>> > >> > >> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk > >> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". > >> > >> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all > >> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. > >> > >> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets > >> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). > >> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then > >> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get > >> reordered). > >> > >> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can > >> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher > >> than some SLA for end users paying less). > >> > >> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: > >> > >> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their > >> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what > >> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) > >> > >> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. > >> > >> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have > >> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. > >> > >> Patrik > >> > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Thu Mar 20 15:25:37 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:25:37 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions In-Reply-To: References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <2369DA8E-024C-4F47-A934-39C4CB2C186E@rfc1035.com> On 20 Mar 2014, at 14:18, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical > difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) > defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? Yes, I think so. Who will do this though and make sure it gets to the right place in Brussels? From ford at isoc.org Thu Mar 20 15:33:02 2014 From: ford at isoc.org (Matthew Ford) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:33:02 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <7C615744-C20B-42E9-ADE0-7306835EF7E3@isoc.org> Hi Patrik, all, On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:44, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based > network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. > That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results > in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get > whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or > whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 > network. > For me, this boils down to Internet access not typically being sold with any guarantee of minimum service quality. So how do you define degraded? TDC's recent announcement is interesting in this light: http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/02/17/tdc-introduces-guaranteed-broadband-access-speeds/ I'll also note that BEREC is currently consulting (http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/) on this document: http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2014/3/BoR%20(14)%2024%20Draft%20BEREC%20Report%20on%20NN%20QoS%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf which includes this: ?BEREC recommends that NRAs increasingly put emphasis on evaluating performance of IAS as a whole, to assess potential degradation due to specialised services.? Regards, Mat > If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? > > Patrik > > On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: >> In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no >> Internet. >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> Innocenzo Genna >> *Genna Cabinet Sprl * >> 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium >> >> Skype: innonews >> Twitter:@InnoGenna >> Email: inno at innogenna.it >> >> my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ >> >> my music: www.innocenzogenna.com >> >> >> >> Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m > > ha scritto: >> >>> >>> >>> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: >>>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna >>> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications >>>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, >>>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity >>>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not >>>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; >>>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and >>>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] >>>> >>>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the >>>> problem? >>>> >>>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end >>>> network controlled by the service supplier. >>>> >>>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. >>>> >>> >>> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk >>> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". >>> >>> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all >>> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. >>> >>> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets >>> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). >>> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then >>> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get >>> reordered). >>> >>> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can >>> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher >>> than some SLA for end users paying less). >>> >>> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: >>> >>> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their >>> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what >>> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) >>> >>> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. >>> >>> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have >>> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >> > From inno at innogenna.it Thu Mar 20 16:07:14 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:07:14 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions In-Reply-To: <2369DA8E-024C-4F47-A934-39C4CB2C186E@rfc1035.com> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> <2369DA8E-024C-4F47-A934-39C4CB2C186E@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Please consider that the debate in Brussels about the NN is quite advanced. A deliberation of the Parliament is expected by April 3rd. In my opinion, it would be much easier to propose the rejection of the entire NN proposal rather than propose amendments. In any case, the key person for a counter proposal is the rapporteur of Socialists, namely Mrs. Trautman (French). Trautmann tabled an amendment which do not succeed in ITRE committee. Allo Liberals (who are split on this subject) and Greens (who would like to reject the proposal) may be of help. Let me know if I should help to arrange something. Inno ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 15:25, Jim Reid ha scritto: > On 20 Mar 2014, at 14:18, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > >> Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical >> difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) >> defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? > > Yes, I think so. Who will do this though and make sure it gets to the right place in Brussels? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Thu Mar 20 16:12:25 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:12:25 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: <7C615744-C20B-42E9-ADE0-7306835EF7E3@isoc.org> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> <7C615744-C20B-42E9-ADE0-7306835EF7E3@isoc.org> Message-ID: <90377889-40FF-4ED4-B5F0-BEA2A2A53A14@innogenna.it> Unfortunately the EP is not so sophisticated. In any case, art. 23,(2) of the proposed reform states the following with regard to potential degradation of best effort Internet: 2. Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialized services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the material detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between such services. ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 15:33, Matthew Ford ha scritto: > Hi Patrik, all, > > On 19 Mar 2014, at 23:44, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > >> Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based >> network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. >> That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results >> in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get >> whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or >> whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 >> network. >> > > For me, this boils down to Internet access not typically being sold with any guarantee of minimum service quality. So how do you define degraded? TDC's recent announcement is interesting in this light: http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2014/02/17/tdc-introduces-guaranteed-broadband-access-speeds/ > > I'll also note that BEREC is currently consulting (http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/) on this document: > http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2014/3/BoR%20(14)%2024%20Draft%20BEREC%20Report%20on%20NN%20QoS%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf > > which includes this: > ?BEREC recommends that NRAs increasingly put emphasis on evaluating performance of IAS as a whole, to assess potential degradation due to specialised services.? > > Regards, > Mat > > >> If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? >> >> Patrik >> >> On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: >>> In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no >>> Internet. >>> >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> Innocenzo Genna >>> *Genna Cabinet Sprl * >>> 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium >>> >>> Skype: innonews >>> Twitter:@InnoGenna >>> Email: inno at innogenna.it >>> >>> my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> my music: www.innocenzogenna.