And to go back to the remark I already made: if at some point somebody would write to Brussels on behalf of the BOF/WG then sharing the name "Connect" with the responsible DG in the Commission will just lead to confusion. Not useful. Gordon On 23 Oct, 2013, at 11:48, Nina Bargisen <nihb@netflix.com> wrote:
When proposing this topic for the connect-bfo, we were well aware that there is an overlap to the Coorporation WG and I think this will a topic to discuss both here on the list and and at the Bof at the next RIPE.
I agree with Gordon that not discussing current topics untill this is resolved in Warsaw is a bad idea, so I thank Gordon for starting the thread about the Proposal from the EC. I believe the discussion should run in bot this Bof and the Cooperation WG and I hope the Coorporation wg will agree to that. This way we create awareness in the peering community about the topic and get some input for work with the Governance folks the other way around.
Cheers,
Nina Bargisen
Den 22/10/2013 kl. 23.25 skrev Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>:
On 22 Oct, 2013, at 22:31, Edwin Punt - NL-ix <edwin@nl-ix.net> wrote:
but looking at possible interconnect regulation it looks like a good item to have.
But it might depend on whether you want to try and influence regulation or just take it as a given...
The proposed Regulation from the Commission is about interconnection...
But that might mean starting now. So do it in the context of the Cooperation WG?
Gordon
_______________________________________________ connect-bof mailing list connect-bof@ripe.net https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-bof