PhonePayPlus finally report on their February 2008 meeting

[mike99]

Most of this is just the usual fiddling while Rome burns, but the minutes also include an action replay of the "Review of Policy in respect of Repeated Breaches of the Code" item in the December 2007 minutes:

Sanctions Guide

The Executive presented a paper proposing revisions to our published Sanctions policy.

The core revisions related to the explanation and application of mitigating and aggravating factors and a staged approach to escalation of sanctions designed to drive compliance, particularly in terms of “repeat offenders”.

A declaration of interest was made by Andrew Bud – also recorded above.

The Chairman invited Andrew Bud to give his thoughts and then to step out of the meeting while discussion continued.

Andrew Bud was anxious to see improved compliance[]. He thought particular thought had to be given to the application of the Code provisions allowing an “SP>IP pass through”

• He recognised the arrangement was discretionary but thought this provision brought greater transparency and fairness to the regime.

• He thought particular care was needed when working on sanctions policy to avoid “unintended consequences”. [thwarting Andrew's moneymaking activities?]

• In particular arrangements should encourage industry dialogue with PhonepayPlus in circumstances where a possible Code breach had been identified.

Andrew Bud left the meeting whilst discussion continued.

In the discussion that followed the following points were noted

• serious and repeated offending was not acceptable and had to have consequences. Further action was necessary to communicate this

• the use of the informal procedure had to have limits – it was not acceptable to engage repeatedly with the same party on an informal basis in relation to repeated misdemeanours

• there is an issue to be addressed if an aggregator Service provider is repeatedly involved with serious Code breaches, even if that aggregator and its IP partners choose to make use of the discretionary “SP>IP pass through”

• Escalating financial sanctions had to be part of the equation but hopefully as a deterrent, not an outcome

The Board agreed a revision of the sanctions statement was required. The executive was asked to bring forward a text that addressed the points bulleted in these minutes with final review of the guide at the next Board meeting.

Andrew Bud rejoined the meeting.

So, to summarize, Andrew Bud wishes to continue dealing with crooked content providers and to pass the buck to them if he is caught out (as he is about once a month) and the rest of the PP+ board are slowly coming round to the conclusion (after years and years of this) that this is just not on.

Whether they will actually do anything, of course, remains to be seen. Past form suggests they will not. But at least the indefensibility of PP+'s ostrich like approach to premium rate regulation seems to be finally dawning on the more astute members of the board.