An ISP guide from InternetNZ

July 4th, 2016 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

InternetNZ has published a guide to NZ ISPs. This is not the usual guide comparing prices because there are many other good sites that do this.

This is about other aspects of being an ISP, They specifically look at:

  • Does the ISP allow you to check your account online easily
  • Do they have a co-ordinated disclosure policy on how to report security bugs
  • Do they have a data breach notification policy
  • Do they used the DIA child exploitation filter, and tell you about it
  • Do they support IPv6
  • Do they publish transparency reports on how often they give customer info to Government agencies

You can see the results compared for 15 ISPs here.

Government signs .nz MOU with InternetNZ

May 4th, 2016 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Amy Adams has announced:

Communications Minister Amy Adams has welcomed today’s signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between InternetNZ and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) on the management of the .nz domain name.

“The agreement will help ensure this important resource continues to be managed in a transparent way that supports the interests of the local internet community and end users of digital services,” says Ms Adams.

The Memorandum of Understanding sets expectations for how InternetNZ will operate the domain name in the interests of New Zealand internet users, and sets out a process for dealing with any concerns between parties.

It provides a clear statement of how the relationship between InternetNZ and MBIE should operate.

“A stable, reliable, and responsive domain name system is a key part of a modern communications infrastructure.

“The success of the .nz domain name lies in consulting with, and being accountable to, New Zealand internet users,” says Ms Adams.

That accountability is key, and I think it is great to have this agreement. In many countries Governments run the country code top level domain or have passed laws dictating how it should be run. In New Zealand, we have an open multi stakeholder approach to Internet policy.

The MOU is here. It is almost unique in the world to have a Government sign an agreement recognising that the country code top level domain should be run in accordance with RFC1591. They have also recognised the seven principles for top level domains that InternetNZ is guided by:

  1. Domain name markets should be competitive.
  2. Choice for registrants should be maintained and expanded.
  3. Domain registrations should be first come, first served.
  4. Parties to domain registrations should be on a level playing field.
  5. Registrant data should be public.
  6. Registry / Registrar operations within a TLD should be split.
  7. TLD policy should be determined by open multi-stakeholder processes

The agreement also increases accountability for InternetNZ by setting out a process any complaints can be heard, and also requiring InternetNZ to regularly test the views of the Internet community on key issues.

It’s really pleasing to be in a country where the Government has such good policies towards the Internet.

  • NB – I am Chair of the .nz Domain Name Commission but wasn’t involved in negotiating the MOU – however I was one of those consulted on its details

The battle for the IP chapter

October 8th, 2015 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

This will be a long blog post, but an important one. It is about the TPP, the IP chapter, and how a group of NZ organisations actually managed to help beat back the US Government and the corporates they were fighting for.

First I want to talk about critics of the TPP, and how you can divide them into three categories. They are:

1 – Opponents of all trade deals

There are some people who are opposed to all trade deals. They have a honest belief that either trade deals are bad, or trade is bad. A couple of examples are Jane Kelsey and the Greens.

Jane Kelsey has opposed (as far as I can tell) every trade deal NZ has ever signed up to. It doesn’t matter what the details are, she has campaigned against it. She has a world view that is basically protectionism is economically good, and no amount of evidence will sway her views.

Kelsey has every right to her views (though I do grumble that she seems to spend a large proportion of her time as a taxpayer funded academic running campaigns), but the reality is that Kelsey will never influence the details of a trade detail, because people know that nothing they agree to will ever stop her being a critic. She can make a deal more unpopular with voters, but no one in Government ever asks the question “Will this satisfy the demands of Jane Kelsey”.

I’m not trying to personalise it on Professor Kelsey. There are many others like her, who are against petty much all trade deals.

The Greens have voted against against (I think) every trade agreement. Their opposition seems to be more because of their belief that trade harms the environment, and we should grow and produce everything we need locally. So again, no one ever asks what is needed to get the Greens do support a trade deal – it is basically impossible.

2 – Opponents because of who the Government is

This is basically the Labour Party, and some of their supporters. If Labour were in Government I have no doubt the TPP would look very similar to what was announced this week, and they would be signing up to it. They are not opposed to the TPP (well not most of their caucus), but because National is in Government they just see it as a weapon to attack with. Just like the flag referendum.

I don’t mind oppositions attacking Governments for things which they honestly disagree on – for example labour laws and the like. But it does get tiring when you know their opposition is only because they are not in Government themselves. It is worth remembering the TPP started under Labour. They also did a great trade deal with China, which has been hugely beneficial. If it was National that had done the trade deal with China, I suspect Labour would be condemning it.

So in the end these opponents do not get much traction either, because their opposition is more about who the Government is, than what is in the TPP. That doesn’t mean their criticism do not have validity, just that their motivations are more about bashing the Government.

3 – Opponents of some proposed details

The last category is what I want to focus on. It is individual and groups who have been critical of what might be in the TPP, because they think certain aspects would be bad for their area of interest if included.

These opponents are not against the TPP regardless of what is in it. They’re not for it either. They’re people saying “We don’t want X in there” but if X is not there, then we don’t have a view on it.

That might be a health group on keeping the Pharmac model, or ICT groups on the details of the e-commerce and intellectual property chapters. The latter is what I want to focus on, and tell a story about the battle here.

The US wish list on intellectual property

The first post I can find I did on the TPP was about how despite being a big supporter of free trade, I was concerned about the US wishlist in TPP. I quoted Rick Shera on how it could affect us:

  • Rights holders would be allowed to prevent parallel imports
  • Massive extension of terms, from life of author plus 50 years, to 70 years
  • Circumventing a Technological Protection Measure (TPM) will to be a criminal offence even if the work it protects is in the public domain or you want to exercise fair dealing rights like educational use or current affairs reporting
  • The return of guilt upon accusation three strikes Internet termination laws
  • Forcing us to reverse the decision recently taken to exclude software from being patentable
  • Introducing statutory damages (which give rights holders windfall damages up to 3 times their actual losses)
  •  ISP policing of IP rights including a requirement for ISPs to give up their customers’ identities when they receive a mere allegation from a rights holder
  • Criminal liability even where the infringement has no commercial value at all
  • Pushing Courts to impose imprisonment as the default sentence for infringement even where no monetary benefit is obtained

These provisions would have been truly horrible, if they had been agreed to. The good thing is that with the exception of the extension of the term (which is more a copyright than Internet issue) the US got beaten back on pretty much all of this. I’m not saying the IP chapter is great (there are still a couple of areas of concern which we need to see the detail on) but this truly horrible stuff is not in there – software is not patentable still, parallel importing remains legal, you can circumvent TPMs for legal purposes, ISPs don’t face extra liability, no changes to our three strikes law for filesharing infringing (which rights holders don’t like).

So why did the US not get its way on much in this chapter? Is it because it was an unimportant chapter? No, far from it. For several years it has been said that the IP chapter will be one of the most difficult. Many in the media thought the big battle was Pharmac, but in reality that was never at great risk. The PM and others had often said that the IP chapter was one of the big challenges.

This was a concern, as those of us against the US demands, were worried that the IP chapter would be traded at the lost moment with the US, in order to gain a better deal elsewhere. We wanted to stop that happening, and make the price of compromising on the IP chapter too high, so what did we do.

By we I mean groups such as InternetNZ, IITP, TUANZ and NZ Rise. I don’t speak for any of them, this is just my views as someone who was involved.

Set the tone right

It was important that we were not seen as just against TPP regardless. We were against an IP chapter that was bad for NZ. While we would work with other critics such as Jane Kelsey (and inform them of our concerns), it was vital not to be seen as anti-TPP regardless. You lose influence if you do that.

We also tried to have it about ICT and Internet industries being important for NZ’s future and don’t trade away their interests for those of commodity industries.

Be specific

Another key was not just to rant about secret negotiations (even though criticism of the process was made), selling out sovereignty, attacking Hollywood corporations. It was to be specific as to what measures were opposed, the impact on NZ of them, and putting up alternative provisions.

Meet NZ negotiators

Many meetings were arranged with negotiators with MFAT and MBIE. And they were extremely professional, and useful. The negotiators do not set policy (Ministers do), but they will tell you what their position is, listen to your concerns, and make sure they understand them.

They would also share information on the negotiations. They are not allowed to sit down with you and show you a copy of the proposed texts (unless every negotiating country agreed). But they could tell you in some detail what the issues are, and what the NZG position currently was. And thanks to texts being leaked on Wikileaks, we actually got verified that the NZ negotiators were advocating exactly what they told us they were, and resisting the US demands.

They also were useful in giving us some idea of which countries were with us on these issues, and which were not, and which were yet to take a position. Again, not in exact detail which would breach confidentiality, but some useful steers.

The key here is that while the exact negotiating texts were secret, stakeholders could gain information on proceedings by engaging with the process – and not just corporates, but civil society groups also. Engaging with the process works, rather than just shouting slogans.

Also at least one meeting was held (possibly more) with the Trade Negotiations Minister, Tim Groser. I did not attend, but understand he was very up to speed with the issues around the IP chapter. Meetings were also held with the ICT Minister, so she could be a voice for the industry if Cabinet discussed details.

It also became apparent to me that other Ministers, up to and including the PM, were aware of the issues around the Internet and the IP chapter. In fact as I said earlier, the PM said fairly early on that the IP chapter might be the toughest.

Meet TPP supporters

We met supporters of the TPP such as NZ International Business Forum (Stephen Jacobi). We explained that our potential opposition was issues based. If certain provisions were in the TPP, we would be opposing and criticising it. But if they were not there, then mostly we would have no view.

We know that most business groups would support the TPP, regardless of the IP chapter. What we wanted to get across, was that if they could use their influence to get an IP chapter that was more palatable to us, then there would be less domestic opposition.

The meetings were cordial, and useful.

I can’t recall exactly other meetings we had, but off memory there was some dialogue also with the US Embassy and Federated Farmers.

Attend the Negotiations

Staff were sent to some of the international negotiations rounds. Why, if you are not allowed in the negotiating room? Well, a lot happens in the side events and public forums. You can set up stands handing out information on your views, you can chat to NZ negotiators, you can get to meet the negotiators from other countries, and also develop links with other third party groups who share your concerns.

