Telecoms Package 2nd Reading ITRE IMCO Voting List

From La Quadrature du Net
Revision as of 22:53, 25 March 2009 by 84.100.216.62 (talk) (New page: ==COD/2007/0247 - Trautmann report (framework, access, authorisation) - ITRE committee== {| border='1' cellpadding='5' cellspacing='0' ! Amending !! Amended !! Topic !! Am. # !! Source !!...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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

Amending Amended Topic Am. # Source Advice Comment
Art.1.8.a 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.
Art.1.8. 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.
Art.1.8. 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).
Art.2.2 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.
Art.2.3.a 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;'
Art.2.7.a 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.
Art.* Annex – point 2 – point h amending Directive 2002/20/EC Annex – part A – point 19 tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR 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.
Art.* Voting recommendation: for. 134 * Voting recommendation: for. +++ ruling may be subsequent.”
Art.* Voting recommendation: for. 150 = 151 * Voting recommendation: for. ++ needed to verify the accuracy of such disclosure.

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

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
Art.22 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.
Art.22a 6 PPE-DE ++ Restates the mere-conduct principle, which is at the basis of network neutrality.
Art.26 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.
Art.39 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.
Art.39a 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.
Art.39b 19 PPE-DE + Restates the principle of network neutrality.
Art.39d 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.
Art.1.13.b 43 PPE-DE - Article 26;
Art.1.13 49 PPE-DE - connecting the call
Art.1.13 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.
Art.1.21 72 PPE-DE +++ Access to content, services and applications
Art.1.23 74 PPE-DE + and the authorities.
Art.2.6 85 PPE-DE -- and Article 15(1).
Art.* Annex I - Part B – point b b (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB 103 PPE-DE 0 persons to content unsuitable for them.
Art.22 106 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Art.22 107 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.
Art.22.a 109 GUE/NGL +++ More or less our definition of acceptable network management policies.
Art.22 110 PPE-DE ++ French translation of amendment 6 of Harbour
Art.22.b 111 GUE/NGL +++ More or less our definition of net neutrality.
Art.24 113 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.
Art.24.a 114 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Art.26 115 GUE/NGL +++ More or less our definition of minimum quality of service.
Art.26 116 PPE-DE --- AT&T amendment.
Art.26.a 117 = 118 PPE-DE --- AT&T amendment.
Art.1.13. 125 GUE/NGL ++ Article 26,
Art.1.13. 126 PPE-DE -- To be able to distribute information is a fundamental right. Every limitation is relevant. This amendment opens up for both state and corporate cencorship.
Art.1.13. 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.
Art.1.13. 128 PPE-DE - Same remarks as for am. 43.
Art.1.13 129 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Art.1.13 130 PPE-DE - Same remarks as for am. 49.
Art.1.13 131 GUE/NGL ++ Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.
Art.1.13 133 Verts/ALE - Every limitation is relevant.
Art.1.13 135 GUE/NGL +++ Allows to take measures against net discrimination
Art.1.13 136 = 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.
Art.1.13 139 = 141 Verts/ALE ++ ====Amendment 141====
Art.1.13 140 ALDE -- Weak complement to amendment 139, to reject in favor of 141.
Art.1.13 142 Verts/ALE 0 Just repeat 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.
Art.1.21 146 Verts/ALE +++ repeats amendment 166 of first lecture, and 72 of Harbour
Art.1.21 147 PPE-DE --- Attempt to insert right to property and sanction in the fundamental rights.
Art.1.22.b 148 GUE/NGL +++ Deletes the last reference to lawful on which is based the graduated response.
Art.2.6 150 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.