1

Union des consommateurs Contribution to CSCN TIF 53 ENUM – 23 November 2005

WORKING GROUP:Canadian Steering Committee on Numbering

TASK:ENUM CNTF053

FILE NAME:CNCO00xx.doc

TITLE:Canadian ENUM Industry Governance

ISSUES ADDRESSED:The Governance of a Canadian ENUM system

SOURCE:Jean Sébastien

Union des consommateurs

Distribution: CSCN ENUM Distribution List

NOTICE: This contribution is being submitted by Union des consommateurs as a basis for discussion. This should not be construed as a binding proposal on the part of Union des consommateurs. Union des consommateurs reserves the right to add to, amend, or with-draw the contents of this contribution at any time.

DATE: 23 November 2005

Among the questions drafted in the discussions on the adoption of ENUM in Canada, the issue of the management of the system has sprung up.

In the draft report prepared accordingly to TIF 53, it has been formulated in the following fashion:

What organisation structure should be created to provide industry governance to implement and manage the Canadian ENUM system?

Union des consommateurs believes that a stakeholder-based organisation should be contracted, or possibly set-up, to manage ENUM in Canada. Rather than presenting the nuts and bolts of such an organisation, we wish to present the case that such an organisation is best suited to meet the objectives that should be those of a Tier 1B Registry in Canada. Looking to the Australian communications industry, we will give an example of the applicability of the stakeholder model. This paper is meant to start discussion on the principle of consumer representation. Hence, it devotes an important section to the characteristics that a Tier 1B Registry might expect from consumer representatives. Before discussing the stakeholder model, we believe it is important to state why a Tier 1B Registry should be set up in Canada.

Need for a Tier 1B Registry

The extensive differences in privacy laws in Canada and in the United States is the main reason from Union des consommateurs' point of view for preferring a Canadian registry for all ENUM numbers. It might well be that public ENUM finds an interest at first with corporations. However, individual users might find an interest in using this standard to manage their connectivity needs. Whether corporations or individuals use ENUM, Union des consommateurs is of the opinion that Canadian corporations and individuals should be able to benefit from the guarantees in Canadian law by having a business relation with registrars that get their right to manage ENUM numbers from a Tier 1 Registry (be it Tier 1B) that is set up according to Canadian law.

Not only will a Registry of ENUM numbers be in charge of managing phone numbers as is the case today to ensure interconnexion, but it could link these numbers to other mechanisms meant to establish a connection (other phone numbers, fax numbers, emails, etc.). The types of services that registrars might want to offer to their customers might also tend to augment the quantity of personal information that needs to be managed. In any case, Canadian law is the logical protection for canadian consumers.

Possible entities that could manage a Tier 1B Registry

In the June 9th version of the Draft Report to CISC on the creation of an ENUM Registry in Canada, the CSCN identified two main possibilities. Either a Registry could be set up by the Canadian government or the government could encourage, under its regulatory oversight, the development of a self-regulatory body for the management of ENUM. Each of these two possibilities could be managed in different ways that the Draft Report clearly identifies:

"In Canada, the Tier 1B Registry functionality could be created, governed and funded via several different approaches. The CSCN identified and assessed the following approaches:

The Government of Canada (GOC) either:

assumes this function directly, or

hires an entity selected by the GOC, or

hires an entity recommended by the Canadian industry (e.g., the CSCN via the CISC).

The Canadian industry is authorized by the Government of Canada to hire a contractor to implement a Canadian Tier 1B Registry under the regulatory oversight of the GOC (e.g., CRTC or other entity) by creating either:

an industry consortium, or

a stakeholder-based organization."

Stakeholders in the management of the Public ENUM system are the end-users or registrants, the registries and the carriers.

The advantages of the stakeholder based organisation

Whichever among the above mentioned forms a Tier 1B Registry is to take, it should be developed in line with the following objectives:

should be directed at maximising industry and end user benefit, having regard to public interest and, where appropriate, community safeguard considerations to promote ethical, competitive and fair trading practices;

should be accountable to Canadians, especially to users of the system;

should be competitively neutral by making sure that all industry participants may have a say in the operations;

should be responsive to the changing requirements of an industry characterized by a rapid evolution.

The stakeholder organisation is best positioned among the different entities that have been identified to meet all of these objectives.

