[Chapter-delegates] ISOC European chapters' letter to ETNO

[Veni Markovski]

http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?p=413


    Statement on ETNO Contribution 109 to CWG-WCIT12
    <http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?p=413>

Published on 16/09/2012 <http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?p=413> by secretariat 
<http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?author=1> in Policy 
<http://www.isoc-ecc.org/?cat=32>

In reaction to 'contribution 109? from the ETNO 
<http://www.etno.be/> (the former state telco's in Europe), chapters of 
the Internet Society have reacted with the statement below (and as PDF 
<http://www.isoc-ecc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ETNO-statement1.pdf>):

Mr Luigi Gambardella
ETNO
Avenue Louise 54
1050 Brussels, Belgium

cc: European Commission, Current Presidency of the CEPT and the EP (PPE, 
S&D, ALDE, Verts, GUE/NGL, ECR, EFD)

*Subject: CWG-WCIT12 Contribution 109 Source: ETNO*

Brussels, 14 September 2012

Dear Mr Gambardella

We, Chapters of the Internet Society in Europe, are writing to you with 
respect to ETNO's contribution to the ITU in reference.

As we are sure you are already aware, the Internet Society has already 
issued a statement about the WCIT, including specific recommendations 
<http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-board-trustees-expresses-concern-about-potential-impact-world-conference>. 
Our present purpose is to respond to specific European aspects of your 
proposal. We hope that, based on this input, ETNO would reconsider 
Contribution 109 from the ITU Council Working Group. Allow us to explain 
our point of view:

1. *Multi-stakeholder participation in Europe:* We consider that 
Internet governance in general, and the European position in the ITU 
WCIT in particular, should be based on multi-stakeholder consultation 
and decision taking. In many contexts (IGF, EuroDIG, ICANN, etc.), ETNO 
members have supported the multi-stakeholder model, and it is in the 
best interests of the whole European Internet community if all 
stakeholders follow, and continue to develop this model.

2. *The scope of the International Telecommunication Regulations:* The 
ITRs regulate relations between governments. Commercial arrangements 
between operators are beyond the scope of the ITRs.

Your references to 'operators' tends to undermine this basic 
distinction. On the contrary, we wish to maintain this distinction and 
particularly to ensure that the ITU ITRs are neutral with respect to the 
regulatory and competition policy responsibilities of the public 
authorities, particularly those arising from the EU Treaty.

3. *Network Neutrality:* Without revisiting here all the arguments about 
Network Neutrality, we believe that the concepts in the ETNO proposal 
related to "commercial arrangements with differentiated quality of 
service delivery" are inconsistent with the principles of an open Internet.
Specifically, as many European Internet Society chapters have pointed 
out through the years, network operators -- such as the majority of ETNO 
members -- should not have the power, commercial or technical, to 
discriminate among IP packets sent or received by the users.
The commercial consequences of the model which you have proposed could 
threaten the quality of "best-efforts" delivery and create 
counterproductive incentives towards selective and 'walled garden' 
definitions of IP services. That would not be the open Internet, enjoyed 
today by all users.

4. *'Sending party network pays:'* This concept has apparently been 
carried over from traditional telecommunications, whereas the Internet 
functions on different principles, where the receiving party pays, 
usually through a subscription.
For reasons that have been amply explained elsewhere, this will not 
work, and should not be supported.
We would be particularly concerned that 'sending party pays' would in 
practice discriminate against many smaller, service providers, and new 
entrants.

5. *Economic considerations, 'fair remuneration' and broadband 
investment: *The European telecommunications industry has known for more 
than 20 years that markets would become progressively liberalised, and 
for more than a decade that convergent IP traffic would predominate 
through the Internet, as is already the case.
We would also note that several other countries are achieving higher 
levels of broadband penetration, more quickly, without resort to "new 
business models" (see for example the official Bulgarian contribution 
<http://isocbg.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/bg-itu/> to the ITU-PP10), but 
by ensuring liberal legal framework, with no licensing or registration 
for the ISPs. Furthermore, the ISPs and other telecommunications 
operators already charge their customers significant amounts for 
connection to the Internet.

Specifically, we do not believe that ITU ITRs, which regulate 
relationships between public authorities, should extend to commercial 
relationships between operators.

We are participating actively within national WCIT preparatory processes 
throughout the region, knowing that our respected governments will 
support positions that are consistent with the development of the 
Internet as an open and inclusive media, following a liberal legal 
framework. In this regard, we do not believe that the full range of 
impacts the ETNO proposals might produce for the global Internet 
community have been fully evaluated from a technical, commercial, or 
development perspective. Further, we have concluded that placing 
treaty-based interconnection obligations on infrastructure providers is 
not a constructive way to make progress and runs the serious risk of 
fragmenting the Internet. We hope that you will reconsider the ETNO 
proposal and work with us to grow the Internet in an open, market-based, 
multistakeholder fashion.

Yours sincerely,

R. Rustema (secretary Internet Society European Coordinating Council)

Signed and endorsed by the following Chapters of the Internet Society in 
Europe:

Internet Society Belgium <http://internetsociety.be>

Internet Society Bulgaria <http://isoc.bg>

Internet Society Finland <http://isoc.fi>

Internet Society Germany <http://isoc.de>

Internet Society Italy <http://www.isoc.it>

Internet Society Luxemburg <http://isoc.lu>

Internet Society the Netherlands <http://internetsociety.nl>

Internet Society Poland <http://isoc.pl>

Internet Society Romania <http://isoc.ro>

Internet Society Slovenia <http://www.isoc-drustvo.si>

Internet Society Spain <http://internetsociety.es>

Internet Society Sweden <http://isoc.se>

The Internet Society chapters are grass roots organisations interested 
in an open, inclusive internet. The members are often customers of 
ETNO's members.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20120916/d459aa88/attachment.htm>