Minutes of Public Policy Committee - 4 September 2008

Present: David Farrar (Chair), Jordan Carter (Staff), Chris Streatfield, Simon Riley, Richard Wood (Staff), Rick Shera, Judy Speight, Jane Hindle (TUANZ), Peter Macaulay.

Apologies: David Diprose, Michael Wallmannsberger, and early departure for David Farrar.

Opened: 3.10pm

1. Minutes of Last Meeting – 7 August 2008

Minutes of last meeting adopted as a true and accurate record.

2. Action Points / Matters Arising from the Previous Minutes

IIA – have talked about copyright but not discussed ACTA

Laurence Lessig – no time available outside public lecture

Meeting with Maurice Williamson scheduled

Broadband Apps – Simon working on paper with Jordan

3. Future Work: Policy Advisory Group of InternetNZ

Jordan outlined process and we looked at a paper outlining the proposed Policy Advisory Group (PAG). ED has suggested there needs to be a forum for voluntary input. The Exec Board will look at the proposals at end of month. The PAG will replace the Public Policy Committee and the Technical Policy Committee.

David noted it is open to any members who are interested. But is this a problem if too many members?

Jordan thought it unlikely the PAG be flooded. The email list could be any size, but people will focus on the subgroups they are interested in.

There was a discussion of whether it was members only and most thought that non-members could be on sub-groups but not on main list.

With face to face meetings – the concept is one-day mini-conferences on forward looking issues discussion and blue skies thinking.

The PAG doesn’t have decision making power. The ED will report from the PAG to the Executive Board.

There may be an honorarium for proposed Convenors, of whom David is one, and the Committee noted this potential conflict in its discussion.

A second paper was considered, a Draft Policy Development Process for the Executive Board. So far, this sets out an expansion of existing practice.

Rick noted issues of confidentiality need to be considered and there was a previous document that might help in how this is handled.

David and Jordan noted that the PDP is at this point only about policy papers and submissions, but it would be good to look at previous example of how to handle confidentiality issues.

David looked at timing of feedback in relation to deadlines during the process – which may need rechecking. Jordan agreed to review this part of the document before it goes to the Executive Board.

Simon says the paper as drafted is institutionalising the way we already create policy and is about consultation on policy issues, not development of them. InternetNZ tends to make policy on the hoof and this can be found in bits and pieces. The question the Process should answer is: how do we move from being reactive to being proactive? Not criticizing the document but it is about reactive not developing policy positions for the future. Perhaps the name is misleading.

Rick noted that broader policy statements are covered in the paper.

Jordan noted he will review the paper with the assistance of these very helpful comments before it goes to Exec Board at the end of the year.

4. Copyright: The Big Picture

Jordan presented a discussion starter paper. David asked whether we see this as an ongoing issues situation or something we deal in with a one-off. His initial view is that there is a big battle going on and it will continue. InternetNZ might want to encourage creation of a fair use coalition and offer to support it. That is a potential option and adds to what the paper already sets out. InternetNZ could also get someone to do us a paper on what is happening on the global front.

Chris noted that people mix up IP with copyright but copyright is far more specific. This gets in the way of debate.

Rick thought doing a review of the Copyright Act as a whole would be a big ask.

Jordan noted there is no budget for this area of work at present, but that Paul Swain has a strong interest in issues around copyright, so budget provision may be made available if required.

David suggested a workshop on the bigger set of issues in copyright, including looking to see how engaged InternetNZ should be. We might decide it is our biggest issue, or alternatively that someone else could do it better.

Simon would support a process or workshop. This is a complex matrix of issues. We have to be careful to carve out of that matrix which of the issues InternetNZ stakeholders would expect us to take a position on. There are some issues we are involved in now. We have an obligation to work with the ISPs but we can’t take on rewriting the Copyright Act by ourselves.

David suggests that after the election we’ll have more time to deal with it. It is a good opportunity to be proactive.

Rick noted the Government is looking to introduce more law on copyright fair use before the election.

Jordan suggested a meeting with Chris Finlayson before the election. Whichever party wins the election the momentum for change appears to be growing. He also noted for the record that he did not intend to suggest that “InternetNZ would re-write the Copyright Act”.

AP. Jordan - check the order paper to see if any copyright legislation is being introduced.

5. ISP self-regulation: The Big Picture

Jordan presented a discussion starter paper. Rick and Jordan are speaking about this with the TCF board on Friday. David Diprose provided feedback indicating that in his view, a high level set of principles that provide a framework would be the most sensible and flexible way to go.

