Digital Economy Act update, draft SI

Andrew Cormack Andrew.Cormack at
Thu Jan 20 22:07:38 GMT 2011

Well spotted, thanks. It's now in the draft SI section of as

But it is only the cost sharing part, i.e. implementing the 75:25 split that was consulted on last spring by DBIS, and pretty much unaltered in their response in September. It may be (comments from those better informed very welcome) that once the two paths (cost sharing and obligations code) went into separate bodies (the former in DBIS the latter with OFCOM) then they have to be kept separate as SIs too?

Come to think of it, this one is *draft* and specifies things that must be in the initial obligations code. So I wonder whether that means that Ofcom *can't* publish the draft Code SI until this one has gone from draft to final? So there could be a minimum of two SI approval windows to go, perhaps?

However I note that the definitions section of this one still seems to expect the notification period to *end* on either 31st March 2012 or 31st March 2013. I note that it *doesn't* say that that period will start on 1st April 2011...


Andrew Cormack, Chief Regulatory Adviser, JANET(UK)
Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell, Didcot. OX11 0SG UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1235 822302

JANET, the UK's education and research network

JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited
by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-bounces at [mailto:ukcrypto-
> bounces at] On Behalf Of James Firth
> Sent: 20 January 2011 16:12
> To: 'UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group'
> Subject: Digital Economy Act update, draft SI
> For anyone on this list following the progress of the Digital Economy
> Act,
> I got a tip that Ofcom has released a draft of the Statutory Instrument
> for
> the Initial Obligations Code as required by the enabling primary
> legislation
> passed last year.
> When I downloaded it (from Europa EU - MS Word doc caution - draft not
> yet
> available on parliament or
> ... It was clear this was only half - or less than half of the required
> legislation for the Initial Obligations Code.  It only covers
> distribution
> of costs between ISPs and rights holders.  (A whopping 75% to rights
> holders, 25% to ISPs).
> On one hand one could assume work on the code has been delayed
> following the
> Judicial Review pencilled in for March 22nd.  But what if the JR
> failed?
> Then by my reckoning Ofcom is well behind the timescales to produce the
> code
> outlined in S6 of the Digital Economy Act.
> I'm hearing on the grapevine that the Culture Secretary is keen to get
> the
> full obligations code out soon, which makes sense, given I know
> constituents
> of Jeremy Hunt who were told point blank that Mr Hunt supported the
> moves to
> stamp out online piracy.
> So why split the code and push this SI out now, as the JR approaches?
> Monica Horten at IPTegrity has blogged this could be due to cost
> saving, as
> it gives the government a mandate to include costs ALREADY incurred by
> Ofcom
> in the overheads of running the graduated response scheme:
> Itemi
> d=9
> I'm not convinced by this explanation, as a graduated response scheme
> can't
> be operated until the full Initial Obligations Code is passed by both
> houses
> - unless I'm missing something.  So why publish the cost split
> legislation
> ahead of the full code?
> Really I wondered if anyone else on the list was following this car
> crash
> and had any thoughts?
> James Firth

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list