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m >> > ha scritto: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: >>>>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna >>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications >>>>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, >>>>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity >>>>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not >>>>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; >>>>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and >>>>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] >>>>> >>>>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the >>>>> problem? >>>>> >>>>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end >>>>> network controlled by the service supplier. >>>>> >>>>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk >>>> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". >>>> >>>> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all >>>> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets >>>> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). >>>> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then >>>> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get >>>> reordered). >>>> >>>> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can >>>> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher >>>> than some SLA for end users paying less). >>>> >>>> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: >>>> >>>> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their >>>> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what >>>> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) >>>> >>>> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. >>>> >>>> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have >>>> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Thu Mar 20 16:47:03 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:47:03 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, to me, is not completely clear what Ziggo is proposing (the term ?platform? is misleading when talking about Internet access). It could be a kind of specialized connectivity, apparently open to any kind of service provider. One should question why users and service providers would like to use it, as long as best effort is working. The only way to make this product to become interesting to the market, is to degrade best effort Internet. About Netflix/Comcast: this is a paid direct peering agreement. The quality of the traffic is enhanced because the routing become more simple, however there is no specific traffic shaping or prioritization. I would say that this is is not a case of NN infringement, see also http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-netflixcomcast-deal-nothing-to-do-with-net-neutrality-yet/ IMG ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 11:32, Bastiaan Goslings ha scritto: > On 19 Mar 2014, at 17:03, Wouter van Hulten wrote: > >> If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened > > > For what it's worth, some are already anticipating. Ren? Obermann, CEO of the largest cable operator in NL Ziggo, announced in an interview on the 8th of March: > > 'We want to build an internet platform that provides access to external parties: the right speed, with minimal delay. Think video services like Netflix, but also to emergency centers, medical care or remote communication between devices. These include services that are not "elastic" are [in contrast to loading a webpage, red] and a guaranteed network quality demand.' > > and: > > 'This should be an open platform, accessible to small and big players. Definitely not a walled garden which Ziggo determines what to do. Our video application will be one of the TV services, in addition to those of others. > > The article goes on to say that: > > 'Obermann looks with interest to a recent agreement between Netflix and the major U.S. cable operator, Comcast. Although the details are unknown, it is clear that Netflix will pay extra for guaranteed good transmission. The network provider is no longer a neutral intermediary, critics say. But this could be a source of revenue for cable operators as consumers en masse exchange their television subscription for Internet services. > > (Google translate, from Dutch newspaper NRC http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/maart/08/te-snel-voor-een-logge-tanker-1352508 . Behind a login btw, I can share the text.) > > > I recently had a call with the EC who are doing preliminary research on the announced take over of Ziggo by Liberty Global (owner of the second largest Dutch cable network). Currently both Ziggo and Liberty Global/UPC already have regional monopolies, and together they own 90% of the Dutch cable market. > > http://www.telecompaper.com/news/dutch-regulator-to-ask-ec-for-say-on-ziggo-upc-merger--993449 > > It seems likely though that when the merge happens, the cable-networks will have to be opened up for other service providers. In the meantime I hope the Dutch can defend their net neutrality principles in the Council negotiations as well as afterwards (codecision) > > -Bastiaan > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Mar 20 18:23:29 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:23:29 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E6230BB-F166-49B5-9EFB-05B8200F7EB7@gmail.com> A sort of recap: The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those organisations is maybe out of scope here. The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the other institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it became public. Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between governments. People can always however contact their own favourite government minister. Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs have looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have lobbied.** Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved. The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about two weeks from a probable plenary vote. So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out everybody is looking forward to the elections. Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not sure. Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not easy. Then again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it very easy to shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too. Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful. But what would folk be asking for? Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now. Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays? Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the fact that it is just not clear? Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? And what would we propose, jointly or individually? Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays? Push back the NN bit? Or...? Gordon * Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE? ** I would guess for example Google had a say. From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Mar 20 18:24:55 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:24:55 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A sort of recap: The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those organisations is maybe out of scope here. The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the other institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it became public. Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between governments. People can always however contact their own favourite government minister. Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs have looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have lobbied.** Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved. The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about two weeks from a probable plenary vote. So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out everybody is looking forward to the elections. Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not sure. Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not easy. Then again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it very easy to shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too. Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful. But what would folk be asking for? Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now. Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays? Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the fact that it is just not clear? Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? And what would we propose, jointly or individually? Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays? Push back the NN bit? Or...? Gordon * Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE? ** I would guess for example Google had a say. From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Mar 20 18:28:23 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:28:23 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission: Tomorrow's Internet starts now: get ready! Message-ID: <8908319B-3AE1-47E2-A3F8-C4914D81A78C@gmail.com> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-197_en.htm From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Mar 20 19:06:59 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:06:59 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Commission: Towards further Globalisation of the Internet Message-ID: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-70_en.htm?locale=en From meredithrachel at google.com Thu Mar 20 19:13:49 2014 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:13:49 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: <3E6230BB-F166-49B5-9EFB-05B8200F7EB7@gmail.com> References: <3E6230BB-F166-49B5-9EFB-05B8200F7EB7@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm not a student of EU governmental process. However, I see value generally in a technical review of and pushback on technically vague and possibly untenable legislation. Whatever stage the draft is at, exposing the potential implications, and allowing open public debate seems positive. I'd love to see sane advocates push for specific answers to questions raised in such a document, and gather support for broader accountability and discourse. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > A sort of recap: > > The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were > discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE > were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those > organisations is maybe out of scope here. > > The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the other > institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it became > public. > > Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between > governments. People can always however contact their own favourite > government minister. > > Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs have > looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have lobbied.** > Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again we can be > pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved. > > The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about > two weeks from a probable plenary vote. > > So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out > everybody is looking forward to the elections. > > Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not sure. > Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not easy. Then > again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it very easy to > shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too. > > Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote > individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful. > > But what would folk be asking for? > > Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now. > > Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just before > the summer holidays? > > Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the > fact that it is just not clear? > > Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? And > what would we propose, jointly or individually? > > Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and > just before the summer holidays? > > Push back the NN bit? > > Or...? > > Gordon > > * Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE? > > ** I would guess for example Google had a say. > > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Thu Mar 20 20:28:50 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:28:50 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] European Commission: EP committee vote... Message-ID: <3818172C-5730-4F52-B0FB-AC6FC12B9331@gmail.com> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ep-committee-vote-takes-us-one-step-closer-ending-roaming-charges-eu From pelkwijk at gmail.com Thu Mar 20 21:28:46 2014 From: pelkwijk at gmail.com (Julius ter Pelkwijk) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:28:46 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: <3E6230BB-F166-49B5-9EFB-05B8200F7EB7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I am a citizen from Holland that closely follows the stuff that Ziggo is currently doing. I can give you some background information and some interesting facts about it. Ziggo and UPC are 2 big cable companies in Holland. Ziggo is a fusion between multiple cable companies, that laid down cable systems in the 70's in every city because they had problems with everyone putting a receiver on their roof. Because of that, the government asked for companies to gather this signal and broadcast them over the "cable". Since the companies laid down the whole cable system per city, and because of some agreements from that time they now still "own" the cable. KPN (the biggest telephone company in holland) however used to be governmental property, and because of that there was a law that prohibited them from closing the system because everyone should be able to call the emergency services. Also, since their cable was governmental property, they had to open up the infrastructure for everyone. Thats why everyone is able to use ADSL, however cable television/internet is still controlled by the local cable company. >From what I have understood from all the mailing surrounding Ziggo is that they are planning to sell "guaranteed bandwidth". Think of it like VLAN with QoS, where VoIP has more priority than normal http traffic. This will actually give some interesting facts: They can for example "squeeze" your internet connection when they think its becoming too prohibitive on their communication channel or sell very cheap (but slow) internet connections, and will charge you extra if you want to "unlock" certain speeds for selective websites. They wont "disallow" you to reach the website, however watching netflix movies in HD for example will be made difficult. Dutch law as it currently stands is very restrictive in squeezing, and only allows squeezing if its purpose is used to limit traffic congestion. This is the reason why youtube movies cannot be watched inside the NS trains, because they are connected with 3G networks and thus the network will be congested if too many people start watching youtube. Ziggo is already using this same practice on his television channels: Currently there are a very few channels you can watch by cable, and are of very bad quality. If you like to watch in HD or better resolution, you have to pay extra bucks for a "premium" subscription. You can watch the free channels, however they are so limited and of such quality that you actually HAVE to switch to a paid digital channel with the newer televisions. For those that dont understand what I am saying, is best explained with a bicycle pump. The pump is the internet and the flow of air is your internet connection. You pay for the flow of air, however when you want to watch netflix, you have to pay ziggo to make the hole temporarely bigger so you can get an extra boost of netflix air. If you dont pay, then it will just take longer for your wheel to get filled. Technically this practice still falls under "net neutrality", because they dont distinguish what you are watching but only offer you "guaranteed internet speeds" or a "boost" for certain websites and/or IP adress ranges. However, looking at their dominance, I can only see troubles arising since they control over 80% of dutch cable television and currently dont have any competition (there is no law that makes them provide access to their network of cables). Julius On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Meredith Whittaker < meredithrachel at google.com> wrote: > I'm not a student of EU governmental process. However, I see value > generally in a technical review of and pushback on technically vague and > possibly untenable legislation. Whatever stage the draft is at, exposing > the potential implications, and allowing open public debate seems positive. > > I'd love to see sane advocates push for specific answers to questions > raised in such a document, and gather support for broader accountability > and discourse. > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Gordon Lennox > wrote: > >> A sort of recap: >> >> The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were >> discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE >> were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those >> organisations is maybe out of scope here. >> >> The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the >> other institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it >> became public. >> >> Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between >> governments. People can always however contact their own favourite >> government minister. >> >> Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs >> have looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have >> lobbied.** Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again >> we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved. >> >> The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about >> two weeks from a probable plenary vote. >> >> So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out >> everybody is looking forward to the elections. >> >> Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not >> sure. Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not >> easy. Then again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it >> very easy to shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too. >> >> Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote >> individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful. >> >> But what would folk be asking for? >> >> Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now. >> >> Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just >> before the summer holidays? >> >> Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the >> fact that it is just not clear? >> >> Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? >> And what would we propose, jointly or individually? >> >> Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and >> just before the summer holidays? >> >> Push back the NN bit? >> >> Or...? >> >> Gordon >> >> * Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE? >> >> ** I would guess for example Google had a say. >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Fri Mar 21 05:39:55 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:39:55 +0800 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Message-ID: On 20 mar 2014, at 22:18, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > Your take is really interesting, Patrik, and exactly the kind of knowledge I think RIPE and the broader technical community could inject into these processes. It has been injected, repeatedly, but the level of clue among the ones actually writing the text is too low. And too many lobbyists want this bad vague language. > Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? Unknown to me. I do not know where the text is at the moment. Patrik > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based > network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. > That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results > in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get > whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or > whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 > network. > > If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? > > Patrik > > On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > > In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no > > Internet. > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Innocenzo Genna > > *Genna Cabinet Sprl * > > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > > > Skype: innonews > > Twitter:@InnoGenna > > Email: inno at innogenna.it > > > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > > > > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com > > > > > > > > Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m > > ha scritto: > > > >> > >> > >> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna >>> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications > >>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, > >>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity > >>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not > >>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; > >>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and > >>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] > >>> > >>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the > >>> problem? > >>> > >>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end > >>> network controlled by the service supplier. > >>> > >>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. > >>> > >> > >> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk > >> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". > >> > >> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all > >> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. > >> > >> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets > >> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). > >> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then > >> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get > >> reordered). > >> > >> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can > >> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher > >> than some SLA for end users paying less). > >> > >> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: > >> > >> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their > >> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what > >> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) > >> > >> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. > >> > >> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have > >> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. > >> > >> Patrik > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From inno at innogenna.it Fri Mar 21 09:19:53 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 09:19:53 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Message-ID: There is time until next Wednesday to table amendments (but you have to convince a MEP to do it). However, at this stage is much easier to suggest rejection of the entire text than proposing amendments. Even if this text is approved by the Parliament on April 3rd, then it must be approved by the Council, and this will take various time. We can provide technical assistance also at that stage (basically, the Italian Presidency will be key). For your info, please find the entire chapter on net neutrality (for me the big problem is art. 23,5 - because it allows price discrimination): 140221 CA 4A Open internet The CA covers Art 2(14)-(15), Arts 23-24, Art 30a and recitals 45-51. All relevant AMs, including AMs 108, 322, 340, 345-346, 32, 227-228, 248, 263, 249-251, CULT 18, 20, 22-23, 2, LIBE 10, 13, 1, JURI 8 and all AMs to Art 2(14)-(15), Art 23 Title, Arts 23-24, and recitals 45-51, fall. Recitals (45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The principle of ?net neutrality? in the open internet means that traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of the sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application. As stated by the European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, the internet's open character has been a key driver of competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation ? which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services ? and thus of growth in the offer of, and demand for, content and services, and has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where access to independent media is limited. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. (46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and (deletion) content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation. (47) In an open internet, providers of internet access services should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of (deletion) traffic management measures. Such measures should be technically necessary, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Addressing network congestion should be allowed provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances. National Regulatory Authorities should be able to require that a provider demonstrates that equal treatment of traffic will be substantially less efficient. (48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on clear, transparent and explicit information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of internet access services to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired. (49) It should be possible to meet end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality (deletion). Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting, video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of internet access services, providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are concluded with the provider of internet access, that provider should ensure that the enhanced quality service does not cause material detriment to the general quality of internet access. Furthermore, traffic management measures should not be applied in such a way as to discriminate between competing services. (50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications (deletion) may also be necessary for the provision of certain services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. (deletion) Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications (deletion) should therefore continue to be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the general quality of internet access service. (51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of internet access services, other providers of electronic communications and other service providers and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with enhanced quality services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should establish complaint procedures providing effective, simple and readily available redress mechanisms for end users and be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of internet access services, other providers of electronic communications and other service providers if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services. Articles Article 2 ? Definitions (14) ?internet access service? means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technologies or terminal equipment used; (15) ?specialised service? means an electronic communications service optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control with a view to ensuring enhanced quality from end to end and that is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; Article 23 - Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management 1. End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run and provide applications and services and use terminals of their choice, irrespective of the end-user?s or provider?s location or the location, origin or destination of the service, information or content, via their internet access service. [2nd subpar deleted] 2. Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialised services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the material detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between such services. [2nd subpar deleted] 3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted. 4. End-users shall be provided with complete information in accordance with Article 20(2), Article 21(3) and Article 21a of Directive 2002/22/EC, including information on any (deletion) traffic management measures applied that might affect access to and distribution of information, content, applications and services as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.[1] 5. Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, altering or degrading specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply (deletion) traffic management measures. Traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to: a) implement (deletion) a court order (deletion); b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals; d) prevent or mitigate the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. Traffic management measures shall not be maintained longer than necessary.[2] Without prejudice to Directive 95/46, traffic management measures shall only entail such processing of personal data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph, and shall also be subject to Directive 2002/58, in particular with respect to confidentiality of communications. Providers of internet access services shall put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing complaints alleging breaches of this Article. Such procedures shall be without prejudice to the end-users right to refer the matter to the national regulatory authority. Article 24 - Safeguards for quality of service 1. In exercising their powers under Article 30a with respect to Article 23, national regulatory authorities shall closely monitor compliance with Article 23(5) and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall publish reports on an annual basis regarding their monitoring and findings, and provide those reports to the Commission and BEREC. 2. In order to prevent the general impairment of quality of service for internet access services or to safeguard the ability of end-users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications, services and software of their choice, national regulatory authorities shall have the power to impose minimum quality of service requirements, and where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, on providers of electronic communications to the public. National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission?s comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.[3] 3. Within six months of adoption of this regulation, BEREC shall, after consulting stakeholders and in close cooperation with the Commission, lay down general guidelines defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article, including with respect to the application of traffic management measures and for monitoring of compliance. Article 24a ? Review The Commission shall, in close cooperation with BEREC, review the functioning of the provisions on specialised services and, after a public consultation, shall report and submit any appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council by [insert date three years after the date of applicability of this regulation]. Article 30a Supervision and enforcement 1. National regulatory authorities shall have the necessary resources to monitor and supervise compliance with this Regulation within their territories. 2. National regulatory authorities shall make up-to-date information on the application of this Regulation publicly available in a manner that enables interested parties to have easy access to it. 3. National regulatory authorities shall have the power to require undertakings subject to obligations under this Regulation to supply all information relevant to the implementation and enforcement of this Regulation. Those undertakings shall provide such information promptly on request and in accordance with time limits and the level of detail required by the national regulatory authority. 4. National regulatory authorities may intervene on their own initiative in order to ensure compliance with this Regulation. 5. National regulatory authorities shall put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures to address complaints alleging breaches of Article 23. National regulatory authorities shall respond to complaints without undue delay. 6. Where a national regulatory authority finds that a breach of the obligations set out in this Regulation has occurred, it shall require the immediate cessation of such a breach. [1] IMCO adopted text AM 42 ? IMCO exclusive competence. ?Reasonable? deleted as not used in 23(5), exclusive ITRE competence, as the word adds nothing. [2] IMCO 43 (part) [3] IMCO adopted text AM 45 ? IMCO exclusive competence. IMCO text on complaint procedures addressed substantively identically in Art 30a. IMCO text on BEREC guidelines in Art 24(3), maintained by ITRE. ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 21/mar/2014, alle ore 05:39, Patrik F?ltstr?m ha scritto: > > On 20 mar 2014, at 22:18, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > >> Your take is really interesting, Patrik, and exactly the kind of knowledge I think RIPE and the broader technical community could inject into these processes. > > It has been injected, repeatedly, but the level of clue among the ones actually writing the text is too low. And too many lobbyists want this bad vague language. > >> Would it make sense to do a quick write-up, explaining the technical difficulties/impossibilities of implementing what is currently (vaguely) defined in the draft, and requesting clarity and technical specifics? > > Unknown to me. I do not know where the text is at the moment. > > Patrik > >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: >> Agree, but that VPN can not be delivered (over the same IP based >> network) as internet access without the internet access being degraded. >> That is what I read the text say. And my point is that what this results >> in is that the customer of the internet access should continue to get >> whatever service they bought, irrespectively if some VPN service or >> whatever is transported in the same shared physical medium, L2 or L3 >> network. >> >> If that is what the intention is, why do they not write that? >> >> Patrik >> >> On 2014-03-20 00:30, Innocenzo Genna wrote: >> > In my opinion, that kind of specialized services are a VPN. It?s no >> > Internet. >> > >> > ----------------------------------------- >> > Innocenzo Genna >> > *Genna Cabinet Sprl * >> > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium >> > >> > Skype: innonews >> > Twitter:@InnoGenna >> > Email: inno at innogenna.it >> > >> > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ >> > >> > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com >> > >> > >> > >> > Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 00:03, Patrik F?ltstr?m > > > ha scritto: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2014-03-19 20:13, Gordon Lennox wrote: >> >>> On 19 Mar, 2014, at 18:34, Innocenzo Genna > >>> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> 15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications >> >>>> service */optimized for /*specific content, applications or services, >> >>>> or a combination thereof, */provided over logically distinct capacity >> >>>> and relying on strict admission control from end to end/*. It is not >> >>>> marketed or */usable/* as a substitute for internet access service; >> >>>> [its application layer is not functionally identical to services and >> >>>> applications available over the public internet access service;] >> >>> >> >>> And that, particularly if the specialised service uses IP, is the >> >>> problem? >> >>> >> >>> And end-to-end means to a particular device or, more probably, an end >> >>> network controlled by the service supplier. >> >>> >> >>> I stopped liking "end-to-end" sometime back. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I have no idea what and how to implement technically what they talk >> >> about as "specialices service that does not impcat...". >> >> >> >> In a packet based network, if the outgoing interface is not full, all >> >> packets will be forwarded as soon as possible. >> >> >> >> If the outgoing interface is full, then one can either queue all packets >> >> equally (M/M/1 queuing theory) or one can have multiple queues (M/M/N). >> >> If one have a specialized service that have some special treatment, then >> >> by definition that implies longer delay on other queues (as packets get >> >> reordered). >> >> >> >> Now, there are some special cases as well where the _services_ sold can >> >> be different (i.e. some business connection with some SLA that is higher >> >> than some SLA for end users paying less). >> >> >> >> What I think is sad is that they did not stop at saying for example: >> >> >> >> - Each provider of a service is required to always deliver to their >> >> customers the service they have promised to deliver. (Regardless of what >> >> other services they deliver to other customers on the same network...) >> >> >> >> Not any silly end-to-end. No silly "specialized service" etc. >> >> >> >> Then in other paragraphs they already (if I remember correctly) have >> >> wording about equal treatment, dominant provider of services etc. >> >> >> >> Patrik >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Meredith Whittaker >> Program Manager, Google Research >> Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Fri Mar 21 10:21:32 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 10:21:32 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <606FE824-E0E7-4CAF-877F-BD1C4FFA8970@gmail.com> On 21 Mar, 2014, at 09:19, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > There is time until next Wednesday to table amendments (but you have to convince a MEP to do it). I agree. But that is obviously difficult. First agree on an amendment. Then convince an MEP. And then a lot more MEPs have to be convinced to vote. That will take more than technical arguments. > However, at this stage is much easier to suggest rejection of the entire text than proposing amendments. That offers more possibilities and easier arguments. Even almost contradictory arguments could help. But things still have to be done before Wednesday. > Even if this text is approved by the Parliament on April 3rd, then it must be approved by the Council, and this will take various time. We can provide technical assistance also at that stage (basically, the Italian Presidency will be key). But that then is an inter-institutional negotiation. The Council has already had discussions on the text I suspect. The MS tend not to sit on their hands waiting for Parliament. Anyone any information on what is happening in Council? By the way the job of anyone in such a negotiation is obviously to first of all defend the adopted position. You cannot expect a Commissioner or a Commission official to go simply against or change a position adopted by the Commission. Similarly you cannot expect those from the Parliament to go against what the Parliament has agreed.t > For your info, please find the entire chapter on net neutrality (for me the big problem is art. 23,5 - because it allows price discrimination): Thank you for the text below. To be clear: this the text you expect will be voted on? Gordon > 140221 > > CA 4A > Open internet > > The CA covers Art 2(14)-(15), Arts 23-24, Art 30a and recitals 45-51. All relevant AMs, including AMs 108, 322, 340, 345-346, 32, 227-228, 248, 263, 249-251, CULT 18, 20, 22-23, 2, LIBE 10, 13, 1, JURI 8 and all AMs to Art 2(14)-(15), Art 23 Title, Arts 23-24, and recitals 45-51, fall. > > > > Recitals > > (45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The principle of ?net neutrality? in the open internet means that traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of the sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application. As stated by the European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, the internet's open character has been a key driver of competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation ? which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services ? and thus of growth in the offer of, and demand for, content and services, and has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where access to independent media is limited. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. > > (46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and (deletion) content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation. > > (47) In an open internet, providers of internet access services should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of (deletion) traffic management measures. Such measures should be technically necessary, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Addressing network congestion should be allowed provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances. National Regulatory Authorities should be able to require that a provider demonstrates that equal treatment of traffic will be substantially less efficient. > > (48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on clear, transparent and explicit information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of internet access services to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired. > > (49) It should be possible to meet end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality (deletion). Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting, video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of internet access services, providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are concluded with the provider of internet access, that provider should ensure that the enhanced quality service does not cause material detriment to the general quality of internet access. Furthermore, traffic management measures should not be applied in such a way as to discriminate between competing services. > > (50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications (deletion) may also be necessary for the provision of certain services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. (deletion) Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications (deletion) should therefore continue to be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the general quality of internet access service. > > (51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of internet access services, other providers of electronic communications and other service providers and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with enhanced quality services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should establish complaint procedures providing effective, simple and readily available redress mechanisms for end users and be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of internet access services, other providers of electronic communications and other service providers if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services. > > > > Articles > > Article 2 ? Definitions > > (14) ?internet access service? means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technologies or terminal equipment used; > > (15) ?specialised service? means an electronic communications service optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control with a view to ensuring enhanced quality from end to end and that is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; > > > Article 23 - Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management > > 1. End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run and provide applications and services and use terminals of their choice, irrespective of the end-user?s or provider?s location or the location, origin or destination of the service, information or content, via their internet access service. > > [2nd subpar deleted] > > 2. Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialised services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the material detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between such services. > > [2nd subpar deleted] > > 3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted. > > 4. End-users shall be provided with complete information in accordance with Article 20(2), Article 21(3) and Article 21a of Directive 2002/22/EC, including information on any (deletion) traffic management measures applied that might affect access to and distribution of information, content, applications and services as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.[1] > > 5. Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, altering or degrading specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply (deletion) traffic management measures. Traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to: > > a) implement (deletion) a court order (deletion); > > b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals; > > d) prevent or mitigate the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. > > Traffic management measures shall not be maintained longer than necessary.[2] > > Without prejudice to Directive 95/46, traffic management measures shall only entail such processing of personal data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph, and shall also be subject to Directive 2002/58, in particular with respect to confidentiality of communications. > > Providers of internet access services shall put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing complaints alleging breaches of this Article. Such procedures shall be without prejudice to the end-users right to refer the matter to the national regulatory authority. > > Article 24 - Safeguards for quality of service > > 1. In exercising their powers under Article 30a with respect to Article 23, national regulatory authorities shall closely monitor compliance with Article 23(5) and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall publish reports on an annual basis regarding their monitoring and findings, and provide those reports to the Commission and BEREC. > > 2. In order to prevent the general impairment of quality of service for internet access services or to safeguard the ability of end-users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications, services and software of their choice, national regulatory authorities shall have the power to impose minimum quality of service requirements, and where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, on providers of electronic communications to the public. > > National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission?s comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.[3] > > 3. Within six months of adoption of this regulation, BEREC shall, after consulting stakeholders and in close cooperation with the Commission, lay down general guidelines defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article, including with respect to the application of traffic management measures and for monitoring of compliance. > > > Article 24a ? Review > > The Commission shall, in close cooperation with BEREC, review the functioning of the provisions on specialised services and, after a public consultation, shall report and submit any appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council by [insert date three years after the date of applicability of this regulation]. > > Article 30a > > Supervision and enforcement > > 1. National regulatory authorities shall have the necessary resources to monitor and supervise compliance with this Regulation within their territories. > > 2. National regulatory authorities shall make up-to-date information on the application of this Regulation publicly available in a manner that enables interested parties to have easy access to it. > > 3. National regulatory authorities shall have the power to require undertakings subject to obligations under this Regulation to supply all information relevant to the implementation and enforcement of this Regulation. Those undertakings shall provide such information promptly on request and in accordance with time limits and the level of detail required by the national regulatory authority. > > 4. National regulatory authorities may intervene on their own initiative in order to ensure compliance with this Regulation. > > 5. National regulatory authorities shall put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures to address complaints alleging breaches of Article 23. National regulatory authorities shall respond to complaints without undue delay. > > 6. Where a national regulatory authority finds that a breach of the obligations set out in this Regulation has occurred, it shall require the immediate cessation of such a breach. > > > [1] IMCO adopted text AM 42 ? IMCO exclusive competence. ?Reasonable? deleted as not used in 23(5), exclusive ITRE competence, as the word adds nothing. > > [2] IMCO 43 (part) > > [3] IMCO adopted text AM 45 ? IMCO exclusive competence. IMCO text on complaint procedures addressed substantively identically in Art 30a. IMCO text on BEREC guidelines in Art 24(3), maintained by ITRE. > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > Innocenzo Genna > Genna Cabinet Sprl > 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium > > Skype: innonews > Twitter: @InnoGenna > Email: inno at innogenna.it > > my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ > my music: www.innocenzogenna.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Fri Mar 21 19:14:03 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 19:14:03 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions? In-Reply-To: References: <3E6230BB-F166-49B5-9EFB-05B8200F7EB7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CDBEF06-0F39-488F-8599-547202FE01CC@innogenna.it> Dear Julius, many thanks for your exhaustive explanations. Yes, as long as the premium service of Ziggo is non-discriminatory (i.e. it will enhance quality or speed for any kind of service/application) NN is not manifestly infringed. However, a problem may arise in case only selected OTT and content providers may afford the premium connectivity (it depends on the tariff scheme). In addition, if the best effort Internet is squeezed by the premium connectivity, then you have a scenario of 2-tier Internet. Should Ziggo be acquired by UPC, the resulting reinforced dominant position could encourage the larger ISP to make policy and business practices even less neutral. The current Open Internet compromise amendment (voted by ITRE) seems to address the case of deterioration of best effort Internet as a consequence of specialized services offers. By contrast, the compromise does not address a case of discriminations of price connectivity (unlike the Dutch legislation). To the opposite, price discrimination would be legalized under this European reform. Ciao, Inno ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 21:28, Julius ter Pelkwijk ha scritto: > Hi all, > > I am a citizen from Holland that closely follows the stuff that Ziggo is currently doing. I can give you some background information and some interesting facts about it. Ziggo and UPC are 2 big cable companies in Holland. Ziggo is a fusion between multiple cable companies, that laid down cable systems in the 70's in every city because they had problems with everyone putting a receiver on their roof. Because of that, the government asked for companies to gather this signal and broadcast them over the "cable". Since the companies laid down the whole cable system per city, and because of some agreements from that time they now still "own" the cable. KPN (the biggest telephone company in holland) however used to be governmental property, and because of that there was a law that prohibited them from closing the system because everyone should be able to call the emergency services. Also, since their cable was governmental property, they had to open up the infrastructure for everyone. Thats why everyone is able to use ADSL, however cable television/internet is still controlled by the local cable company. > > From what I have understood from all the mailing surrounding Ziggo is that they are planning to sell "guaranteed bandwidth". Think of it like VLAN with QoS, where VoIP has more priority than normal http traffic. This will actually give some interesting facts: They can for example "squeeze" your internet connection when they think its becoming too prohibitive on their communication channel or sell very cheap (but slow) internet connections, and will charge you extra if you want to "unlock" certain speeds for selective websites. They wont "disallow" you to reach the website, however watching netflix movies in HD for example will be made difficult. Dutch law as it currently stands is very restrictive in squeezing, and only allows squeezing if its purpose is used to limit traffic congestion. This is the reason why youtube movies cannot be watched inside the NS trains, because they are connected with 3G networks and thus the network will be congested if too many people start watching youtube. > > Ziggo is already using this same practice on his television channels: Currently there are a very few channels you can watch by cable, and are of very bad quality. If you like to watch in HD or better resolution, you have to pay extra bucks for a "premium" subscription. You can watch the free channels, however they are so limited and of such quality that you actually HAVE to switch to a paid digital channel with the newer televisions. > > For those that dont understand what I am saying, is best explained with a bicycle pump. The pump is the internet and the flow of air is your internet connection. You pay for the flow of air, however when you want to watch netflix, you have to pay ziggo to make the hole temporarely bigger so you can get an extra boost of netflix air. If you dont pay, then it will just take longer for your wheel to get filled. > > Technically this practice still falls under "net neutrality", because they dont distinguish what you are watching but only offer you "guaranteed internet speeds" or a "boost" for certain websites and/or IP adress ranges. However, looking at their dominance, I can only see troubles arising since they control over 80% of dutch cable television and currently dont have any competition (there is no law that makes them provide access to their network of cables). > > Julius > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Meredith Whittaker wrote: > I'm not a student of EU governmental process. However, I see value generally in a technical review of and pushback on technically vague and possibly untenable legislation. Whatever stage the draft is at, exposing the potential implications, and allowing open public debate seems positive. > > I'd love to see sane advocates push for specific answers to questions raised in such a document, and gather support for broader accountability and discourse. > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote: > A sort of recap: > > The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those organisations is maybe out of scope here. > > The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the other institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it became public. > > Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between governments. People can always however contact their own favourite government minister. > > Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs have looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have lobbied.** Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved. > > The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about two weeks from a probable plenary vote. > > So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out everybody is looking forward to the elections. > > Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not sure. Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not easy. Then again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it very easy to shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too. > > Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful. > > But what would folk be asking for? > > Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now. > > Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays? > > Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the fact that it is just not clear? > > Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? And what would we propose, jointly or individually? > > Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays? > > Push back the NN bit? > > Or...? > > Gordon > > * Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE? > > ** I would guess for example Google had a say. > > > > > > > -- > > Meredith Whittaker > Program Manager, Google Research > Google NYC > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Sat Mar 22 16:03:57 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:03:57 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6 (EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?) In-Reply-To: <606FE824-E0E7-4CAF-877F-BD1C4FFA8970@gmail.com> References: <532A2225.1000802@frobbit.se> <6A461F99-1108-4939-A6B2-34B5947DF940@innogenna.it> <532A2BEE.10807@frobbit.se> <606FE824-E0E7-4CAF-877F-BD1C4FFA8970@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Gordon. The text I past in my previous mail is exactly the draft which was approved by ITRE and which should also voted by the plenary session of the EP on April 3rd, unless rejection or amendments are approved. Please consider that on the NN votation the plenary session my take decision very different from the ITRE. Apparently, the socialist rapporteur (Trautman) is going to table again the amendment which were rejected by ITRE. Please find such amendments herein below (with emphasis). (14) ?internet access service? means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet in accordance with the principle of net neutrality, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technologies or terminal equipment used; (15) ?specialized service? means an electronic communications service optimized for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control from end to end. It is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; its application layer is not functionally identical to services and applications available over the public internet access service; About the Council: discussion on the merits have not started yet. The Greek Presidency did not give priority to this dossier. I know however that OFCOM has been informally talking with some MEPs about NN provisions. Kind regards, Inno ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno at innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 21/mar/2014, alle ore 10:21, Gordon Lennox ha scritto: > > On 21 Mar, 2014, at 09:19, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > >> There is time until next Wednesday to table amendments (but you have to convince a MEP to do it). > > I agree. But that is obviously difficult. First agree on an amendment. Then convince an MEP. And then a lot more MEPs have to be convinced to vote. That will take more than technical arguments. > >> However, at this stage is much easier to suggest rejection of the entire text than proposing amendments. > > That offers more possibilities and easier arguments. Even almost contradictory arguments could help. But things still have to be done before Wednesday. > >> Even if this text is approved by the Parliament on April 3rd, then it must be approved by the Council, and this will take various time. We can provide technical assistance also at that stage (basically, the Italian Presidency will be key). > > But that then is an inter-institutional negotiation. The Council has already had discussions on the text I suspect. The MS tend not to sit on their hands waiting for Parliament. Anyone any information on what is happening in Council? > > By the way the job of anyone in such a negotiation is obviously to first of all defend the adopted position. You cannot expect a Commissioner or a Commission official to go simply against or change a position adopted by the Commission. Similarly you cannot expect those from the Parliament to go against what the Parliament has agreed.t > >> For your info, please find the entire chapter on net neutrality (for me the big problem is art. 23,5 - because it allows price discrimination): > > Thank you for the text below. To be clear: this the text you expect will be voted on? > > Gordon > > >> 140221 >> >> CA 4A >> Open internet >> >> The CA covers Art 2(14)-(15), Arts 23-24, Art 30a and recitals 45-51. All relevant AMs, including AMs 108, 322, 340, 345-346, 32, 227-228, 248, 263, 249-251, CULT 18, 20, 22-23, 2, LIBE 10, 13, 1, JURI 8 and all AMs to Art 2(14)-(15), Art 23 Title, Arts 23-24, and recitals 45-51, fall. >> >> >> >> Recitals >> >> (45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The principle of ?net neutrality? in the open internet means that traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of the sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application. As stated by the European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, the internet's open character has been a key driver of competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation ? which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services ? and thus of growth in the offer of, and demand for, content and services, and has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where access to independent media is limited. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. >> >> (46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and (deletion) content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation. >> >> (47) In an open internet, providers of internet access services should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of (deletion) traffic management measures. Such measures should be technically necessary, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Addressing network congestion should be allowed provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances. National Regulatory Authorities should be able to require that a provider demonstrates that equal treatment of traffic will be substantially less efficient. >> >> (48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on clear, transparent and explicit information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of internet access services to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired. >> >> (49) It should be possible to meet end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality (deletion). Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting, video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of internet access services, providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are concluded with the provider of internet access, that provider should ensure that the enhanced quality service does not cause material detriment to the general quality of internet access. Furthermore, traffic management measures should not be applied in such a way as to discriminate between competing services. >> >> (50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications (deletion) may also be necessary for the provision of certain services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. (deletion) Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications (deletion) should therefore continue to be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the general quality of internet access service. >> >> (51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of internet access services, other providers of electronic communications and other service providers and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with enhanced quality services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should establish complaint procedures providing effective, simple and readily available redress mechanisms for end users and be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of internet access services, other providers of electronic communications and other service providers if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services. >> >> >> >> Articles >> >> Article 2 ? Definitions >> >> (14) ?internet access service? means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technologies or terminal equipment used; >> >> (15) ?specialised service? means an electronic communications service optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, provided over logically distinct capacity and relying on strict admission control with a view to ensuring enhanced quality from end to end and that is not marketed or usable as a substitute for internet access service; >> >> >> Article 23 - Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management >> >> 1. End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run and provide applications and services and use terminals of their choice, irrespective of the end-user?s or provider?s location or the location, origin or destination of the service, information or content, via their internet access service. >> >> [2nd subpar deleted] >> >> 2. Providers of internet access, of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to offer specialised services to end-users. Such services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide them in addition to internet access services and they are not to the material detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services. Providers of internet access to end-users shall not discriminate between such services. >> >> [2nd subpar deleted] >> >> 3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted. >> >> 4. End-users shall be provided with complete information in accordance with Article 20(2), Article 21(3) and Article 21a of Directive 2002/22/EC, including information on any (deletion) traffic management measures applied that might affect access to and distribution of information, content, applications and services as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.[1] >> >> 5. Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, altering or degrading specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply (deletion) traffic management measures. Traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to: >> >> a) implement (deletion) a court order (deletion); >> >> b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals; >> >> d) prevent or mitigate the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. >> >> Traffic management measures shall not be maintained longer than necessary.[2] >> >> Without prejudice to Directive 95/46, traffic management measures shall only entail such processing of personal data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph, and shall also be subject to Directive 2002/58, in particular with respect to confidentiality of communications. >> >> Providers of internet access services shall put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing complaints alleging breaches of this Article. Such procedures shall be without prejudice to the end-users right to refer the matter to the national regulatory authority. >> >> Article 24 - Safeguards for quality of service >> >> 1. In exercising their powers under Article 30a with respect to Article 23, national regulatory authorities shall closely monitor compliance with Article 23(5) and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall publish reports on an annual basis regarding their monitoring and findings, and provide those reports to the Commission and BEREC. >> >> 2. In order to prevent the general impairment of quality of service for internet access services or to safeguard the ability of end-users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications, services and software of their choice, national regulatory authorities shall have the power to impose minimum quality of service requirements, and where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, on providers of electronic communications to the public. >> >> National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission?s comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.[3] >> >> 3. Within six months of adoption of this regulation, BEREC shall, after consulting stakeholders and in close cooperation with the Commission, lay down general guidelines defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article, including with respect to the application of traffic management measures and for monitoring of compliance. >> >> >> Article 24a ? Review >> >> The Commission shall, in close cooperation with BEREC, review the functioning of the provisions on specialised services and, after a public consultation, shall report and submit any appropriate proposals to the European Parliament and the Council by [insert date three years after the date of applicability of this regulation]. >> >> Article 30a >> >> Supervision and enforcement >> >> 1. National regulatory authorities shall have the necessary resources to monitor and supervise compliance with this Regulation within their territories. >> >> 2. National regulatory authorities shall make up-to-date information on the application of this Regulation publicly available in a manner that enables interested parties to have easy access to it. >> >> 3. National regulatory authorities shall have the power to require undertakings subject to obligations under this Regulation to supply all information relevant to the implementation and enforcement of this Regulation. Those undertakings shall provide such information promptly on request and in accordance with time limits and the level of detail required by the national regulatory authority. >> >> 4. National regulatory authorities may intervene on their own initiative in order to ensure compliance with this Regulation. >> >> 5. National regulatory authorities shall put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures to address complaints alleging breaches of Article 23. National regulatory authorities shall respond to complaints without undue delay. >> >> 6. Where a national regulatory authority finds that a breach of the obligations set out in this Regulation has occurred, it shall require the immediate cessation of such a breach. >> >> >> [1] IMCO adopted text AM 42 ? IMCO exclusive competence. ?Reasonable? deleted as not used in 23(5), exclusive ITRE competence, as the word adds nothing. >> >> [2] IMCO 43 (part) >> >> [3] IMCO adopted text AM 45 ? IMCO exclusive competence. IMCO text on complaint procedures addressed substantively identically in Art 30a. IMCO text on BEREC guidelines in Art 24(3), maintained by ITRE. >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> Innocenzo Genna >> Genna Cabinet Sprl >> 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium >> >> Skype: innonews >> Twitter: @InnoGenna >> Email: inno at innogenna.it >> >> my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ >> my music: www.innocenzogenna.com >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat Mar 22 21:29:44 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:29:44 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] "How the Internet works and ..." Message-ID: An NN primer? "For most of us, the internet is what you?re looking at right now?what you see on your web browser. But the internet itself is comprised of the fiber optic cables, the servers, the proverbial series of tubes, all owned by the companies that built it. The content we access online is stored on servers and transmitted through networks owned by lots of different groups, but the magic of the internet protocol lets it all function as the integrated experience we know and, from time to time, love." http://qz.com/187034/how-the-internet-works-and-why-its-impossible-to-know-what-makes-your-netflix-slow/ Well maybe sort of... Gordon From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Mar 23 09:35:04 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 08:35:04 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] "How the Internet works and ..." In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 21:29:44 on Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Gordon Lennox writes >"For most of us, the internet is what you?re looking at right now?what you >see on your web browser. Which is fine for content on a web page, but you and I are looking at emails "right now". >But the internet itself is comprised of the fiber optic cables, the >servers, the proverbial series of tubes, all owned by the companies >that built it. The content we access online is stored on servers and >transmitted through networks owned by lots of different groups, but the >magic of the internet protocol lets it all function as the integrated >experience we know and, from time to time, love." > >http://qz.com/187034/how-the-internet-works-and-why-its-impossible-to-know-what-makes-your-netflix-slow/ > >Well maybe sort of... It's more of a "where might the bottlenecks be", and focusses too much on a US-Centric view of national connectivity architecture. And the whole idea of "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" is so 1990's. One part they leave out is contention (or under-capacity) *inside* the ISP at the end of the 'last mile'. Here in the UK it's that bit of the network which matters too. My connectivity has a 'last mile' (unusually it is about a mile, for many subscribers it's more) over legacy copper, and I can pay to have better technology applied to squeeze more data down it; but then there's a '15 miles' to a regional hub and a '50 miles' to London, both of which are still *inside* my ISP and both of which affect the speed I observe [anecdotally it's how much the ISP spends on provisioning that '15 miles' which is most crucial]. These three bottlenecks (1, 15, 50 miles) are an extra layer that affects all content of course, before we start wondering if there's a priority between that router in London and servers run by YouTube, Netflix, or BBC iPlayer. -- Roland Perry From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Mar 25 15:08:33 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:08:33 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing Message-ID: [ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts.* ] In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders. The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions. Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below: - Date: 8 April 201 - Time: 11:00 - 13:00 (CET) - Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document) - Conference room number: 1327846 - Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/ (please note that you do *NOT* need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference - it's offered as an option) As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176and http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-e volution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177. Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprim?es ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas ?tre assimil?es ? une position officielle de la Commission europ?enne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20120920_EU-InternationalAccessNumbers-EN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 115457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 15:32:20 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:32:20 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] The new EU telecoms regulation - some comments Message-ID: <7E0731F9-7C98-4A8D-83FA-8182038C5368@gmail.com> "After she won the vote in ITRE yesterday Pilar del Castillo published this FAQ on the controversial Open Internet provisions of the Telecom Single Market Regulation. We (EDRI) took the liberty of commenting on her answers." http://edri.org/faq-open-internet-provisions-telecoms-single-market-regulation/ From nick at inex.ie Thu Mar 27 13:31:57 2014 From: nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:31:57 +0000 Subject: [cooperation-wg] DNS-based filtering In-Reply-To: <5294F863.6080506@gmail.com> References: <80951A6D-89DE-4C4B-A6DB-B4516EDFA9D9@ucd.ie> <5294F863.6080506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53341A3D.8020608@inex.ie> On 26/11/2013 19:37, Pier Carlo Chiodi wrote: > Unfortunately at time of writing there is not an English version, so I > link here a blog post with some English excerpts too [2]. finally in the last week or two they've come out with the english version of Villal?n's opinion: > http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=144944&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=305207 separate to this, the ECJ has issued their opinion today: > http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=149924&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=480790 There's a summary on Innocenzo Genna's blog: > http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/web-blocking-and-copyright-protection-the-european-court-sets-the-limits/ (thanks to Marco d'Itri for the link and to Innocenzo for the excellent content). Nick