<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">+1 Mark.<br>
<br>
Having been on the inside of the code development process enough
times (but not this one) - the *biggest* spanner to the whole
process would be for the Comms Alliance committee to receive a
hundred submissions pointing out flaws, inconsistencies,
suggestions for changes, suggestions for additions, changes to
thresholds, all with reasons why the changes should be made, why
the proposed measure is disproportionate, and the implications if
they are not changed or included.<br>
Each one has to be raised, debated and considered for altered
drafting.<br>
Each one provides an evidence trail that the draft Code does *not*
represent the consensus of the industry, for the inevitable review
later.<br>
Even better if the same points are raised by multiple comment
submissions.<br>
And come April 8, the committee can genuinely tell the Government
'we couldn't meet the deadline because we're still working through
the deluge of submissions from the public comment period'.<br>
*If* they get the deluge of comments and submissions - from the
AusNOG (and non-AusNOG) community.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 23/02/2015 12:22 PM, Mark Newton wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8375A1CA-0C30-45FD-B48E-7F6C2FE7896B@atdot.dotat.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 23, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Paul Brooks <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> The group that put this
together had a deadline to put out a draft code that both
sides could at least live with - if they don't meet the
deadline with a draft that the service providers AND the
content industry can live with, then the Government was
going to 'create' one themselves and impose it whether you
liked it or not - and most people figured that would be
worse. They still might.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Nope, that’d be much better. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Make the government take some gooddamn responsibility for the
inevitable public backlash. Make it their mess, beginning to
end, enacted in a democratic forum where voters can make
submissions and have a say, and the whole process can get
watered down in the Senate. Make it so that when ISPs screw-over
customers, customers are in no doubt whatsoever that they’re
being screwed over due to government policy, and they can scream
blue murder at their MPs and get the law changed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By agreeing to turn it into an industry issue, Comms Alliance
has given the government plausible deniability, and usurped the
democratic process by turning it into a cosy negotiated
arrangement behind closed doors, where the content owners get
what they want, and the service providers get them to agree to
be nice, and we the public get literally no say in it
whatsoever. And when service providers screw over customers,
customers will quite rightly direct their ire at their ISPs.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best possible outcome for the Government and the
rightsholders: Free kicks for everybody! ISP industry rolls over
<i>again</i>, and will subsequently wonder why they never have
any political influence over anything, and keep getting treated
with contemptuous disregard by both sides of politics because
they are literally the easiest industry in the entire economy to
house-train.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> - mark</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>