The staffer who attended some of these for the NZ group did an excellent job in building networks, organising events and getting our message across. It was an excellent investment in sending her.

Build a coalition locally

A local coalition was set up – called the Fair Deal coalition. It was set up to critique and oppose the US demands, but also to put pressure on the NZ Government to stick to its position. We wanted to make any backing down politically painful. A quote from the site is:

The US wants copyright standards that would force change to New Zealand’s copyright laws. We want you to know more about what’s at stake so that you can have a say now, before the deal is done.

The good news is that we know – from another leaked document – that the NZ copyright team went into TPP talks looking for fair copyright (and other intellectual property) standards. Now is the time to stand behind our team and  support a Fair Deal for New Zealand.

NZ members were InternetNZ, NZ Rise, Creative Freedom Foundation, Blind Foundation, TUANZ, Consumer, IITP, Trade Me, NZ Open Source Society, LIANZA, Tech Liberty and Scoop.

The tone wasn’t to attack the Government, but to pressure the Government to stand firm.

Build a coalition globally

At the beginning of the negotiations, NZ was quite exposed. The US was pushing hard for their wishlist, NZ was the most staunch against, and we had few allies. Many were not focused on it much, and Australia even seemed to be backing the US.

The NZ negotiators made it pretty clear that if we are alone there, then we need to compromise more. So we went about building a wider coalition.

Through attendance at the actual meetings, links were made to other groups in the countries negotiating the TPP. An alliance was formed with Public Citizen, Open Media, Australian Digital Alliance, Consumers International, EFF etc. Gradually more and more countries came to siding with the NZ position.

Note I am not suggesting this is solely or even mainly due to the work of the alliance, but I do believe it did have an impact.

Also crucially, we tried to soften the US position. Their position was reflecting the demands of Hollywood associated creative industries. In fact many of the staff in the IP area of the Trade team, had worked for lobby groups there. But then big US IT companies started lobbying, saying they did not support some of the US position. This helped weaken the US stance, as it was no longer unambiguous what Us businesses wanted.

Host the negotiations

Auckland hosted the 15th round of negotiations in December 2012. This was great as it gave us a great opportunity to interact. There were a number of initiatives as part of that, but the most significant was we hosted a lunch for all the IP negotiators from all the countries. I think they all had someone attend, and most importantly the US did.

Over the lunch a few of us spoke, on various aspects and outlined what our issues and concerns were. My role was to talk about the politics, and explain how NZ had just had several big fights on IP law – the blackout campaign, ACTA, patent law, a new copyright act – and I doubted any Government would want to be explaining why the hard fought compromise that had been achieved was now going to be upended. I also talked on Dotcom and how he is alleging Key and Obama did a deal with Hollywood to lock him up, in exhchange for the TPP – and while that may be nonsense, could they imagine a NZ PM standing up and saying “We’ve decided to change our copyright and IP laws to please Hollywood”. The point was that if you demand something a Government is simply politically unable to deliver, then you won’t get an agreement (like Canada on dairy – political cost too high).

And this is partly why the only major change appears to be length of copyright, rather than stuff more directly affecting the Internet. And don’t get me wrong – I am against the extension, but from my point of view it is less harmful than what else the US was demanding, and if we had to compromise on something – that is the lesser evil from an Internet point of view.

Constructive opposition does make a difference

The point of all this, is that constructive engagement, criticism and even at times opposition can make a difference. When you work with the Government and negotiators in good faith, you can have influence and get better outcomes (even if still sub-optimal) than without your involvement. You do a mixture of loud noisy activism (postcard campaigns, petitions, public meetings) and behind the scenes diplomacy – but always with a consistent principled message that we are not anti TPP (or pro TPP), just anti these provisions.

I’m actually very proud that the NZ ICT industry and civil society managed to run a very effective and principled campaign, that was overall remarkably successful – especially against the power of the US Government, and very wealthy and powerful firms in the US. One can be cynical about aspects of politics (such as the secrecy), but one can also celebrate that spending time and money on sticking up for your beliefs can work, and logical well reasoned arguments can beat vested interests.

Again do not take any of this to suggest the ICT industry now thinks the TPP is great. I don’t speak for them, and from what I have observed views are as diverse within it, as elsewhere. Some still think it is the worst thing ever and the end of democracy, and others think it is a great deal. I personally think it is an overall positive deal, and actually pleasantly surprised that we managed to get a deal, with most (not all) of the nasty IP provisions defanged.

But there is a lesson here for other groups, and individuals. Constructive opposition and criticism can achieve far far more, than just blanket negativity and attack.

The groups involved in the Far Deal coalition, both locally and globally, should be proud of what they managed to achieve, against formidable odds.  Also I give credit to the professional negotiators from MFAT and MBIE who I think did a very good job of holding the line.


The NZ National Broadband Map

July 24th, 2015 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

There is now a national broadband map for NZ. You can enter in an address and see what the availability is of fibre, VDSL, ADSL and wireless.

