CLI-IG CP (01) 005 rev.1

(1^st revision 21/11/01)

18 October 2001
Oftel, 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JJ

Apologies (item 1)

1. Apologies and those attending are listed in the Annex to these minutes.

Minutes of seventh meeting (item 2)

2. The minutes of the 7^th meeting (doc.01/002 minutes) were accepted without amendment. All the action points had been discharged. It was noted that progress on the Service Provider CLI CoP (AP 7/2) had not yet culminated in a stable document although in the light of the discussion at item 4 below and future regulatory changes this was becoming less pressing. No comments had been received in response to Mike Norman’s proposal (AP 7/6) on the through-routing of CLI information.

Adoption of the 3^rd Edition Network Operator CLI Code of Practice (PNO-ISC/CP169 Draft E) (item 3)

3. The draft for adoption had already been approved by the PNO-IG and ISC industry groups. Frank Phillips explained that it had now been exposed to a sufficient degree of consultation and that as soon as it had been signed-off by the DG it would be posted on the CLI-IG website as the official 3^rd edition. He questioned whether there was any requirement for the CoP to be published as a printed document. There was a consensus that this was unnecessary. Roland Perry suggested that it should be made available in Printed Document Format (PDF).

Scope of future CLI Code of Practice (item 4)

4. Frank Phillips introduced this discussion by making three observations on the CoP as it is at present:

• firstly, at the time of its introduction in December 1996 it represented the only instrument for the protection of customers’ privacy – since then legally-binding Regulations had entered into force but the status of the CoP sitting alongside the Regulations had not been re-evaluated
• secondly we were moving towards a world where our understanding of what is an operator – which had seemed self-evident in 1996 – was becoming less clear; moreover the boundaries between operators and service providers, both of whom would become providers of public communication networks under the new Directives, was becoming eroded
• thirdly, the CoP emerged from the C7 world, does not necessarily fit with developing technologies such as VoIP and is not technology neutral.

5. All this required a fundamental rethink of the scope and structure of the CoP in order to maintain its usefulness for the future. Phillips favoured a generic, technology-neutral statement of principles, perhaps supported by annexes for differing technologies. However he welcomed the views of the Group.

6. Ian Spiers challenged the view that the CoP was married to C7 and emphasised that efforts had been made to make the document technology-neutral. References were to ETSI standards, which are technology-neutral.

7. Roland Perry argued that the CoP was not operator independent and created a group of 2^nd class citizens that were not enabled to compete on an equal footing, which is clearly anti-competitive. He added that the networks covered, as identified in paragraph 2.3 of the CoP did not include IP networks.

8. Peter Clarke made the point that PSTN and ISDN calls could be supported on IP networks.

9. Frank Phillips was surprised that the CoP could be regarded as technology- neutral. He recalled that it had not provided unambiguous guidance during the L2TP debate and there was a need for it to contain a set of principles identifying the legal obligations and what followed from them. This could be included as part of an amended preface.

10. Ian Spiers said that he was not opposed to any attempt at simplifying the rules. He did say that there was still a problem with the idea that bearer independence means that the CoP is not technology neutral. He said that there are application problems, but if C7 is carried over IP networks then it is still relevant.

11. Mike Norman asked whether the CoP applies to E164 numbers only.

12. Ian Spiers stated that the CoP does apply in the IP world too. He explained that references were made to the TDPD in the CoP and maybe more references to that document were needed.

13. Alan Presland expressed some sympathy for Ian Spiers’ view that the CoP was technology-neutral and asked that evidence be adduced to support the view it was not.

14. Frank Phillips said that the debate had been opened up in the Group and there was a reasonable period of time within which to consider the kinds of changes that would be needed if we progressed to a 4^th edition of the CoP. Frank Phillips said that he would circulate an initial draft of a generic statement for comment.

15. There was a question from the floor about the status of SMS and whether it was covered in the CoP. Frank Phillips said that as an SMS message was not a call, it was not covered by the CoP.

16. Ian Spiers stated that both email and SMS should adhere to the CoP. When we have the new directives, the CoP will have to cover these services and not just voice telephony.

17. Roland Perry stated that there are moves to bring malicious messages to be dealt with as malicious calls. One problem that had been experienced in trying to develop a Service Provider CoP was the richness of services it would have to cover. He also questioned the status of an SP CoP since there is a question about the status of an SP.

18. Frank Phillips recalled that there had been attempts to change the scope of the CoP which defines operators by reference to Annex II status as this will not be a feature of the new access and interconnection arrangements.

19. Ian Spears said that there seemed to be a consensus that the scope and technological-neutrality of the document needs to be assessed. However he was resistant to the idea of an email debate and expressed a preference for a small working group.

20. It was agreed that the matter would be carried forward by the circulation of a generic draft .

Action Point 8/1

Secretary to circulate draft generic CoP within ISC

Revocation of Caller Display Order (item 5)

21. Michael Leadbeater gave a short presentation about the Revocation of the Caller Display Order against BT. A consultation document was published on 11 October following a request from BT that the Order be revoked. The consultation document is posted on Oftel’s web-site at www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/licensing/2001/cadi1001.htm

1471 Erasure (item 6)

22. Frank Phillips began by apologising that he had hoped that either a spokesperson from the Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC), or a written statement, would have been available to set out the legal position. However this had turned out not to be possible. His understanding was that under the new Data Protection Act the position of a network operator to be regarded as Data Controller of the CLI information stored in a 1471 memory was more clear-cut. There was a legal requirement for the 1471 memory to be capable of being cleared.

23. Some operators are taking steps to provide this service. Lesa Green added that the approach of having a common number (presumably in the 147x range – FP note) was under discussion at the Operator’s Numbering Group.

