[159004] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: btw, the itu imploded
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Wed Dec 19 10:13:45 2012
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:12:03 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1212191424460.15409@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 19/12/2012 14:25, Tony Finch wrote:
> Do you have any citations for that? I thought they had given up on trying
> to interfere with Internet peering and settlement.
http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/lists/questions.aspx?Group=03&Period=15
ETNO is very keen on introducing sending-party-pays, and recently brought
out an opinion piece on their intentions to bring this idea forward at the ITU:
http://www.etno.eu/datas/itu-matters/etno-ip-interconnection.pdf
> ETNO has introduced its views in Contribution C 109 submitted to the
> last meeting of the ITU Council Working Group to prepare for 2012 WCIT.
> ETNO’s proposal concerns:
[...]
> ‐ the economic background, advocating for an adequate return on
> investment based, where appropriate, on the principle of sending party
> network pays;
The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (i.e. the
representative body of all the EU national comms regulators) came out with
the following statement:
> http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/11/BoR(12)120rev.1_BEREC_Statement_on_ITR_2012.11.14.pdf
... where they noted among other things:
"ETNO’s proposed end-to-end SPNP approach to data transmission is totally
antagonistic to the decentralised efficient routing approach to data
transmission of the Internet."
It's pretty unusual to get language this strong from a regulatory body.
Nick