The map has been produced by NZRS (who also run the .nz domain name registry), a company owned by InternetNZ with assistance from MBIE and of course the retail providers.

For example if you put in 175 Melbourne Road, Island Bay, Wellington it tells you:

  • Fibre planned for 2016 to 2019
  • VDSL available with download speeds of 15  –  60 Mbps and upload of 5 – 18 Mbps
  • ADSL available with download speeds of 10 – 22 Mbps and upload of 1 – 2 Mbps
  • Wireless not available

A great resource that has already proven massively popular with 60,000 visits within hours of launching.

NZ broadband

July 9th, 2015 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

3 News reports:

InternetNZ says it’s not our broadband that sucks – it’s how we’re using it.

The group’s annual NetHui event logs on in Auckland today, hosting key figures from the industry, MPs and others interested in how the internet is changing our lives, and what lies ahead.

InternetNZ work programme director Andrew Cushen says New Zealanders like to complain about the state of our broadband infrastructure, but the reality has left the cliché behind.

“The simple fact of the matter is over the last five years in particular, the Government has put in a great deal of money through the ultra-fast broadband programme and the rural broadband initiative, to make New Zealand’s internet some of the best in the world,” he said on TV3’s Paul Henry programme this morning.

“Yes there are still some issues, yes there are still some people waiting for some rollouts to get there. But the story is really fantastic in terms of the capability of the network… By 2020, 98 percent of New Zealanders are going to have really fantastic connectivity.”


The Government has invested a huge amount in our broadband infrastructure. The fibre roll out especially is great as it is basically future proofed.

Speeds are lifting, and data caps have faded as an issue. The focus as Cushen says is shifting to what we do with it – as businesses, consumers, Government, citizens and families.

.nz names will be available on the 30th of September

July 21st, 2014 at 11:26 am by David Farrar

The .nz Domain Name Commission Ltd has announced:

The Domain Name Commission Limited (DNCL) is pleased to announce that from 1pm, 30 September 2014 a significantly amended .nz policy will come into effect – ushering in a new era of choice in .nz domain names. 

From that date, people will be able to register shorter, simpler, more representative names immediately before the .nz – as well as the more familiar-looking options like ‘’ and ‘’. 

All existing options like, and will continue to work as they always have and people will still be able to get names with them. The change simply means that from 1pm, 30 September 2014 people will be able to get names with them, without them, or both.

A lot of people will have questions about what names can they get, based on their existing registrations. There is a new website to tell you the status of a name:

A website at has been created by the Domain Name Commission for holders of .nz domain names to check out their options and learn more about what the change might mean for them. also shows what the shorter .nz domain names will look like in a web browser from 1pm, 30 September 2014.

Monahan describes the policy change allowing registrations directly at the second level as a boon for choice – one that opens up an exciting new .nz registration possibility. She encourages all those with an existing .nz domain name to visit or contact their Registrar to check their options and learn more about what’s happening.

The site is very easy to use. I’ve just checked and found (had not checked up until now) that:

  • I have preferential registration status for
  • I have preferential registration status for
  • That some one else (in fact two people) has preferential registration status for
  • That will be available on a first in first served basis on 30 September

“The change keeps all the advantages of the current system while expanding choice. Other countries have already made a similar change and now New Zealand is too.”

Holders of .nz domain names wanting to find out more about this exciting, watershed change to the .nz domain name space should contact their Registrar or domain name provider or visit

Note that I am the current Board Chair of DNCL. The decision to allow registrations at the second level was made last year by InternetNZ on a recommendation from the DNCL Board.


The Internet economy potential

March 31st, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

New Zealand retailers are falling behind other sectors of the economy in their use of the internet to drive sales and business management, says a major new study funded by internet NZ and the global internet search engine, Google.

The “Value of internet Services to New Zealand Businesses” report, issued this morning, says firms using the internet well are between 6 per cent and 11 per cent more productive than their competitors in the same field. Best practice users were as much as 73 per cent more productive than average businesses in their industry.

The report suggests if all businesses were using the internet to its full potential, New Zealand’s economy – currently worth around $210 billion of output annually – could get a $34 billion efficiency and productivity boost.

Maybe retailers should stop trying to tax the Internet and should embrace it more!

The research was conducted by the economic research consultancy Sapere and used data from 5,589 businesses in the Statistics New Zealand Business Operations Survey.

It excluded firms in the information technology sector, which were presumed to be high internet users and interviews with 76 businesses were conducted in the tourism, retail, dairy/agriculture, and professional services sectors.

The report says while internet speed and connectivity were once the major issue, that is no longer so. The use to which the internet is put is the larger issue for most firms.

In the retail sector, where the common complaint is that e-commerce is robbing traditional shops of sales, the survey found retailers were “slightly lower users of internet services than businesses as a whole.”

“They are less likely to have a website, less likely to have most of their staff online, and less likely to use fibre, with bigger firms generally higher users than smaller firms.

“On our numbers, it is highly unusual for retailers to be selling a lot online at this point, with only 3 per cent of firms reporting that more than a quarter of their sales are made online, although retailers are heavy online purchasers.”

