<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/02/2015 12:04 PM, Noel Butler
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:9a3b1e11c60e1b43771e86d57a80a881@ausics.net"
type="cite">
<p>The problem will be Comms Alliance, like any lobby group who
*thinks* they represent the entire industry/population whatever,
wont like changes by a bunch of people criticising their "hard
work" who have no affiliation with them (hey, I might be proved
wrong though), as Paul has referenced, the ACMA will hold a
public comment period also, and that would likely be a better
place to address the issues as well, so keep that copy of what
you send Comms Alliance, because you'll possibly have to drag it
out and send to the ACMA's consult as well.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
In this case, Comms Alliance isn't acting as a lobby group like they
would if it was being done by an outside group. As in most code
development inside Comms Alliance, Comms Alliance itself (i.e. John
Stanton and staff) merely provide the meeting rooms and
administration, for the representatives (the carriers, ISPs, and (in
this case) content industry reps), to duke it out amongst
themselves.<br>
<br>
The industry reps (iinet, Verizon, M2 Telstra, Optus etc) may not
like a bunch of people who weren't part of the process writing in to
suggest changes - but that is sure as heck better than them
receiving silence, which they will interpret as tacit acceptance.<br>
<br>
Comms Alliance committees generally won't pass a draft code to ACMA
unless the vast majority of the committee has a consensus the code
is agreed and ready - until it is, it goes round and round and
comments are sought and negotiated inside the committee.
Occasionally, if the committee can't agree, the draft never gets to
be submitted to ACMA (this happened with the first version of VDSL2
deployment rules).<br>
<br>
The ACMA comment period, traditionally, has been a time for ACMA to
verify they get no comments - since the issues should have all been
sorted out before it gets to ACMA.<br>
For these reasons it would be *much* more effective for the comments
to go into Comms Alliance first, be debated and discussed, and be
incorporated into the revised doc that is passed up to ACMA. If your
comment isn't agreed to in the document sent to ACMA, sure, send it
in to ACMA as well. ACMA can't change the doc - at worst, they get
so many substantial comments they send it back to Comms Alliance for
another round.<br>
<br>
However, the service provider industry+content industry has a
deadline to get *something* they can jointly agree to into ACMA
before April 8, or the Government is likely to step in and dictate a
process that nobody will like.<br>
<br>
This article
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/isps-close-in-on-plan-to-curb-internet-piracy-20150112-12mjc6.html">http://www.smh.com.au/business/isps-close-in-on-plan-to-curb-internet-piracy-20150112-12mjc6.html</a>
explains the background, and consequences of NOT arriving at an
agreed process - that is 'agreed' amongst the service providers AND
content providers, not just amongst service providers.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9a3b1e11c60e1b43771e86d57a80a881@ausics.net"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<p>Paul, Yes, thanks for the extra info.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 23/02/2015 09:56, Rod Veith wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored --><!-- meta ignored --><!-- node type 8 --><!-- node type 8 --><!-- node type 8 -->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">My 2
page response has been sent to the Comms Alliance. I find
abhorrent the whole premise that ISPs have a role to play
in copyright enforcement prior to the issuing of court
orders!<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Willing
to share and hope to swap responses off list.<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Summary
of response: Totally against the scheme.<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Rod<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none; border-top: solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;
padding: 3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:
10.0pt; font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; color:
windowtext;">From:</span></strong><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family:
'Tahoma','sans-serif'; color: windowtext;"> AusNOG
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>] <strong>On
Behalf Of </strong>Rod Veith<br>
<strong>Sent:</strong> Monday, 23 February 2015 8:50
AM<br>
<strong>To:</strong> 'Paul Brooks';
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to
graduated warnings for pirates"<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!-- o ignored --> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Thank
you for the links.<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">We
are preparing our reply and will send it to the alliance.<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Our
ISP business has not been approached about this scheme
either before or after this draft was produced by the
Communications Alliance.<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;">Rod
<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;
font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; color: #1f497d;"><!-- o ignored --> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none; border-top: solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;
padding: 3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:
10.0pt; font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; color:
windowtext;">From:</span></strong><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family:
'Tahoma','sans-serif'; color: windowtext;"> AusNOG [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</a>]
<strong>On Behalf Of </strong>Paul Brooks<br>
<strong>Sent:</strong> Monday, 23 February 2015 8:14
AM<br>
<strong>To:</strong> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to
graduated warnings for pirates"<!-- o ignored --></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!-- o ignored --> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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:<!-- o ignored --></p>
<h4>Want to submit a comment on a draft document?<!-- o ignored --></h4>
<p>You can use the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/contact_us">Contact
Us</a> webpage to obtain other contact methods such as
by post or fax.<!-- o ignored --></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All submissions received will be made
publically available on the Communications Alliance
website unless the submitter requests otherwise.<!-- o ignored --></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5.0pt; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<h3>Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code<!-- o ignored --></h3>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf">DR
C653:2015 (709 KB)</a><!-- o ignored --></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.<!-- o ignored --></p>
<p>Information on the Working Committee which revised the
Code, including the Terms of Reference can be found <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Activities/committees-and-groups/wc66">here.</a><!-- o ignored --></p>
<p><strong>PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES AT 5.00 P.M. ON (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/time">AEDT</a>)
23 March 2015.</strong><!-- o ignored --></p>
<p>Please note that all submissions received will be made
publically available on the Communications Alliance
website unless the submitter requests otherwise.<!-- o ignored --></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"
align="center">
<hr align="center" size="3" width="100%"></div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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:<!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top: 5.0pt; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<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?<!-- o ignored --></p>
<p>On 22/02/2015 12:37, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:<!-- o ignored --></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; border-left: solid #1010FF
1.5pt; padding: 0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt; margin-left: 3.75pt;
margin-top: 5.0pt; margin-bottom: 5.0pt;">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<!-- o ignored --></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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'.<!-- o ignored --></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <!-- o ignored --></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><br>
<br>
<!-- o ignored --></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<!-- o ignored --></pre>
<pre>AusNOG mailing list<!-- o ignored --></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><!-- o ignored --></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><!-- o ignored --></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!-- o ignored --> </p>
</div>
<!-- html ignored --><br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<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>