FP identified the main issues for consideration at this initial meeting in a list (see Annex) which served in lieu of an agenda.

Membership

FP emphasised that he had constituted a small working group to avoid the rigidities and inflexibilities that can flow from larger groups. The downside was that user group members were not fully representative of the full range of user interests. It was important that individual members did not think of themselves as representing their specific organisations but had to display a responsibility to those people and those groups that were not represented. Where specific issues arose the advice of the wider community could be sought - in some cases experts could be co-opted. This view received general assent.

Transparency

FP recognised the wider community required to be given visibility of what progress the group was making, via the Oftel website. However, on the basis that the group will be judged by its outcomes rather than its procedures he was opposed to the production of detailed minutes giving blow-by-blow accounts of what everybody said on each occasion. Members required the confidence to be able to speak freely without attribution. However it was important to give the widest circulation to working documents such as draft Codes as and when they became available. Brief notes itemising action points and decisions taken would be posted after each meeting.

Consultation

No detailed plans drawn up but a wide recognition that whatever documents emerges from the group - successive drafts of the CoP - will need to be exposed to the widest possible consultation.

Timescale

The group set itself the challenging task of producing a draft CoP by the end of June 2002.

This is a somewhat arbitrary target (ie before the summer shutdown) but it was recognised that a deadline was required in order to maintain focus.

Date of 3^rd meeting

The second meeting had been set for 25 February and the third for 26 March. This latter date was not possible for some members and has now been provisionally shifted to 8 April.

Contents

There was a view that the contents of any Code of Practice should be demand-side driven for customers (or potential customers) who are not being well served at present. Drafting a Code needed to be informed by some insight into which segments are being failed by the market. This could potentially turn into a research exercise in its own right but the feeling was that, in the time available, it would be better to bring together the knowledge and experience already out there.

Action: CJ agreed to collate this exercise.

There was also some discussion about what could be learned from other industry CoPs, in particular those produced by the British Bankers Association and the Employers' Forum on Disability. Some members found the "Just another customer" approach appealing - rather than directly targeting customers with disabilities you make a general statement about service provision informed by a universal service approach that should include all customers. It was also recognised that such a high level of abstraction might not capture nitty-gritty issues.

Action: RB/NY agreed to produce a draft table of contents of the CoP to be informed by CJ's input.

Adoption/Ownership

The question of adoption is by what process does the draft CoP produced by the Working Group acquire "official" or "recognised" status. If the CoP were to be under Oftel ownership the very fact of publishing it as an Oftel document gives it a certain standing. An alternative, more in-line with the co-regulatory strategy, would be for the industry to own the CoP, with prefaces from the great and good.

Dissemination

Simply, the recognition that the best CoP in the world will do very little good unless it receives wide publicity and distribution. It would be desirable to achieve publicity through a big-bang launch.

Change control/What next?

These issues were only lightly touched upon but recognise that the dynamic nature of the technology means that there needs to be some process for updating the CoP. It cannot simply become an unchangeable tablet of stone.

Annex

Issues for consideration

The Group and its work:

membership
transparency
consultation
timescale

The Code of Practice:

contents
adoption
ownership
dissemination
change control
what next?