And of interest:

It reports one service provider as saying no more than one in 12 New Zealand retailers was doing a good job of integrating online and offline stores.

So huge potential there if it is grasped. The full report, for those interested, is here.

Congratulations Jordan

July 3rd, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

InternetNZ has appointed its former policy manager and one-time Labour Party candidate Jordan Carter as chief executive.

Carter had been serving as acting chief executive of the non-profit society since January following the sudden departure of former boss Vikram Kumar, who quickly went on to secure the role of chief executive of Kim Dotcom’s new online storage service, Mega.

InternetNZ said 36 candidates had applied for the position.

Carter stood down from InternetNZ in May 2011, after seven years at the organisation, when he was confirmed as a Labour-list candidate in the November 2011 general election. He was 40th on Labour’s list and missed the cut-off.

He today ruled out a return to politics “in the next few years” and said he would not be standing in the 2014 election.

He did not believe his decision to stand for Labour in 2011 would cause complications in InternetNZ’s relations with the current Government.

“I have been involved in this sector for so long, people know my roots are in the ICT policy area. It is completely transparent what my political views have been but they don’t colour what I do professionally.”

InternetNZ president Frank March said Carter had a deep understanding of internet policy and research and was “fully across the intricacies of regulation concerning the internet and ICT more generally.”

Carter said an “open and uncapturable internet” was essential to New Zealand’s prospects.

I think Jordan will do an excellent job, and he did well to beat out many top class candidates who applied.

I’ve worked closely with Jordan on Internet issues for well over a decade. He has a superb grasp of policy, a strategic mindset and is also an excellent administrator. The nice thing about InternetNZ is that it has members from all over the political spectrum, united in their belief that the Internet should remain open and uncaptureable and sharing InternetNZ’s goal of protecting and promoting the Internet in New Zealand. In 2005 I was the Acting President, and Jordan the Acting Chief Executive for a couple of months. We also happened to be rival campaign managers for National and Labour in Wellington Central. We would meet or talk several times a day on InternetNZ issues – and then inevitable see each other in the evenings at Meet the Candidate meetings as wee would vocally support our chosen candidates. It was surreal, and amusing.

I don’t see Jordan’s political background as a big issue. I was always grateful that when David Cunliffe was Labour’s ICT and Comms Minister he would work with me on Internet issues, despite my National background.  I was very supportive of Cunliffe’s efforts to bring in anti-spam legislation, and to increase competition in the telco sector by requiring operational separation of Telecom.  Part of politics is working in good faith with people on issues you agree on, even when you disagree on other issues.

So congrats to Jordan and InternetNZ. Next week is the annual Net Hui in Wellington, which as usual already has a large waiting list, as (off memory) already over 500 people registered to attend. Hope to see many people I know there.

A good move from the Govt on patents

May 9th, 2013 at 1:25 pm by David Farrar

Craig Foss has announced:

Commerce Minister Craig Foss has today released a supplementary order paper (SOP) to clarify issues around the patentability of computer programmes in the Patents Bill.

“Following consultation with the NZ software and IT sector, I am pleased to be further progressing the Patents Bill with this SOP. These changes ensure the Bill is consistent with the intention of the Commerce Select Committee recommendation that computer programs should not be patentable,” says Mr Foss.

Today’s change is to codify a test set out in UK case law to provide clarification around the “as such” wording used in SOP 120 (tabled 28 August 2012).

“I would like to thank the NZ software and IT sector for their engagement over the last few months. I’m confident we’ve reached a solution where we can continue to protect genuine inventions and encourage Kiwi businesses to export and grow.

The SOP is here. A key extra clause is:

A claim in a patent or an application relates to a computer program as such if the actual contribution made by the alleged invention lies solely in it being a computer program.

There had been considerable concern that the previous proposed wording with the “as such” clause could lead to a lack of clarity in the law, and that it might not achieve its intention that software is not patentable. This extra clause provides that clarity and is excellent news from the Government and Minister,

To also achieve greater clarity, the SOP provides an explicit example of what is not patentable in terms of software, namely that a chip for a washing machine is, but an online filing software system is not (the code is copyrighted though).

The Institute of IT Professionals has welcomed the announcement:

The Institute of IT Professionals, New Zealand’s largest IT representative body, strongly supports the Government’s announcement today clarifying that software will not be patentable in New Zealand, removing a major barrier to software-led innovation. …

“The Institute thanks Minister Foss for responding to industry concerns, clarifying the Patents Bill’s intention to remove patentability of software and for taking extra steps to ensure the law around software patents is clear and unambiguous,” Matthews said. “Software will not be patentable in New Zealand and a major barrier to software innovation has been removed”.

“We also acknowledge the work of United Future’s Peter Dunne, Labour’s Clare Curran and other political parties who have listened to the industry’s concerns and contributed towards a solution,” Matthews said. “It’s great that all parties support software-led innovation in New Zealand.”

I’d agree with the IITP that MPs from several parties helped contribute to getting a law that will be clear and good for New Zealand. The recommendation to do so was a unanimous one by a select committee.

