<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Noel - assume there isn't anyone from
CommsAlliance here to address the concerns - reps from the comms
industry on this working group were Baker and McKenzie, Telstra,
Optus, M2, iiNet, IPStar, Verizon and VHA.<br>
Many of these concerns were probably raised during the working
committee meetings that brought this about - but many of them
would have been howled down by the content industry.<br>
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>
<br>
I agree, these are all really good comments. Now everyone needs to
get them in to Comms Alliance before the end of the public coment
period. Commenting in here is like a discussion at the urinal in
the pub - satisfying, but doesn't get the vibe in to the people
that are making the decisions.<br>
<br>
This thing is now in a legislated process, in accordance with the
Telco Act:<br>
* 1 month public comment period to Comms Alliance<br>
* Comms Alliance committee consider all the public comments and
make changes as determined by the working committee<br>
* if the changes agreed by the committee are big enough there
might need to be another public comment period - or they might
just reach out to people the comment to run them through the
changes<br>
* Comms Alliance presents the draft code to ACMA<br>
* ACMA open up a 2 month (might be 1 month) public comment period<br>
* ACMA consider comments and suggestions made to ACMA<br>
* ACMA make it a mandatory code applicable to every carriage
service provider<br>
<br>
Even if its 'I don't agree with this, and I'm not a member of
Comms Alliance, and Comms Alliance shouldn't be claiming to
represent the industry when it only represents its members and
didn't ask AusNOG', write your comment in to Comms Alliance.<br>
Even better, suggest specific changes to words and processes.
These are required to be addressed by the committee, to a level
that a comment like 'this is screwed up I don't agree' won't be.<br>
<br>
So please please please - everyone, on behalf of your service
provider of employment, or as an interested individual, follow the
public comment instructions at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment">http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment</a> and let
the Committee know what changes you would like to see in and out
of this draft code:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h4>Want to submit a comment on a draft document?</h4>
<p>You can use the <a
href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment/submit-comments">Submit
Comments form</a> to submit your comments via email or go to
the <a href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/contact_us"
target="_blank">Contact Us</a> webpage to obtain other
contact methods such as by post or fax.</p>
All submissions received will be made publically available on
the Communications Alliance website unless the submitter
requests otherwise.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h3>Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code</h3>
<p><a
href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf">DR
C653:2015 (709 KB)</a></p>
<p>The Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code creates a Copyright
Notice Scheme through which residential fixed internet users
who are alleged to have infringed copyright online will
receive an escalating series of infringement notices designed
to change their behaviour and steer them toward lawful sources
of content. The Scheme has a strong emphasis on public
education and does not contain explicit sanctions against
internet users, but does provide for a ‘facilitated
preliminary discovery’ process through which ISPs can assist
Rights Holders who may decide to take legal action against
persistent infringers.</p>
<p>Information on the Working Committee which revised the Code,
including the Terms of Reference can be found <a
href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Activities/committees-and-groups/wc66">here.</a></p>
<p><strong>PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES AT 5.00 P.M. ON (<a
href="http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/time">AEDT</a>)
23 March 2015.</strong></p>
<p>Please note that all submissions received will be made
publically available on the Communications Alliance website
unless the submitter requests otherwise.</p>
<hr></blockquote>
<br>
Even if you just cut'n'paste the comments made in here in the past
day.<br>
<br>
All comments are required to be considered by the committee, and
the more people that provide comments, the more they know the
level of feeling behind it.<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/02/2015 2:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:01b0da801f95c6b2214e042cfba2cedc@ausics.net"
type="cite">
<p>Absolutely agree, their intention might be well meaning, but
there is too many holes in it, perhaps someone from comms
alliance here would like to address these concerns?</p>
<p>On 22/02/2015 12:37, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div dir="ltr">It did seem a little one-sided there. It's all
well and fine to say the process on the Rights Holder side
must be certified, but there was no documented recourse if it
should be found that the Rights Holder was telling furfies.
For example, AFAIAC, should the Rights Holder be found to be
making false allegations, the ISP should have the right to
blacklist them and never deal with them again.
<div> </div>
<div>Seems like the Account Holder needs some recourse BEFORE
the Final Notice, also. For example, if the Account Holder
is a household with 4 teenagers, AND lots of visiting
friends, well, they have no way to tell who may have done
it, so there needs to be a way to come back to the ISP and
say 'Sorry, this was NOT me, nor was it someone I can
identify, so please cancel this notice'.<br>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't like the requirement for the ISP to send out
the Final Notices via registered post, without there being
some way to recoup that cost. Automated emails are all
well and fine. But once you have to have someone print,
fold, and stuff a letter, walk to the post office, get a
tracking number, and then come back and enter that number
into a system, that notice just cost you $30 to send. And
then later when someone needs to audit that process
because there was a failure in the system (The accounts
junior that walked to the post office mixed up two of the
tracking numbers), that notice then just cost you another
$200+ in developer time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Seems to be putting a LOT of cost and administrative
overhead on the ISP's, for NO benefit to ISP's or the
community. All the benefit is on the Rights Holders.
Perhaps a $10-20 per processed infringement notice
incoming from the Rights Holders would be a good cost
offset for the effort involved?</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>