Effective Self-Regulation of Mobile Content: Film & Publications Amendment Bill Presentation

1. Film & Publications Amendment Bill Presentation to Home Affairs Portfolio Committee Parliament May 2 2007

2. WASPA • Wireless Application Service Providers Association • Represents ‘Wireless Application Service Providers’ • WASPs provide ringtones, mobile games, voting etc • Self-regulatory scheme • 90+ members, representing most of the mobile content and services industry in South Africa • Sophisticated Code of Conduct with enforcement • Supported by Cell C, MTN and Vodacom • Formed under framework of Chapter XI of ECT Act • Industry Representative Body • Requires Code Of Conduct

3. WASPA Rules • Code Of Conduct in force from 1 Sep 2005 • Advertising Rules in effect from 1 Jan 2006 • Both ‘integrate’ many national laws • Rules applied consistently across all three mobile networks • Rules revised constantly as issues arise • Similar ‘WASP’ issues in other jurisdictions • WASPA Rules applied in other countries

4. Code Of Conduct Scope • Advertising Rules & Formatting • Spam • Adult Services • Access by Minors to adult content • Subscription Services • Display of Pricing • Display of Terms & Conditions • Competitions • Dating Services • Charity Services Promotes GoodGovernance & Best Practice

5. Enforcement of WASPA Rules • WASPA Rules Made Mandatory By All Networks • WASPA powers enforced by contract between WASP & network • Networks act on WASPA recommendations • Enforcement • Secretariat • Quasi-judicial process with own civil procedure • Formal Process • Informal Process • 8 Adjudicators & Appeals Panels • All ICT-lawyers • Powers: • Suspension • Fine • Withhold revenue • Expulsion from WASPA etc

6. Results Since 1 Sep 05 - 2 May 2007 WASPA’s PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS IN SELF-REGULATION • Over 1000 complaints • Fines of up to R200,000 levied • One WASP shut for 30 days • WASP denied access to new services for 90 days • Networks executed on WASPA sanctions recommendations • TV stations made WASPA membership compulsory

7. Adult+Mobile Solutions Mobile Sector Enforces Responsible Self-Regulation Of Adult/Age-Restricted Content • WASPA Engages With F&PB, ICASA, Media (2004-2007) • WASPs Initiate Parental Blocking (2005) • WASPA Code Of Conduct (1 Sep 2005) • Network Launch IRB Code (2 November 2005) • WASPA Advertising Guidelines (1 Jan 2006) • Vodacom 1.7 ‘Adult Content Rule’ (1 Jan 2006) • Vodacom *111# age block • Network-specific AVS proposed (2007) • WASPA Adult Advisories (Feb & Mar ‘07)

8. Classification: A Balancing Act • Mobile industry vibrant & competitive • Some of the most sophisticated & creative mobile content providers in the world • Content catalogues very fluid • WASP catalogues may run into 100,000’s of items • Competitive reasons for quick entry of new content into market, so want to avoid delays • Market changing: content hosted abroad on ‘lease’ basis, rather than being stored locally

9. Registration & Classification • Registration & Classification seen by many WASPs as possibly too costly & lengthy • Currently: • Registration R825 • Classification cost per item [“film”] • ~R1,000+/item multiplied by items in inventory • Interactive computer game costs R1,347, even if few seconds long • Classification process seen as lengthy & not cognisant of commercial needs for quick turn-around • Future: • Need for more efficient system, if going to classify • No per-item fee • Nominal service-only charge & quick turn-around

10. WASPA~FPB Initiatives WASPA~FPB Initiatives • WASPA has engaged FPB for over a year to find common ground and resolution to conforming with existing FPA regulations • WASPA XX/18 Advisory to members on distribution of content(Feb 2007) • FPB/WASPA Workshop (Feb 2007) • Advisory emphasises ban on XX & X18 over mobile • Enforced by WASPA CoC & Ad Rules • Utilities Company proposal for an age-verification system that operates cross-network • Possible equivalent of face-to-face verification • Will allow for any age-sensitive initiatives e.g. adult, gambling, lotto

11. Initiatives • WASPA & FPB want to find common ground to ensure that any state regulation does not inadvertently stifle vibrant industry • Proposal: • WASPA proposes, if necessary, that WASPA (or a designated 3rd party) be tasked by FPB/FBAB with self-classification of content ‘distributed’ over mobile: • “WASPA Classification Committee” (WCC) as per s10 of Bill • WCC to be trained by FPB

12. ‘Oversight vs. Supervisory’ • Propose co-regulatory regime with FPB oversight over ‘WCC’ • vs supervisory • International Precedent For Sector Specific Co/Self Regulatory Content Classification Committees in UK, Germany & Singapore • Oversight = Co-regulatory • Efficiencies maximised if lines of authority between FPB & WCC is based on a periodicoversight basis & not supervisory • Board and/or Compliance Officer randomly check competencies & classification decisions of WCC

13. Proposal: Classification Procedure • WASP/IP submits to to WCC sets of content it wants classified • 100,000’s of items • Place on portable storage medium • Classifiable content would be placed in appropriately named folders on the storage medium. • Could also have thumbnail printout • WASP/IP, with reference to classification guidelines, declares that content so presented to the WCC is correctly classified. • The declaration would be subject to appropriate sanctions in case of fraud or similar intentional misrepresentation • Classification Committee would of necessity only randomly checkthe storage medium contents for compliance with the declared classifications • Based on its assessment, the WCC would then issue a content-class classification for the items. • Fast turnaround, service-fee

14. UK Independent Mobile Classification Body (IMCB) • In 2004, UK MNOs form IMCB for self-regulation of new forms of content on mobiles. • Classifies commercial content unsuitable for <18 • IMCB is a subsidiary of ICSTIS (UK’s PSMS Regulator). • IMCB operates under a contract between itself and the mobile operators • It has no powers conferred on it by law • If providers of commercial content do not classify their content correctly and in line with the framework, they may be in breach of their contract with MNO • http://www.imcb.org.uk

15. Germany: KJM • Commission for the protection of minors in media (Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz) • Co-regulatory (or, regulated self-regulatory) framework for content classification. • Has 12 experts nominated by the regulatory authorities • Recognizes & licenses institutions of voluntary self-supervision • Approves technical measures such as content filtering and rating systems.

16. Section 24C(1)(e): Filtering Software • Says that subscribers must be provided with: • ‘software designed to filter or block their children from access to web sites containing pornographic materials and information on the installation and use of such software.’ • But: Impractical on mobile phones • Should not prescribe technologies but outcomes • Take into account technology neutrality • Rather be server-based, if needed at all .’ Proposal: Section 24C(1)(e) would thus read…“where technologically possible, provide to all their subscribers facilities designed to filter or block their children from access to electronic material containing pornographic material, and information on the installation and use of such facilities”

17. WASPA~FPB Initiatives Thank You & Questions • Thank you for the opportunity to present! • WASPA will continue to work with the Board to find appropriate solutions! • Questions?