From chrisb at ripe.net Thu May 1 16:41:13 2014 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:41:13 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] REMINDER: One Week to Comment on IANA Transition Process Proposal Message-ID: <7ABB0DDA-C045-4D14-8293-66E1BADBB975@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, This is a brief reminder that a deadline of Thursday, 8 May has been set for public comment on the "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions": This document is a preliminary step in the multi-stakeholder process to develop a future model of IANA administration and outlines the process by which that development will take place. It?s most significant concrete proposal is the creation of a "steering group" made up of various IANA stakeholder representatives (including the Address Supporting Organization and the Number Resource Organization) to steward the global discussion and development process. A public comment on the proposal was posted earlier this week by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB): Anyone with an interest is encouraged to send their comments on the draft proposal to . Further background on the IANA functions and the significance of this transition process for the RIPE community is available at: There will also be an opportunity for further RIPE community discussion of the IANA transition in next month's Cooperation Working Group session at RIPE 68: Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC From paf at frobbit.se Fri May 2 22:21:17 2014 From: paf at frobbit.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:21:17 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality and Quality Monitoring In-Reply-To: <5F098407-0395-41BB-99AC-606DFD7CC70C@gmail.com> References: <5F098407-0395-41BB-99AC-606DFD7CC70C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 29 apr 2014, at 16:26, Gordon Lennox wrote: > I know it is late but BEREC has just had a public consultation on: > > "Monitoring quality of services in the context of network neutrality" > > based on a draft report, a draft which I think is still worth reading. > > See: > > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/ongoing_public_consultations/2098-public-consultations-on-the-draft-berec-report-on-monitoring-quality-of-internet-access-services-in-the-context-of-net-neutrality I have not had energy to engage...because too many people that have interest in these kind of things and write documents do not know enough how Internet works, how measurement software works today, what is wrong with todays software and... Anyway, I have now looked at this....that is a lot of words...and it tried to dive into some of the issues with detecting how the network behaves. The problem is that they try once again to write text that everyone should understand, but because of that they loose the precision that is needed for a document like this. I do find some pieces that are interesting, for example this sentence: > When measuring IP layer metrics, the transport layer protocol (typically TCP or UDP) and application layer protocol (e.g. HTTP) are relevant for the measurement methodology. That should have been 25 of the 50 pages just on that issue. But no, it was one sentence. Another key is this: > Furthermore, deciding the set of measurements to run is beyond the scope of LMAP, and has been left to the organisation which will manage the measurement system once deployed. In this way, the LMAP deliverables will develop an open and flexible architecture, with a likelihood of supporting the needs of the NRAs. Which is correct, but what they miss is that measurement mechanisms is already a business for commercial companies (and of course individuals and others that are married to their ideas... ;-) ). So... I think the only solution is to: 1. Look at passive monitoring (that is indeed described in this document) 2. Continue to ensure the specification ISPs give matches what their customers do believe is what they get (and if their customers feel fooled, they do, and having ISPs following some ITU Y.something standard does not help) And this should have been the 2nd 25 pages of the report. That said, I think they correctly do reference various IETF working groups and explain why their work can not be used as of today, while that there might be some hope. I would not hold my breath though. Patrik -------------- 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 gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Sat May 3 11:01:11 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:01:11 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality and Quality Monitoring In-Reply-To: <5F098407-0395-41BB-99AC-606DFD7CC70C@gmail.com> References: <5F098407-0395-41BB-99AC-606DFD7CC70C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On the same topic, but another list and another thread, Frode (in copy), a representative of the Norwegian regulator NPT in the net neutrality expert working group of BEREC and also appointed as a chair of this group, added some useful information: << ... the consulted report is not discussing the core aspects of net neutrality, but is a study of Quality of Service monitoring. However, this QoS monitoring is discussed "in the context of net neutrality", including measurement methods for assessment of so-called "degradation of service" (ref. USD 22(3)). The consultation is closed now after 6 weeks seeking comments from stakeholders, a period already extended considerably due to Easter etc. BEREC's views regarding core aspects of net neutrality was developed during 2010-2012, and summarized in the high-level report "Summary of BEREC positions on net neutrality". The probably most interesting topical net neutrality report from that period is the "Guidelines for quality of service in the scope of net neutrality", containing among else definition and explanation of the "specialised service" concept, referred to by many stakeholders during the ongoing political net neutrality discussion in Europe. This year's QoS monitoring report can also be seen as aka follow-up to the 2012 QoS guidelines. The 2012 reports are available here: http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/12/BoR_%2812%29_146_Summary_of_BEREC_positions_on_net_neutrality2.pdf http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/1101-berec-guidelines-for-quality-of-service-_0.pdf >> As one