Ian McCrae, chief executive of New Zealand’s largest software exporter Orion Health agreed, saying today “We welcome this announcement. Under the current regime, obvious things are getting patented. You might see a logical enhancement to your software, but you can’t do it because someone else has a patent. In general, software patents are counter-productive, often used obstructively and get in the way of innovation. We are a software company and as such, our best protection is to innovate and innovate fast.”

John Ascroft, Chief Innovation Officer of Jade Corporation said “We believe the patent process is onerous, not suited to the software industry, and challenges our investment in innovation.”

Orion and Jade together account for around 50% of software exports from New Zealand.

The decision is also welcomed by InternetNZ:

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) welcomes today’s tabling of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that makes it clear that computer software is not patentable in New Zealand. …

The question of software patents has been an important issue for InternetNZ for several years. InternetNZ has previously made submissions on the issue, noting that software is inextricably linked to the good functioning of the Internet. Patenting software would not only make the continued development of the Internet more difficult, it would reduce innovation and could well stymie interoperability of various software platforms.

InternetNZ spokesperson Susan Chalmers says InternetNZ is happy to see the issue now resolved and looks forward to the passage and implementation of the Patents Bill, a long-awaited and much needed update to a large component of New Zealand’s intellectual property regime.

So it is a good outcome all around. Congratulations to Craig Foss for constructively working with industry groups to get this issue resolved, and kudos to other MPs such as Peter Dunne and Clare Curran who supported getting a good law.

I’m personally very pleased that National has taken a balanced approach on intellectual property issues. While of course there are areas of disagreement, the current Government has consistently moved things in the right direction. To name a few:

  • Repealed the previous three strikes guilt upon accusation copyright law
  • Suspended the provision for termination of Internet accounts for repeat copyright infringement
  • Set the copyright infringement filing fee at $25, $5 higher than recommended by officials
  • Kept the fee at $25 when reviewed, despite massive opposition from the MPAA
  • Have consistently rejected the US proposed IP chapter for the TPP
  • Amended the law to exclude software from being patentable

Now as I said, there are still a few areas I’d like further change. but overall the direction in the last few years has been a positive one.

Chalmers on TPP

December 18th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Susan Chalmers writes at the NZ Herald on the TPP:

I’m not an economist, but I do understand what a net loss or a net gain is. Most people will be familiar with the concept – at the end of the day, are you better or worse off? To figure that one out you need to know what you’ve brought in, and what you’ve paid out.

We’ve recently heard what New Zealand could bring in under the Trans Pacific Partnership – US$2.9 billion by 2025. But that figure is based on a hypothetical situation involving 21 countries, not the 11 that are negotiating. Even so, the Prime Minister recently embraced and advanced this figure.

What’s missing? Our leaders haven’t told us what the costs will be.

The biggest cost that New Zealand could sustain under the TPP would be in the intellectual property, particularly copyright. This is because the most powerful party to the negotiations – the United States – is a net exporter of copyrighted goods (movies, books, TV shows, songs, games, etc) while all other TPP parties are net importers.

The interests that drive US trade policy in copyright are Hollywood and the recording industry. They want stronger and more powerful legal rights that would bring more money to them, often at the expense of many different sectors of society and business.

I’m all for the benefits of liberalising trade with other countries. That does provide benefits. But as Susan says, we also have to be aware of the costs to New Zealand, if the TPP includes US drafted changes to our copyright laws.

The Government has rightly said that any decision on TPP will be based on whether it is a net gain to New Zealand. But again, one can only calculate a net gain if you actually calculate the costs.

Now ideally NZ holds firm and doesn’t agree to any provisions that require changes to our IP laws.

Since the Government has not run its own analysis of potential costs, perhaps we can look elsewhere for guidance. Australia is a good place to start. Like New Zealand, Australia is a net importer of copyrighted goods and wants better access to the US agricultural markets – for sugar and beef exports in particular. …

A report from the Australian Productivity Commission – the Government’s independent research and advisory body – indicated that Australia suffered a net loss under AUSFTA as a whole because of accepting the US copyright demands.

Maybe the NZ Productivity Commission could look at the the benefits to the NZ economy of balanced IP laws?

So why has our political leadership not talked about the costs of accepting the US copyright demands? For instance, the cost of paying decades more in royalties to overseas companies, losing parallel imports, not to mention all the taxpayer money to support US copyright litigation here in New Zealand.

Trade agreements are meant to liberalise trade. Banning parallel imports is putting up barriers to trade.

Regardless of the reason for our leaders not acknowledging the potential costs, it is now time to run that analysis, as any normal business would. New Zealand’s copyright negotiators have been holding the line throughout 15 TPP rounds, working to stave off these costs for the country. Let’s encourage our elected officials not only to give them some support, but to explain exactly what the country is about to commit to. Shouldn’t we know?

We should.

Internet policy issues

November 19th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

I’ve been involved with InternetNZ and Internet policy issues for around 15 years now. One of the things I enjoy is the intellectual challenge, as you deal with such a huge diversity of issues. InternetNZ staff compiled the below list of issues that have been discussed at our policy meetings in 2012.

