CLI-IG CP(97) 021
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CLI INTEREST GROUP MEETING NO. 3
20 OCTOBER 1997
Apologies (item 1)
1. Apologies were received from Bernard Bowshall (Mitel), John Challice (BT), Jane Cooper
(Orange), Pritam Dhanjal (ACC), Andrea Dworak (Energis), George Harrold (CCTA), David
Sebire (Guernsey Telecoms) and John Woulds (DPR). The list of those attending is at Annex
A to these minutes.
Minutes of Previous Meeting (item 2)
2. The minutes of the second CLI-IG (doc.97/011), held on 11 July 1997, were accepted without amendment.
Feedback on Revised CoP for Network Operators (item 3.1)
3. The secretary said he had received no comments on the CoP tabled at the previous meeting
(doc.97/007). A slightly revised version, dated 15 October 1997 (doc.97/020) was made available.
4. Peter Walker suggested that the CoP should make explicit reference to the use of CLI information by PTOs for marketing purposes. PTOs were uniquely capable of seeing a CLI even when it had been withheld by the calling party. Its use for purposes other than network and account management or the tracing of malicious calls or by the emergency services might undermine the public
 s faith in the effectiveness of dialling 141.After a wide-ranging discussion the conclusion was that para 2.5 of the CoP should be amended. OFTEL would propose some suitable words.
AP 3/1: OFTEL
5. AP 2/4 was raised, on an acceptable definition of what numbers could be used as
Presentation Numbers (para 7.2.2 of the CoP). The aim is to exclude Premium Rate Numbers while allowing other revenue sharing numbers, such as Personal Numbers. It is hoped to extract a definition from the Numbering Conventions and OFTEL agreed to pursue this.
AP 3/2: OFTEL
6. There was some discussion on how the amendments to the original CoP should be formalised. On the basis of para 3.3 it was decided the appropriate procedure would be to circulate all PTOs and other interested parties (TUA, DPR, etc) with the finally agreed version, possibly supported by a short consultative document.
CLI Services for GSM Roamers (item 3.2)
7. A document produced by Vodafone,

The Support of CLI services for GSM roamers

(doc.97/012) had been distributed and was received very positively. Peter Walker pointed out that the transposition of the Interconnection Directive would give anyone in the EU the same interconnection rights as UK operators and this had implications for international gateways.
1

Presentation CLI - where are we now? (item 4)
8. Nigel Scott of BT
 s UK Carrier Services gave a brief resume of BT
 s involvement with
Presentation CLI. Limited trials had taken place involving call centres and some doctors but the project had been suspended. This decision was now under review. He recognised that BT would need to support other operators offering PN services on integrity issues.
9. Peter Walker noted that PABX customers were offered a PN service whereas single line customers were not. This could be regarded as discrimination. He also noted that a handful of cable companies were offering PN so there was a partial implementation. Nigel Scott asked whether all operators should be launching this service in the same time frame - Peter
Walker thought the need was more pressing on BT at least. Alan Bennett (CCTA) added that as many outgoing lines were non-BT there was an equally pressing need for this service to be launched by other operators.
10. The background is that the Data Protection in Telecoms Directive will mandate
Anonymous Call Rejection (block blocking). Currently many large organisations withhold
CLI, not voluntarily, but because of how their systems work. With ACR this could lead to a significant degradation of the whole telephony service unless a PN service becomes widely available.
11. Jeremy Bow (CWC) raised the question of how the costs of verification would fall as it was an inter.-network operation. Peter Walker thought the costs needed to be absorbed by all sides. Michael Dixon (TMA) wondered whether any obligation to offer a PN service should start with the larger networks.
12. Peter Walker thought that the question was whether to wait for further input from BT or to put a paper into the DG now - there was a need to resolve whether a PN service should be mandated on BT alone or on all operators.
13. During discussion of CLI on DDI PBXs Mark Watson mentioned that some networks send the extension number in the Network Number field, whereas BT sends it in the
Presentation Number field. Peter Walker emphasised concern about the inconsistency of approach which could cause problems with some uses of the Network Number field (billing,
999).
Connected Line Identification (item 5)
14. Nigel Scott fulfilled AP 2/10 by tabling a paper (doc.97/019) providing information on
BT
 s ISDN Connected Line Identification Presentation and Restriction service. This was welcomed and it was agreed the information should be incorporated into the CoP.
(Secretary
 s note: ISC have now delivered revised sections of the CoP relating to Connected
Line Identity (doc.97/022).
CLI Rules for Private Networks (item 6)
15. Peter Walker introduced a discussion on the appropriate way to extend the CoP rules to private network operators. The key point is that the CLIs would be user-provided and so unverified. One approach would be to impose the CoP by contractual agreements but would this be sufficient to retain public confidence?
2