of the WG Co-chairs works for a regulator perhaps we could have a very brief update in Warsaw? Best, Gordon From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat May 3 15:50:28 2014 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 14:50:28 +0100 Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality and Quality Monitoring In-Reply-To: References: <5F098407-0395-41BB-99AC-606DFD7CC70C@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 22:21:17 on Fri, 2 May 2014, Patrik F?ltstr?m writes >I have not had energy to engage...because too many people that have >interest in these kind of things and write documents do not know enough >how Internet works, how measurement software works today, what is wrong >with todays software and... I will steal a quote off one of my Facebook friends, posted a few hours ago: "Trying to explain the reality of the Internet today to a net neutrality campaigner is like trying to explain the troposphere to a crab". But what can we do, to try to remedy the situation? -- Roland Perry From meredithrachel at google.com Wed May 7 21:38:33 2014 From: meredithrachel at google.com (Meredith Whittaker) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 15:38:33 -0400 Subject: [cooperation-wg] RIPE 68 Co-op WG now published Message-ID: Hi all, In our role as co-chairs, Alain, Maria, and I have worked with Chris and others to put together an agenda for next week that's now live and published. https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/coop-wg/ We're looking forward to it, and to your comments, of course. Cheers! Meredith -- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chrisb at ripe.net Tue May 13 14:33:14 2014 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:33:14 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] Panel on Internet Governance - watch now! Message-ID: Dear colleagues, This is a quick note that the RIPE 68 Meeting is currently underway, and you can now tune in to watch a panel session on Internet governance: https://ripe68.ripe.net/live/main/ More details on the panel here: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/#tue3 Best regards, Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2608 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue May 20 10:32:45 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:32:45 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality Message-ID: <1895B0B2-692B-49D0-A29C-FAC5A053528D@gmail.com> BEREC have just issued a press release commenting on the Parliament's modified proposal and recalling some of their concerns with the Commission's initial proposal. About network neutrality they write: <> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/whats_new/2203-berec-publishes-its-views-on-the-european-parliament-first-reading-legislative-resolution-on-the-european-commissions-proposal-for-a-connected-continent-regulation So if you want network neutrality then you need regulation? The only question left is what kind. One indication of where they see the limits can perhaps be found in the sentence "This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network." I feel this is a significant shift. I cannot remember regulators looking in detail at what happens within traditional networks. They limited themselves to the "edges". Gordon From denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl Tue May 20 14:36:04 2014 From: denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl (Wout de Natris) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 14:36:04 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gordon, Weren't regulators in telecoms in the late 90s meant to go in straight through the front door and break open the market? (Where necessary.) Make interconnection and special access possible by forcing access and setting prices, etc.? In those days I was not under the impression to be working on "the edges". What I get from your analyses, the main point BEREC's stating, is not so far beside what happened in the late 90s, at least in NL. New developments should be supported, but not through harming other/traditional services. And isn't that what the concern is about? Wout > From: cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:00:05 +0200 > > 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. BEREC - Network Neutrality (Gordon Lennox) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:32:45 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox > Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality > To: Cooperation WG > Message-ID: <1895B0B2-692B-49D0-A29C-FAC5A053528D at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > BEREC have just issued a press release commenting on the Parliament's modified proposal and recalling some of their concerns with the Commission's initial proposal. About network neutrality they write: > > < > BEREC recognizes that guaranteeing an open internet is a challenging objective, not least given its complex and dynamic ecosystem. Yet, the Commission?s original proposal would turn a flexible and progressive regulatory regime (under the 2009 Framework) into a rigid regulatory system and the European Parliament has generally retained this approach. > > BEREC would instead prefer an approach based on principles rather than detailed rules and which provides NRAs with the necessary powers to ensure that those principles (such as the ones developed by BEREC on what constitutes reasonable traffic management and on the relationship between specialized services and internet access services) are respected. Under such an approach, national regulators would be pursuing the same objective and enforcing the same principles, but the specific triggers and thresholds for regulatory intervention in a given market could be adapted to address national circumstances. > > If a rules-based approach is nonetheless to be pursued, then further work would be required to ensure that the definitions and rules were legally precise, future-proof and enforceable in practice. While some of the language in the text adopted by European Parliament draws upon BEREC previous publications on the subject, improving the original Commission?s proposals, it does not yet meet these standards. A balanced approach to promoting net neutrality on the Internet in parallel to the provision of specialised services is a difficult challenge. BEREC considers that specialised services should be clearly separated (physically or virtually) from internet access services at the network layer, to ensure that sufficient safeguards prevent degradation of the internet access services. Therefore BEREC welcomes the European Parliament?s acknowledgement of this principle. However, some inconsistencies in the proposed rules and definitions still raise legal and policy concerns.>> > > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/whats_new/2203-berec-publishes-its-views-on-the-european-parliament-first-reading-legislative-resolution-on-the-european-commissions-proposal-for-a-connected-continent-regulation > > So if you want network neutrality then you need regulation? The only question left is what kind. One indication of where they see the limits can perhaps be found in the sentence "This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network." > > I feel this is a significant shift. I cannot remember regulators looking in detail at what happens within traditional networks. They limited themselves to the "edges". > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 > ********************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inno at innogenna.it Tue May 20 16:54:15 2014 From: inno at innogenna.it (Innocenzo Genna) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 16:54:15 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94CEACB3-4033-4DFE-82E1-65EBA7745DA9@innogenna.it> Hello all, the ?90 telecoms liberalization was made with (flexible) directives, not (rigid) regulations. Also the european regulatory framework for electronic communications services consists of directives, not regulations (the only exception were ULL, for certain time, and then roaming). Berec is implicitly challenging the legal instrument chosen by Kroes for the Single Market, i.e. a regulation. In the past Berec made various analysis about net neutrality infringements throughout Europe, and the result showed quite a diversified situation being caused by absence of rules rather then by the existence of different national legislations. This is the reason why Berec would consider adequate to regulate this matter via a directive rather than a regulation.* However, the original sin (i.e. Kroes?s regulation covering a plurality of different areas) is there and there is no room to change it, in my opinion. However, it could be possible that the Council cut out the entire NN reform and decides that it will be part of the program of the next Commissions. The latter option has been already proposed for other areas of the Single Market proposal. I am following the working groups of the Council in the matter of the Single Market and I see that many member States are reiterating their objections against both the proposal of the Commission and the amendments of the Parliament. Thus, the situation is not very promising for the proposal, which will be radically reduced. Inno * The use of a regulation is quite intrusive and it has been challenged frequently by national authorities: for example, a proposed regulation for the roll-out and reduction of costs for high-speed networks was converted into directive by the Council and the Parliament. The same challenge was made against the new privacy regulation of Commissioner Reding. In the latter case, however, reding was able to resist because an harmonized directive already existed (95/46/EC), therefore the escalation into a regulation could be justified. Il giorno 20/mag/2014, alle ore 14:36, Wout de Natris ha scritto: > Gordon, > > Weren't regulators in telecoms in the late 90s meant to go in straight through the front door and break open the market? (Where necessary.) Make interconnection and special access possible by forcing access and setting prices, etc.? In those days I was not under the impression to be working on "the edges". > > What I get from your analyses, the main point BEREC's stating, is not so far beside what happened in the late 90s, at least in NL. New developments should be supported, but not through harming other/traditional services. And isn't that what the concern is about? > > Wout > > > > From: cooperation-wg-request at ripe.net > > Subject: cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 > > To: cooperation-wg at ripe.net > > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:00:05 +0200 > > > > 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. BEREC - Network Neutrality (Gordon Lennox) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:32:45 +0200 > > From: Gordon Lennox > > Subject: [cooperation-wg] BEREC - Network Neutrality > > To: Cooperation WG > > Message-ID: <1895B0B2-692B-49D0-A29C-FAC5A053528D at gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > BEREC have just issued a press release commenting on the Parliament's modified proposal and recalling some of their concerns with the Commission's initial proposal. About network neutrality they write: > > > > < > > > BEREC recognizes that guaranteeing an open internet is a challenging objective, not least given its complex and dynamic ecosystem. Yet, the Commission?s original proposal would turn a flexible and progressive regulatory regime (under the 2009 Framework) into a rigid regulatory system and the European Parliament has generally retained this approach. > > > > BEREC would instead prefer an approach based on principles rather than detailed rules and which provides NRAs with the necessary powers to ensure that those principles (such as the ones developed by BEREC on what constitutes reasonable traffic management and on the relationship between specialized services and internet access services) are respected. Under such an approach, national regulators would be pursuing the same objective and enforcing the same principles, but the specific triggers and thresholds for regulatory intervention in a given market could be adapted to address national circumstances. > > > > If a rules-based approach is nonetheless to be pursued, then further work would be required to ensure that the definitions and rules were legally precise, future-proof and enforceable in practice. While some of the language in the text adopted by European Parliament draws upon BEREC previous publications on the subject, improving the original Commission?s proposals, it does not yet meet these standards. A balanced approach to promoting net neutrality on the Internet in parallel to the provision of specialised services is a difficult challenge. BEREC considers that specialised services should be clearly separated (physically or virtually) from internet access services at the network layer, to ensure that sufficient safeguards prevent degradation of the internet access services. Therefore BEREC welcomes the European Parliament?s acknowledgement of this principle. However, some inconsistencies in the proposed rules and definitions still raise legal and policy concerns.>> > > > > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/news_consultations/whats_new/2203-berec-publishes-its-views-on-the-european-parliament-first-reading-legislative-resolution-on-the-european-commissions-proposal-for-a-connected-continent-regulation > > > > So if you want network neutrality then you need regulation? The only question left is what kind. One indication of where they see the limits can perhaps be found in the sentence "This innovation should be safeguarded, both on the edges and within the network." > > > > I feel this is a significant shift. I cannot remember regulators looking in detail at what happens within traditional networks. They limited themselves to the "edges". > > > > Gordon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 > > ********************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue May 20 17:04:36 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:04:36 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2EE9B8CF-52D8-4AAD-9DE9-43554CE9F310@gmail.com> By "edges" I mean "products" for the most part, products offered to consumers and products available to other operators. Way back regulation was technical. Then it became more economics based - all the discussion about markets and SMP (significant market power) - and so the emphasis on products. We still have regulation involving shared technical resources, whether spectrum or ducts or masts. But we have had push-back, at least in spirit, on CPE from the days following the Terminal Equipment Directive. And also more recently on local loop unbundling - because fibre is so different to copper? What I sense is that now they leaning towards getting deeper inside networks - and on the internet side and not on the specialised side. This is a good thing or a bad thing? i would hope people talk about it. I wonder though if all those people who wanted network neutrality will be happy with how it will be enforced in detail. From a few years ago: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/network-neutrality-law-?-step-forwards-or-step-backwards By the way many people, even those who have questions about BEREC, seem to think their local regulator is actually quite good on all this. So I wonder where the gap is. Anyway I am trying not to "do the analysis". I am trying encourage people to read at least some of the BEREC material - there is lots! - so they can discuss it here / make their own mind up. Gordon On 20 May, 2014, at 14:36, Wout de Natris wrote: > Gordon, > > Weren't regulators in telecoms in the late 90s meant to go in straight through the front door and break open the market? (Where necessary.) Make interconnection and special access possible by forcing access and setting prices, etc.? In those days I was not under the impression to be working on "the edges". > > What I get from your analyses, the main point BEREC's stating, is not so far beside what happened in the late 90s, at least in NL. New developments should be supported, but not through harming other/traditional services. And isn't that what the concern is about? > > Wout -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com Tue May 20 21:03:17 2014 From: gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com (Gordon Lennox) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 21:03:17 +0200 Subject: [cooperation-wg] cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 29, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <94CEACB3-4033-4DFE-82E1-65EBA7745DA9@innogenna.it> References: <94CEACB3-4033-4DFE-82E1-65EBA7745DA9@innogenna.it> Message-ID: <0F8B9222-E060-45FF-AAD7-D2AA168BDA0B@gmail.com> Yes. Thank you for this. I had started to wonder whether BEREC was not acting in some ways like a "stalking horse" for Council. It will get even more interesting. Gordon On 20 May, 2014, at 16:54, Innocenzo Genna wrote: > Hello all, > > the ?90 telecoms liberalization was made with (flexible) directives, not (rigid) regulations. Also the european regulatory framework for electronic communications services consists of directives, not regulations (the only exception were ULL, for certain time, and then roaming). > Berec is implicitly challenging the legal instrument chosen by Kroes for the Single Market, i.e. a regulation. In the past Berec made various analysis about net neutrality infringements throughout Europe, and the result showed quite a diversified situation being caused by absence of rules rather then by the existence of different national legislations. This is the reason why Berec would consider adequate to regulate this matter via a directive rather than a regulation.* > > However, the original sin (i.e. Kroes?s regulation covering a plurality of different areas) is there and there is no room to change it, in my opinion. However, it could be possible that the Council cut out the entire NN reform and decides that it will be part of the program of the next Commissions. The latter option has been already proposed for other areas of the Single Market proposal. > > I am following the working groups of the Council in the matter of the Single Market and I see that many member States are reiterating their objections against both the proposal of the Commission and the amendments of the Parliament. Thus, the situation is not very promising for the proposal, which will be radically reduced. > > Inno > > * The use of a regulation is quite intrusive and it has been challenged frequently by national authorities: for example, a proposed regulation for the roll-out and reduction of costs for high-speed networks was converted into directive by the Council and the Parliament. The same challenge was made against the new privacy regulation of Commissioner Reding. In the latter case, however, reding was able to resist because an harmonized directive already existed (95/46/EC), therefore the escalation into a regulation could be justified. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: