TEMPORARY WORKSPACE 2ND READING VOTING LIST

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search

WORK IN PROGRESS!!!!

WORK IN PROGRESS!!!!

WORK IN PROGRESS!!!!


See also the complete analysis of amendments, a focus on Network neutrality/discrimnation issues and the 2nd reading voting list.


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. 8.1.2 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.fa Framework Art. 8.4.fa 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.fb Framework Art. 8.4.fb 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. 1.21 Framework Art. 19 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 78 PSE + This is not a pure Net Neutrality/Discrimination amendment, but neutrality and non-discrimination has to be enforced by a competent regulator, particularly when it comes to new services and issues outside the scope of 2002/22/EC.
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.aa Access Art. 5.1.a Net Neutrality/Discrimination 85 = 148 = 149 PSE, Verts -- This amendment introduces "fair and reasonable access to third-party services" as an alternative to end-to-end connectivity which breaks the fundamental peer-to-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 circumscribes 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.ba Framework Art. 8.2.b Net Neutrality/Discrimination 132 = 133 PSE, Verts + Guarantees network neutrality for competition.
Trautmann Art. 1.8.fa Framework Art. 8.4.fa Net Neutrality/Discrimination 134 Verts +++ Access and distribution of any content, and not only lawful content
Trautmann Art. 1.8.fb Framework Art. 8.4.fb 3-strike/Fundamental Rights 135 Verts +++ Restores Amendment 138 of first reading, repeats Trautmann's 46.
Trautmann Art. 2.7.a Framework Art. 9.1 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 150 = 151 PSE, Verts ++ Transparency concerning the goals and consequences of traffic management policies.
Trautmann Annex 2.h Authorisation Annex A.19 Net Neutrality/Discrimination 166 = 167 PSE, Verts - This amendment circumscribes 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.

See also TEMPORARY_WORKSPACE_2ND_READING_AMENDMENTS

Retrieved from "https://wiki.laquadrature.net/index.php?title=TEMPORARY_WORKSPACE_2ND_READING_VOTING_LIST&oldid=114615"