16. Jeremy Bow thought that PTOs might disclaim any liability for the authenticity of CLIs by describing them
 as received

. Nigel Scott wondered whether, in order to maintain integrity, the CLI should be marked as user rather than network provided but there was a feeling that separate classes of CLI might undermine overall public confidence. However
Peter Clarke added that Euro-ISDN relies on user-provided unverified CLI and that this had not given rise to any problems.
17. In conclusion, Peter Walker thought that the issue ought to go to a wider public consultation and that the first step would be to put the issues to the DG.
Erasure of 1471 and other Data Protection Issues (item 7.1)
18. The Office of the Data Protection Registrar had responded to AP 2/12 inviting comments on the erasure of 1471 memory and the release of network numbers where crime was suspected. A reply was tabled as doc.97/014.
19. On the erasure issue the DPR view was that
 retrieval of the last calling number by dialling 1471 should automatically cause erasure of the record of that number [...was...] certainly an interesting one

but that if introduced now would probably cause confusion. The alternative favoured by the DPR was
 the provision of a facility whereby those who are particularly keen to ensure that no record of an incoming call is left are able to erase the record of the last called number

.
20. Peter Walker reminded us that enforcing compliance with the Data Protection Act was not OFTEL
 s responsibility and it was for the industry to choose how it implemented compliance. There was a very wide-ranging discussion - amongst the issues touched on were who owned a CLI when the call remained unanswered, did the subscriber have particular proprietal rights over it, what should the 1471 message say? The conclusion was that a service description was required to take this forward and that OFTEL would supply one.
AP 3/3 - OFTEL
21. On the general issue of releasing network numbers when incoming callers were suspected of involvement in crime the DPR took an extremely cautious view, making the overriding point that any solution would need to adhere to the final text of the Data Protection in
Telecoms Directive. It was felt to be generally unacceptable to allow one set of customers exception from the general rules especially as machinery such as the Malicious Calls
Identification (MCI) Service is in place to deal with some of these problems. The issue seemed to be the need to allow a simple MCI service on a multi-line group.
Caller Display - Use of Captured Data (item 7.2)
22. An updated version of the Data Protection Registrar
 s guidance:

Calling Line
Identification (CLI) Caller Display - Use of Captured Data

(doc.97/015) was circulated.
Draft Consumer Guide (item 8)
23. In response to AP 2/6 Peter Walker introduced an initial draft of a Consumer
 s Guide to
Calling Line Identification Services (doc.97/016). There was some discussion of the guide
 s
3

use of BT terminology with which the public, however, was thought to be most familiar.
Once the Guide has been agreed, it was recognised that it should not be exclusively available from OFTEL but also distributed by PTOs to their customers. They might wish to adapt it to their own service offerings provided the fundamentals were unchanged. Comments on the
Guide were invited
AP 3/4 - all
International Issues (item 9)
24. OFTEL circulated a note (doc.97/017) on activity within ECTRA. It was hoped the next
ECTRA plenary would invite the European Interconnect Forum (EIF) to develop a set of voluntary guidelines on the introduction of CLI services at a European level. There was some discussion about what be required in addition to the UK CoP to enable pan-European CLI to become available and to what extent cross-border CLI services would require bilateral agreements to ensure that primary measures were in place.
AoB (item 10.1)
25. No issues arose under this heading.
Information - Presentation to CLI Conference (item 10.2)
26. Peter Walker
 s presentation to a CLI Conference to be held 27-28 October was circulated as doc.97/018.
Date of Next Meeting
27. No date specified but general agreement should be early or mid January.
Summary of Action Points
AP 3/1 : OFTEL - amendment to CoP to exclude PTO use of CLI for marketing
purposes
AP 3/2 : OFTEL - definition of acceptable Presentation Numbers
AP 3/3 : OFTEL - service description of 1471 erasure
AP 3/4 : all - comments on draft Consumer Guide
FP.27/11/97
4

[cli3min.wpd
Present:
AT&T
BBC
BT
Cable & Wireless
Cable & Wireless
CCTA
Cellnet I
FEI/Nortel
Global One
GPT/ISC
One2One
TMA/Foskett Powell
TUA
Vodafone
World Com
World Com
OFTEL:
ANNEX A
John Rees
Chris Bell
Nigel Scott
Jeremy Bow
Peter Clarke
Alan Bennett
Ian Roy
Mark Watson
Stephanie Watkins
Ian Spiers
Bryan Hay
Michael Dixon
Bill Mieran
Simon Sporton
Steve Watkins
Terry Young
Peter Walker (Chair)
Frank Phillips (Secretary)
Phil Cobb
Warwick Izzard
5