Y2001/878

Ms Liz Williams
Chair
Code of Practice Committee
auDA 

Via email : lizwilliams@lizwilliams.net

Dear Liz

ACA Comments on Draft Registrars Code of Practice 

The ACA has reviewed the draft registrars’ Code of Practice and has a 
number of comments based on its experience in code development in the 
Australian telecommunications environment.  I understand that auDA does 
not intend to seek registration of this code with the ACA under section 
117 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.  I must stress that the following 
comments do not indicate any ACA position about registration of the code 
should this be sought by auDA.

Our first set of comments are about code requirements that may present 
enforcement difficulties because of their subjective nature.  These include:

* at clause 7.2, the requirement that the ‘level of information (to customers) 
must be maintained’;

* at clause 7.3, the requirement that information to customers must be 
‘relevant and sufficient to assist them to make an informed purchasing 
decision’;

* at clause 11.2, the requirement to take ‘reasonable measures to develop 
a culture of compliance’; and

* at clause 16.13 (i), the statement that complaint handling charges may 
not be levied except where the process is ‘sufficiently onerous’.

These clauses may be difficult to enforce and may be better expressed as 
desirable, rather than required, unless clear assessment criteria can be 
established.

Other comments about particular clauses include:

* clause 10.2: This clause might benefit from a footnote or cross-reference 
explaining circumstances in which the supplier may not be an accredited 
registrar;

* clause 13.2: This clause doesn’t make it clear which party would be 
bringing the complaint and which party is responsible for citing an 
information trail.  If this clause is intended to apply only to consumers, 
it may be worth stating this explicitly.  Alternatively, if it is also 
applicable to intra-industry complaints, this should be clarified.  This 
section may also be enhanced by the use of the term ‘alleged’ breach;

* clauses 13.2(b) and (e): These clauses might benefit from an explicit 
statement that auDA will make the decision about whether a complaint is 
justified and whether action to rectify the breach is justified.  Information 
about the processes or principles used to make these decisions would also 
be useful;

* clauses 13-16: Some reconsideration of the order of sections 13-16 could 
be given.  An alternative way to present these clauses would be:
o clause 14: general principles;
o clause 16: specific rules for the entities bound by the Code;
o clause 15: auDA’s powers; and
o clause 13: auDA’s processes.  

This might appear more logical in encouraging good internal processes for 
complaint handling before explaining auDA’s processes for dealing with 
complaints.  It would be expected that the primary objective of the code is 
to develop internal complaint handling processes.

In addition to these specific comments, the ACA’s experience with the ACIF 
complaints handling code has highlighted the following points which have proven 
to be problematic.  ACA staff believe that discussion of these points may be of 
benefit to auDA given the similarity in the type of code being drafted.

* Our first comment concerns the definition of ‘complaint’.  Do the entities 
who will be subject to this code support such an inclusive definition of complaint?  
Is there anything else (apart from a request for information) they might want to 
exclude?  An example of an exclusion could be an initial fault report.  While 
the definition used in auDA’s code (and the ACIF code) is derived from the 
Australian Standard - Complaints Handling (AS 4269), this is a voluntary standard 
and further consideration of the appropriateness of this definition in a 
compulsory environment may be fitting;  

* Our second comment concerns the rule about recording of complaint.  It is 
widely argued that such a rule means all complaints, whether resolved at the 
first point or not, must be recorded.  If auDA and the entities to which this 
code are in agreement with this point of view, a statement to that effect would 
eliminate any ambiguity.  If not, perhaps ambiguity could be eliminated by 
defining the complaints that are to be recorded.

auDA may also find the addition of a table of contents beneficial to understanding 
of the code.

Please contact Nicola Skill of this office on (03) 9963 6952 if you would like 
to discuss any of the above.

Yours sincerely

Alan Chalmers
A/g Manager
Numbering

18 July 2002