French Regulator to ask all your information about your Peering
brunner at nic-naa.net
Fri Mar 30 13:43:50 CDT 2012
interesting discussion of jurisdiction.
> In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as constituting an extra-
> territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are neither established in France nor
> directly providing services within France, merely by virtue of their interconnecting with a network that
> does operate in France.
> Similar considerations apply, mutatis mutandis, to the application of a reporting requirement to the
> providers of content services established and operating outside France. We do not consider the provision
> of content in the French language to be sufficient, by itself, to place the content provider within ARCEP’s
> We consider this lack of jurisdiction to be sufficient reason for ARCEP to withdraw categories (b) and (d)
> from the scope of persons enumerated in Article 1 of the Draft Decision.
More information about the NANOG