Chris noted we largely dropped ICOP when TCF implemented the customer complaints code.

Simon asked whether this meant a self regulation framework would be owned by the TCF.

Jordan said this hadn’t been canvassed but the codes themselves are working under the TCF.

One issue is whether carriers think there is actually a problem to be solved.

Rick noted there are groups such as IIA that are further down the track on these issues. There is potential that Govt might ask ISPs why they aren’t doing anything. ISPs need to be seen to be taking a reasonable approach to their responsibilities to the community.

The TCF is well positioned to create codes that can apply across industry, and there is a broad view that there is less likelihood of Govt regulation if the industry is self-regulating.

Simon said we’ve used the post office analogy before and if we open the door to saying we have some responsibility for some types of undesirable content, for example, then this potentially opens up the door for the Govt to impose other requirements.

Rick noted that Simon’s point drives the Australian position. They take that position too far and use it as an excuse to do nothing. It should be characterised as education – you use this to educate your customers, you are good corporate citizens.

Simon noted it opens the door to ISPs being everything form a quasi censor to collecting tax.

Richard asked whether content relationships relating to mobile impact telco positions. Rick hadn’t noted any variance in their positions to other ISPs.

ISPs are also keen to have a co-operative relationship with rights. Jordan noted the TCF working groups are one person one vote.

AP: Jordan and Rick to report back after TCF meeting on Friday.

6. Cyberlaw Fellow Brainstorm: Topics for 2009 – and Budget 09/10

Ideas were written on whiteboard: Copyright, Change in law from Tech, Coop w TUANZ, New Zealand relevance, rewrite of Copyright Act for digital age, societal impact, net access as a human right, industry self-regulation – how it has worked and how it works in other countries, Review of telco policy reforms, how to reform regulation, online personality as a legal concept, online trust, legal barriers to investment in network infrastructure.

7. Election and post-election work

a. Questionnaire to Political Parties

A lot of the questions applicable will come up in the course of the election debate. This should be sent before the formal campaign begins, but answers not be available until close to polling day.

b. Briefing to Incoming Ministers

It might be useful for us to do this based on our areas of interest, to be worked on in October/November. A written briefing explaining InternetNZ and positions, to whoever becomes the Communications minister post-election.

c. Debate.

Richard had organised an election debate. Sept 23, four politicians, details at www.debate.net.nz

Simon has suggested Council host a members’ night at InternetNZ.

AP: Susi to follow up suggestion from Simon.

8. NGN Consultation

Jordan discussed whether we should do a submission. The nature of the submission is too complex for staff to do by themselves. Jordan proposes engaging Michael Wigley to run a workshop with technical experts and draw together a high level submission.

Jordan asked Jane what TUANZ is doing. She said they may well want to do it as a joint submission. There is keen interest in the subject from TUANZ corporate members. TUANZ use Richard Thwaites.

Pete said InternetNZ does want to work with TUANZ on these broad issues.

Jane will go back to TUANZ with this message.

A high level of consensus between TUANZ and InternetNZ is anticipated on this issue.

It was noted that multiple skill sets are required on this project. Richard Thwaites and Michael Wigley have complimentary skills for example.

AP Jane to email TUANZ staff to propose cooperation.

9. Updates/Issues:

1. Fibre RFP – update

Draft report has arrived and staff will circulate the report when finalised

2. ACTA

Still little information available publicly

3. Accounting Separation

Telecom ignored our submission and only engaged in some small areas of the MED submission.

4. Privacy issues paper

A long and slow process, with no urgency at this point.

10. Any Other Business

Rick: Copyright –

Another aspect to update. What is to be done about section 92a. The suggestion was originally made that we try to negotiate a deal with rights-holders, deferring the introduction of s92A while an agreed approach as to how to implement it is worked out with ISPs. Unfortunately, at this stage this is a no go with the rights-holders, but the Minister has now said Internet access is becoming a human right. It could be portrayed as a societal good issue that termination is not the remedy and we should take a different approach. Examples that you can only file company accounts online.

Discussion on this matter ongoing, and Rick and Jordan will keep the committee appraised.

Meeting Closed: 4.50

Date of next meeting: TBC

Signed as a true and correct record:

…………………………………………………

David Farrar, Member, Chair

Draft Author: Richard Wood

Draft Reviewer: Jordan Carter, David Farrar

Draft to PPC: 11 September 2008

Amended:

Adopted: