[AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"

Paul Brooks pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au
Mon Feb 23 13:11:16 EST 2015


On 23/02/2015 12:04 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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.

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.

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).

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.
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.

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.

This article 
http://www.smh.com.au/business/isps-close-in-on-plan-to-curb-internet-piracy-20150112-12mjc6.html
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.







>  
>
> Paul, Yes, thanks for the extra info.
>
>  
>
> On 23/02/2015 09:56, Rod Veith wrote:
>
>> 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!
>>
>>  
>>
>> Willing to share and hope to swap responses off list.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Summary of response: Totally against the scheme.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Rod
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Rod Veith
>> *Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 8:50 AM
>> *To:* 'Paul Brooks'; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thank you for the links.
>>
>>  
>>
>> We are preparing our reply and will send it to the alliance.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Our ISP business has not been approached about this scheme either before or after
>> this draft was produced by the Communications Alliance.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Rod
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] *On Behalf Of *Paul Brooks
>> *Sent:* Monday, 23 February 2015 8:14 AM
>> *To:* ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> This thing is now in a legislated process, in accordance with the Telco Act:
>> * 1 month public comment period to Comms Alliance
>> * Comms Alliance committee consider all the public comments and make changes as
>> determined by the working committee
>> * 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
>> * Comms Alliance presents the draft code to ACMA
>> * ACMA open up a 2 month (might be 1 month) public comment period
>> * ACMA consider comments and suggestions made to ACMA
>> * ACMA make it a mandatory code applicable to every carriage service provider
>>
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> So please please please - everyone,  on behalf of your service provider of
>> employment, or as an interested individual, follow the public comment instructions
>> at http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment and let the Committee
>> know what changes you would like to see in and out of this draft code:
>>
>>
>>         Want to submit a comment on a draft document?
>>
>> You can use the Submit Comments form
>> <http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Documents/public-comment/submit-comments> to
>> submit your comments via email or go to the Contact Us
>> <http://www.commsalliance.com.au/contact_us> webpage to obtain other contact
>> methods such as by post or fax.
>>
>> All submissions received will be made publically available on the Communications
>> Alliance website unless the submitter requests otherwise.
>>
>>
>>           Copyright Notice Scheme Industry Code
>>
>>     DR C653:2015 (709 KB)
>>     <http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf>
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     Information on the Working Committee which revised the Code, including the
>>     Terms of Reference can be found here.
>>     <http://www.commsalliance.com.au/Activities/committees-and-groups/wc66>
>>
>>     *PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES AT 5.00 P.M. ON (AEDT
>>     <http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/time>) 23 March 2015.*
>>
>>     Please note that all submissions received will be made publically available on
>>     the Communications Alliance website unless the submitter requests otherwise.
>>
>>     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Even if you just cut'n'paste the comments made in here in the past day.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/02/2015 2:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>>
>>     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?
>>
>>     On 22/02/2015 12:37, Damien Gardner Jnr wrote:
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         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'.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         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.
>>
>>          
>>
>>         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?
>>
>>          
>>
>>          
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>
>>     AusNOG mailing list
>>
>>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>>
>>     http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150223/b270f75c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the AusNOG mailing list