btw, the itu imploded

Wed Dec 19 15:12:03 UTC 2012

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