The stakeholder model as developed in Australian telecommunications

The Telecommunications Act of 1997 as passed by the Australian government encourages self-regulatory activity by the industry. It is interesting to read the article in the Act that encourages industry to work with other stakeholders in this process and to note the fact that industry has actually gone farther than required by the Act.

Article 117 of the Act states that the approval by the regulatory body of any code prepared by industry is made conditional to the consultation of "at least one association that represents the interests of consumers". Founded in the wake of the adoption of the Act, the Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) in order to fill this newly developed self-regulatory space has developed extensive working schemes with all stakeholders.

The membership structure of ACIF reflects this. Formed as a not-for-profit membership-based organisation, ACIF's membership comprises carriers/carriage service providers, business and residential consumer groups, and industry associations. At the moment, four consumer organisations are members. ACIF also developed a Board structure that entitles consumer associations at least a position on the Board. Taking into account the fact that some consumer groups might not have a budget that is sufficient to pay membership fees, the constitution does not impose that consumer representatives on the Board be from member organisations. Working groups include consumer groups representatives and some committees have equal representation from industry and consumer associations. It is interesting to note that the telecommunications regulatory body in Australia, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, just completed a hearing on consumer driven communications that, among other things, is looking at a wording for article 117 of the Act that would bring the legislative text closer to the actual practices where consumer groups participate in all processes initiated by ACIF from the development stage on[1].

Union des consommateurs believes that ACIF's experience is a good example of how the development of structures that plan for active consumer representation help such participation to thrive. ACIF has done this by developing an adequate structure, but also, by making sure that the costs incurred by consumer representatives to participate in the structure are properly reimbursed.

The membership structure of stakeholder based organisation

Union des consommateurs believes that two membership models are possible. One would entail that all registrants of an ENUM number be members. The other would entail that organisations representing different stakeholders can be members.

At this point in time, Union des consommateurs has not developed a position in favour of one or the other membership model.

The election or nomination of consumer representatives to the Board of a stakeholder organisation

Elected or appointed members to a board have a high level of responsibilities. To meet these, they need specific skills. We will not comment at this point on skills that might be needed from members representing the industry. However, some of the skills identified hereunder might apply to all board members.

In this case also, we will refer to work that is being developed in Australia. The Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council published in June 2005 a document that gives a clear outline of the qualities expected from consumer representatives active as board members of self-regulatory bodies or government consultative taskforces. The Principles for the Appointment of Consumer Representatives[2] set out six principles that should be followed:

Principle 1 - Appointments should be made on merit

As a minimum, candidates should therefore demonstrate the following:

*expertise in consumer affairs;

*links to relevant consumer organisations;

*capacity and willingness to consult with relevant consumer organisations;

*knowledge of, or the ability to acquire knowledge of, the industry and/or issues involved in the appointment.

Principle 2 - Appointments should be independent of industry and free of conflict of interest

An appointee is independent if the person:

*has not within the last three years been employed in an executive capacity by an organisation or as a director of an organisation about which the appointee will be expected to give advice or make decisions in their role as a consumer representative;

*has not within the last three years been a principal or a professional advisor to an organisation about which the appointee will be expected to give advice or make decisions in their role as a consumer representative;

*is not a significant supplier or customer of an organisation about which the appointee will be expected to give advice or make decisions in their role as a consumer representative;

*is free from any interest and any business or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to materially interfere with their ability to act as a consumer representative.

Principle 3 - Consumer organisations should where possible be involved in appointments

There are many ways this could occur, for example, by asking consumer groups for input by providing a list of possible nominees, to including consumer organisations on nomination panels, to having consumer organisations choose the representative directly.

Principle 4 - An appropriate range of candidates should be sought

Principle 5 - The appointment process must be consistent with good corporate governance

Principle 6 - The appointment process must be transparent, accountable and cost effective.

Whether such principles were used in a strict appointment process or by a nomination committee identifying candidates for an election, Union des consommateurs is fully supportive of them and believes that they should become the basis for identifying consumer representatives to the Board of a Tier 1B Registry in Canada.

[1]The proposed new wording is found on the web site of the regulatory body of telecommunications in Australia. The text being studied is:

“The ACA [which has just changed its name to Australian Communications and Media Authority] is satisfied that there has been adequate consumer consultation in the development of the code and that at least one body or association that represents the interests of consumers has participated in the development and drafting of the code.“

[2]