Book creator ( disable )

Script convert amd test

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search

COD/2007/0247 - Trautmann report (framework, access, authorisation) - ITRE committee[edit]

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING

on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (16496/1/2008 – C6-0066/2009 – 2007/0247(COD))

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), rapporteur Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR


Amending Amended Topic Am. # Source Advice Comment
Trautmann Art. 1.8.a Framework Art. 8.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 42 PSE - The addition of "paragraphs 2 to 4" in exceptions to network neutrality can be dangerous if amendment 45 (8.4.g) is passed.
Trautmann Art. 1.8 Framework Art. 8.4 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 45 PSE --- The notion of unlawful content is known to be applied to copyrighted content accessed or distributed without authorisation. As the rapporteur and the Council have stated, the Framework Directive has nothing to do with copyright. Therefore the amendment should be rejected or alternatively the word lawful should be deleted twice.
Trautmann Art. 1.8 Framework Art. 8.4 3-strike/Fundamental Rights 46 PSE +++ This amendment restores AM 138 adopted in 1st reading, which provides useful safeguards against other provisions laying grounds to "three-strikes approach" (graduated response).
Trautmann Art. 2.2 Access Art. 4.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 83 PSE - Dividing interconnection negotiations into classes a) electronic communications services, b) broadcast content and c) information society services is indicative of a paradigm non-compliant with the universal charachter of technology neutral Internet information exchange, and invites introducing barriers on a network that is interoperable by design. Such a paradigm must be justified by research and impact assessments.
Trautmann Art. 2.3.a Access Art. 5.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 85 PSE -- This amendment introduces "fair and reasonable access to third-party services" as an alternative to end-to-end connectivity which breaks the fundamental peer-2-peer architecture of the Internet. The original article wording is as follows: '(a) to the extent that is necessary to ensure end-to-end connectivity, obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users, including in justified cases the obligation to interconnect their networks where this is not already the case;'
Trautmann Art. 2.7.a Access Art. 9.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 90 PSE -- The term traffic management policies is known to be used to establish network discrimination. And, while Council has used it in this provision as an example of terms and conditions for supply and use, here it is repeated as an obligation. Since some threats to network neutrality appear in Universal Service Directive, via the use of traffic management policies, it should be deleted in this paragraph. The fact that this paragraph establishes some obligations of transparency on network management policies leaves some place for network discrimination, if the term is not properly defined. Moreover, this obligation is followed by restrictions on access to service and applications which was the equivalent adopted by the European Parliament in first reading to the wording traffic management policies adopted by the Council in its Common Position.
Trautmann Annex 2.h Authorisation Annex A.19 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 107 PSE - This amendment circumscribe the basic right to end-to-end connectivity by allowing undertakings to defacto place restrictions on user's services. The logical effect of the word including is actually excluding unlimited access.
Trautmann Art. 1.8.f a Framework Art. 8.4 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 134 Verts/ALE +++ Access and distribution of any content, and not only lawful content
Trautmann Art. 1.8.f b Framework Art. 8.4 3-strike/Fundamental Rights 135 Verts/ALE +++ Restores Amendment 138 of first reading, repeats Trautmann's 46.
Trautmann Art. 2.7.a Access Art. 9.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 150 = 151 PPE-DE ++ Transparency concerning the goals and consequences of traffic management policies.
Trautmann Annex 2.h Authorisation Annex A.19 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 166 = 167 Verts/ALE - This amendment circumscribe the basic right to end-to-end connectivity by allowing undertakings to defacto place restrictions on user's services. The logical effect of the word including is actually excluding unlimited access.

COD/2007/0248 - Harbour report (universal service, ePrivacy) - IMCO committee[edit]

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING

on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (16497/1/2008 – C6-0068/2009 – 2007/0248(COD))

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), rapporteur Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB


Amending Amended Topic Am. # Source Advice Comment
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 5 PPE-DE - Provides some safeguards against network discrimination. But type of limitation should not be specified at the option of the provider, since it would hinder transparency imposed on providers. Moreover this amendment gives a reason to delete the word lawful in Amendment 45 of ITRE draft report (Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa) as suggested.
Harbour Rec. 22a Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 6 PPE-DE ++ Restates the mere-conduct principle, which is at the basis of network neutrality.
Harbour Rec. 26 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 9 PPE-DE 0 Mixes Recital 26 of the Council's Common Position and recital 14d of the European Parliament's first reading. It doesn't seem dangerous with regard to network discrimination. A similar amendment from AT&T was proposing to allow unjustified degradation of service, usage restrictions and/or limitations of traffic, which would have been very dangerous.
Harbour Rec. 39 Universal Service 3-Strikes 17 PPE-DE -- This amendment doesn't change anything in the important provisions of this recital, namely Furthermore, a mechanism could be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such a mechanism should, however, not allow for the systematic surveillance of internet usage. The cooperation to promote lawful content is known to be used as a ground for "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) and has nothing to do in the Universal Service Directive, since the rapporteur said that copyright enforcement has nothing to do in this directive.
Harbour Rec. 39a Universal Service Judicial Power 18 PPE-DE + Principles established by Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC adds some safeguards for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, while it does not prevent a national administrative authority to enforce a "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) as currently drafted by French government.
Harbour Rec. 39b Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 19 PPE-DE + Restates the principle of network neutrality.
Harbour Rec. 39d Universal Service Privacy/Personal Data 21 PPE-DE 0 This amendment restores, in a slightly modified version, Recital 27a adopted by European Parliament in its first reading. But this recital was presented by EDPS as an alternative to the deletion of a dangerous recital previously adopted in IMCO. Therefore, it can be adopted or rejected.
Harbour Art. 1.13.b Universal Service Art. 20.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 43 PPE-DE - This article, as adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, raised concerns because of the second point which talked about restictions to access to lawful content. The Council replaced this by network management policies, which is also subject to concerns with regard to network neutrality. The wording of amendment 43 is more appropriate. But it still needs some boundaries to limitations on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 21.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 49 PPE-DE - The same remarks apply for point (c) as for amendment 43.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 22.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 53 PPE-DE 0 This amendment restores partially Article 22 − paragraph 3 as adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, which has raised some concerns about the imposition of DRM. But the dangerous part of this paragraph has already be softened by the Council, replacing the reference to guidelines to enable the access or distribution of lawful content or applications by setting minimum quality of service requirements. Therefore, this amendment can be adopted or rejected.
Harbour Art. 1.21 Universal Service Fundamental Rights/Net Neutrality/Discrimination 72 PPE-DE +++ This amendment restores amendment 166 adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, which provides safeguards against net discrimination.
Harbour Art. 1.23 Universal Service Art. 34.1 Judicial Power 74 PPE-DE + This amendment adds some safeguards for customer in case of out-of-court procedures.
Harbour Art. 2.6 Universal Service Privacy/Personal Data 85 PPE-DE -- This amendment restores the article as adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading, and specially AM 181 which introduced Article 6.6a, renumbered 6.1b in the current amendment.
Harbour Annex I.B.b Universal Service Protection of Childrens 103 PPE-DE 0 This amendment restores a provision adopted by European Parliament in its first reading. But this provision was adopted as an alternative to the deletion of a dangerous provision previously adopted in IMCO. Therefore, it can be adopted or rejected.
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 105 PPE-DE -- This amendment is limited to information about network discrimination and delete a safeguard that limitations should be reasonable, while other amendments (106 & 107) to this recital state as a basic principle that end-users decide what they require to send and receive. Moreover any limitation is relevant.
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 106 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 107 Verts/ALE + The first part of the amendment is preserving unrestricted access to content/services/applications, but the last part recalls that there can be limitations. Therefore this amendment is not very good, but can be accepted if limitations are clearly restricted in other amendments like 139/141.
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 109 GUE/NGL +++ More or less our definition of acceptable network management policies.
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 110 PPE-DE ++ French translation of amendment 6 of Harbour
Harbour Rec. 22 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 111 GUE/NGL +++ More or less our definition of net neutrality.
Harbour Rec. 24 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 113 GUE/NGL + This is an exact copy of Amendment 7, tabled by the Rapporteur, with the insertion of "and their traffic management policies". It is noteworthy the Rapporteur overwrites his own amendment 7 with amendment 112.
Harbour Rec. 24 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 114 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Harbour Rec. 26 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 115 GUE/NGL +++ More or less our definition of minimum quality of service.
Harbour Rec. 26 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 116 PPE-DE --- AT&T amendment.
Harbour Rec. 26 Universal Service Net Neutrality/Discrimination 117 = 118 PPE-DE --- AT&T amendment.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 20.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 125 GUE/NGL ++ It is essential the "traffic management policies operated by the undertaking [...] can be understood by the subscriber.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 20.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 127 Verts/ALE + The amendement imposes transparency in contracts about any limitation to network neutrality, but it does not define requirements for such discrimination to be reasonable.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 20.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 128 PPE-DE - Same remarks as for am. 43.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 21.1 129 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 21.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 130 PPE-DE - Same remarks as for am. 49.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 21.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 131 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 21.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 133 Verts/ALE - Every limitation is relevant.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 22.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 135 GUE/NGL +++ Allows to take measures against net discrimination
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 22.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 136 = 137 = 138 PPE-DE --- AT&T amendment. Who determines what is justified or not? For operators, discrimination could be justified by profit (ie. forbidding VoIP on a mobile operator internet access). This is open door for net discrimination.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 22.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 139 and 141 Verts/ALE ++ Both amendments are needed for the traffic management policies to be non-discriminatory. Those two amendments work together.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 22.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 140 ALDE -- Weak complement to amendment 139, to reject in favor of 141.
Harbour Art. 1.13 Universal Service Art. 22.3 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 142 Verts/ALE 0 Just repeats some statements of amendment 139, in order to state that traffic management policies are taken to assure minimum QoS. This does not add any limit to restrictions that ISPs are allowed to take. Therefore this amendment can either be voted or rejected.
Harbour Art. 1.21 Universal Service Fundamental Rights/Net Neutrality/Discrimination 146 Verts/ALE +++ repeats amendment 166 of first lecture, and 72 of Harbour
Harbour Art. 1.21 Universal Service Fundamental Rights/Net Neutrality/Discrimination 147 PPE-DE --- Attempt to insert right to property and sanction in the fundamental rights.
Harbour Art. 1.22.b Universal Service Art. 33.3 3-Strikes 148 GUE/NGL +++ Deletes the last reference to lawful on which is based the graduated response.
Harbour Art. 2.6 Universal Service Privacy/Personal Data 150 GUE/NGL +++ The Council common position on this point would allow the telecommunications industry to collect a potentially unlimited amount of sensitive, confidential communications data including our telephone and e-mail contacts, the geographic position of our mobile phones and the websites we visit on the Internet. Apart from the creation of vast data pools that could go far beyond what is being collected under the directive on data retention, the proposal would also permit the disclosure of traffic data to other companies, government authorities and individuals.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.laquadrature.net/index.php?title=Script_convert_amd_test&oldid=114180"