24. Roland Perry questioned whether this service should be for a subscriber or authorised user and gave the example of a baby-sitter using 1471 erasure to delete caller information that the subscriber might wish to have access to. Phillips commented that there was no intention of curtailing access to 1471 erasure, by, for example, the use of a PIN number.

25. Frank Phillips took an action to circulate legal advice from the OIC within the Group once it became available.

Action point 8/2

Secretary to obtain and circulate OIC legal advice on 1471 erasure

Implementation of ACR (item 6)

26. Frank Phillips raised the issue that ACR has not been implemented on all networks. In particular it has not been implemented on mobile networks. At the time the TDPD Regulations came into force this was understandable as appropriate standards to implement ACR on digital networks were not available. With the adoption of the Service Description for the ACR Supplementary Service (ETSI EN 301 798 V1.1.1) and the set of standards comprising ISDN Signalling System No.7 ISUP version 4 for the international interface (ETSI EN 300 356 V4.2.1, parts 1-12 and 14-21), a lack of appropriate standards can no longer serve as a justification for not complying with the legal requirement mandating the availability of an ACR service

27. A further development is that the CLI article of the Draft Communications Data Protection Directive (CDPD) [CLI-IG CP (01) 004] makes it clear that the obligation of providing the rights it bestows on customers falls on operators, thus bringing to a close the debate as to whether ACR could be provided through terminal equipment.

28. Simon Sporton said that Vodafone’s views on ACR had not changed. He did not think the debate over Network/Terminal implementation was over. He also argued that there was still no relevant ETSI standard for GSM operators as EN 301798 only provided an ISDN service description. Vodafone was unwilling to create a non-standard implementation of ACR in the UK. He said that this should be at least Europe-wide if not World-wide.

29. Frank Phillips said that this was not acceptable – the legal requirement existed and it was for operators to find a way of meeting their obligations. Within the CLI environment, GSM had been viewed as ISDN for standards purposes.

30. Ian Spiers stated that the service description for ACR allows for a terminal-based implementation and there are terminals that will offer the capability to automatically reject anonymous calls.

International CLI (item 7)

31. Vladimir Stoyanov stated that there have been some instances of CLI being displayed where the caller is a mobile subscriber roaming overseas. The received CLI contains the international code of the country where the subscriber is calling from.

32. Simon Sporton said that Q764 states how the international terminating operator should strip out the international dialling code.

(Secretary's note - VS subsequently clarified his intervention in the following terms:

"I was asking if the CLI of UK roamers displayed with the UK country code (in international format) to calling parties in the UK, presents some sort of privacy breach, because the called party will understand that the calling party is abroad. In the UK the CLI of mobile numbers is always displayed in national format. My point was whether this is against the DP rules and discloses information about the customers, which they may not be aware about and which can have negative consequences. I think somebody else in the audience mentioned that UK roamer's CLI was displayed with another country code inserted in the number. The expression "international dialling code" can be interpreted as international dialling prefix, i.e. 00 in the UK. It should be better said as international country code or just country code if the CLI CC is the same as international carrier's own country code."

Secretary's comment: I think it is reasonably clear that both within the terms of the CoP and of Data Protection/Privacy principles the CLI to be displayed in the UK of a UK roaming mobile phone should not normally include the GSM international prefix + 44).

AOB

33. Mike Norman referred to the paper that he had presented at the previous meeting CLI-IG CP (00) 007 Submission to CLI Interest Group (11/00) on CLI pass along. This is where a call passes into a private network and the private network PBX forwards the call out to the PSTN again. Mike Norman wants the possibility of putting the incoming Network Number (NN) in the outgoing Presentation Number (PN) field so that the forwarded call carries more meaningful information than the NN of the NTP where the calls breaks back into the public network.

34. Frank Phillips said that this was not forbidden under the TDPD but fell foul of the current rules for the use of PNs under the CoP.

35. There followed an interesting debate about CLI pass-along. One argument was that if the CLI was considered trustworthy enough to be given to the private network PBX it should be considered good enough to be passed on by it. The strong consensus of the Group was that onward transmission of valid CLI should be encouraged. Conspicuously this included both industry and consumer representatives. The Group urged Oftel to take this issue forward.

36. Frank Phillips explained he had no opposition in principle to such a development but he was mindful of the safeguards that had been built into the procedures for the use of Type 3 PNs. He would convene an ad-hoc working group to consider whether the current procedures for the application of 'Special Arrangements' could be made more flexible while maintaining an appropriate level of protection for the authenticity and integrity of the CLI information numbers transmitted.

Action Point 8/3

Secretary to convene a working group to review 'Special Arrangements' procedures

ANNEX:

Apologies:

Peter Walker Oftel
Richard Cox Mandarin

Present:

Alan Bennett OGCbuying solutions
Alan N Smith CMA/Questa
Alan Penney Telia
Alan Presland BT
Chris Bell BBC
Chris Cook Telewest
Chris Phylaktis Colt
Dave Lane BT
Eden Guiseley NTL
Gulistan Moledina One2One
Frank Phillips Oftel
Ian Spiers Marconi
John Crowther GreenFlag
John Eaton Greenflag
John Hennock ASAP
Lesa Green Kingston
Matt Dunlop C&W Global
Michael Dixon CMA/Foskett Powell
Mike Norman Siemens
Neil Nasralla Oftel
Nimal Hemelge C&W Global
Peter Clarke PNO-ISC
Peter French NTL
Peter Gorringe BTCellnet
Phil Cobb Oftel
Robert Hewitt Telspec plc
Roland Perry Linx
Simon Sporton Vodafone
Vladimir Stoyanov One2One