  1. 111 System Review
  2. APNIC Policy
  3. Briefings to Incoming Ministers
  4. Chorus’ Role in the UFB and RBI
  5. Commerce Commission Fibre Demand-Side Study
  6. Communications (New Media) Bill
  7. Convergence (Telco/Broadcasting)
  8. Copyright
  9. Data Caps
  10. Digital Dividend
  11. DNSSEC
  12. Privacy
  13. Economic Studies of impact of Internet on the economy
  14. Electronic Identification Verification Bill
  15. ICANN’s new gTLD programme
  16. InTAC (Internet Technical Architecture Conference)
  17. International Mobile Roaming
  18. International Telecommunications Regulations
  19. IP Interconnection
  20. IPv4 exhaustion and IPv6 adoption
  21. NetHui
  22. Network Measurement Lab
  23. News Media Meets New Media Law Commission paper
  24. Policy Principles for future Internet submissions
  25. Southern Cross Cable
  26. Telecommunications Development Levy Determination
  27. TelstraClear and Vodafone Merger
  28. Trans Pacific Partnership
  29. Radio Spectrum 5-Year Outlook
  30. Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
  31. UBA, UCLL and UCLFS pricing determinations
As one can see, it is never boring!

NetHui South

October 26th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

If you live in the South Island and are annoyed all the good conferences are in the North Island, well NetHui is having a NetHui South conference in Dunedin on Friday 23rd and Saturday 24th November.

It’s only $40 registration, and ICT Minister Amy Adams is a keynote speaker. Sessions scheduled so far include:

  • Usable Security
  • Dunedin Digital Strategy
  •  Creative Commons
  • Rights-based approach to the Internet
  • Digital inclusion
  • Copyright & the Internet
  • Regulating bad behaviour online
  • Cybersecurity: at a tipping point?
  • Internet Governance
  • Vision 2020 with Clare Curran and Gareth Hughes
  • Internet-enabled opportunities for New Zealand
  •  Is the notice and consent privacy model dead?

I’m on one of the panels and involved with a couple of the workshops. Hope to see some mainlanders there.

500,000 .nz registrations

September 11th, 2012 at 1:11 pm by David Farrar

The .nz Internet domain had its 500,000th registration today.  It shows how long I have been involved that I recall the party to celebrate 100,000 registrations. I also recall some people were projecting the number of registrations would level off at around 120,000.

What pushed the registrations over the limit was the launch of today. Within 15 minutes there were over 1,000 registrations which is more than double the minimum target of 500 set for the sub-domain to be created.

Have your say on .nz domain names

August 27th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The .nz Domain Name Commission Ltd is consulting on whether registrations should be allowed at the 2nd level. This means that people would be able to register (for example) rather than have to choose a third level name such as or etc. This would be the most significant policy change to .nz since it was created in 19870.

People can make formal submissions at the above link until 27 September. But there will also be five public meetings, at which you can come along to learn more about the proposal, and provide feedback. The South Island meetings were last week but the details for the other three are:

  • Wednesday 29 August, 5.00 – 6.30pm, Rydges Hotel, Auckland
  • Tuesday 4 September 5.00-6.30pm, James Cook Hotel, Wellington
  • Wednesday 5 September 5.00-6.30pm, at

Incidentally I’m a Director of the DNCL, and will be chairing those three meetings. The purpose of the meetings is not just to get feedback on whether people support or oppose the opening up of second level registrations, but also feedback on the specifics of the proposal such as the sunrise period, the conflicts policy etc.

If you would like to attend please RSVP to the DNC team at or phone            04 495 2110. approved

August 25th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

InternetNZ has announced:

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) is pleased to announce that it has approved the creation of a new second level domain in the .nz domain name space – This expands the range of choice New Zealanders have in the domain name market and means that people will soon be able to register personalised domain names ending in

The implementation of is being managed by InternetNZ’s subsidiary company the Domain Name Commission Ltd. Authorised .nz registrars will be able to take registrations for these names from 10am on Tuesday, 11 September 2012.

I might apply for 🙂

The threshold set for to be established is 500 registrations in the first month. So from 11 September to 11 October you will be able to pre-apply for a name – if you want one. If more than 500 applications are received, then will be created. It is effectively a market mechanism, to establish if there is suffucient demand.


July 20th, 2012 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

I was in the UK for a friend’s wedding during the inaugural Nethui in 2011, so the 2012 Nethui was the first one for me.

There were over 500 people in attendance, and I was really pleased that it was a preetty diverse group of people. It wasn’t just the usual suspects of the Internet techos and the policy wonks. There were teachers there interested in the Internet as an education tool. Farmers were there, librarians were there, game developers were there. Oh yeah, lawyers also 🙂

Organizing a conference with over 60 sessions (plus a bar camp at the end) is a massive achievement, and kudos to especially Richard Wood, plus also all the INZ staff, for delivering a high quality event. InternetNZ subsidise it by a six figure sum so that registration for it is only $40.

Should also mention the Showgizmo smartphone app. I found it pretty useful. It had the schedule for the conference in it, so very easy to check what was on. You could select which sessions you wanted to attend, and it would show you just those, and/or give you calendar reminders for them. It also had the names and twitter feeds for all 500 delegates. Plus as a bonus if you scanned in someone’s ID tag on your smartphone, then it would add them to your favourites. Could do with some tweaking to interface with programmes like Outlook more, but overall a pretty good app for event organisers and attendees to use.

I was involved in a few sessions. I chaired a session on copyright and the Internet which had around 300 people attend. The video will be on the website for those are interested. Some good discussion, and the best point made was by chance the last. One of the lawyers there (Rochelle) said that a lot of problems would be solved if copyright law changed from focusing on copying to use. I thought that was a great idea. The Internet is a giant copying machine, as is each individual PC. Having laws against copying is like having laws against eating.

But what you can do is have laws on use of copyrighted material. If for example you copy a movie you purchase, just so you have it on a backup machine – then that is fine. But if you copy it and give it to someone – that is an infringement. And if you copy it and sell the copy to someone – that is a criminal offence. Focus on use, not copying.

There was also a good session on harmful speech on the Internet and the Law Commission’s proposals for a Communications Tribunal to deal with some of it, chaired excellently by Judge Harvey.  I retain some reservations about what may be proposed, but am waiting to see the details.

On the margins of Nethui, we saw the launch of the Fair Deal campaign about the TPP. I am a strong supporter of genuinely free trade agreements and also a strong supporter of the Fair Deal campaign. The campaign is calling on the NZ Government to maintain its current negotiating position of rejecting the elements of the US proposed intellectual property chapter, where they would require a change to our current IP laws or policies. I’ll blog more on the campaign as it goes. Feel free to check out the campaign website, and NBR has a story on the launch also.

I also took part in a panel on Open Government. Sadly there was little time for questions as there were two opening speakers and then seven panelists. My major point was that we should now look at amending the OIA to require pro-active release of certain Government information (such as Cabinet papers) after a certain period of time (say six months). This is not intended to change the criteria for release, but to recognise that people do not know what they don’t know, and hence what to ask for. An automatic pro-active release would open up Government considerably. I may draft a members’ bill to this end when I get the time and see if a backbench MP wants to submit it. I also see this as good for Government too, as knowing that all papers will automatically be released will ensure due care is taken in their drafting and approval.

Overall I thought it was a fabulous event, mainly due to the quality of the people there and their willingness to engage. Sarah Putt from Computerworld did not have a good initial impression, but Lance Wiggs’ response is one I endorse.

Talking of one of the keynote speakers, Pamela Jones Harbour, I would make this point. No she was not a Lawrence Lessig, but what she did do was not just deliver a keynote address, but actually stayed for the whole conference and participated in many of the sessions. Personally I thought it pretty cool that a former US Federal Trade Commissioner stayed on and participated the way she did. Also notable was that Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff didn’t just turn up for one session, but was there for at least two days, and engaging in multiple sessions. Nethui isn’t like other conference where it is all about the keynote speakers (even though I agree they are important), but it is about the engagement.

UPDATE: Almost forgot the highlight. As part of the digital divide panel, we heard from Emma whose family had benefited from the computers in homes programmes. Emma told us her life story including losing her kids for a while, drugs, crime but how computers in homes had made such a big difference to her and her kids, and how well her family are doing now. She was on the verge of tears speaking about her mistakes (and speaking to 500 strangers is daunting for most people), and most of the audience were emotionally captivated. She got the sole standing ovation of Nethui, and made things very real.

Reducing piracy

February 1st, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

InternetNZ CEO Vikram Kumar has a good blog post on how you can make money from zero priced products. He notes:

Accepting some people won’t pay doesn’t mean they can’t make money. Instead, they need to come up with innovative answers to the question, “How do we give people what, when, and how they want our products at a zero price?”

The answers are there but it takes effort, attention, and good ideas. Let’s take an example from another industry, the software industry.

Zero cost software

How do you make money from software without charging anything for it? It’s not simple but several models exist. For example, there’s the upgrade or “freemium” model (charge for extra features or functionality); the services model (charge for allied services, e.g. design or support or tools); the donation or funded model (customer pays what they can or want to, before or after the software is developed); the loss-leader model (gain popularity to sell other software); the advertising model (money made from advertisers); etc.

How can this be applied? Just ask Justin Bieber how he got his break. Or, read this great article in The Guardian about Gorillaz as well as the one in GigaOM where author Neil Gaiman talks about how he is selling more books in countries where his books are pirated.

The traditional business model of Hollywood is based on the 1970s, not the 2010s. It will take time, but eventually they will change.

dot kiwi

January 14th, 2012 at 10:19 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

People and businesses who find “” insufficiently patriotic may be able to register websites that end with “.kiwi” from next year.

A group of ex-pat New Zealanders based in Vancouver has teamed up with Wellington lawyer Peter Dengate Thrush – a former chairman of worldwide internet governance body Icann – to found a new company, Dot Kiwi, which hopes to cater for those who want a more “Kiwi flavour” to their online identity. …

Dot Kiwi, which is Canadian-owned, would compete with New Zealand’s non-profit internet society, InternetNZ, which oversees “.nz” addresses and is funded by a compulsory levy on registrations.

Dengate Thrush said the administration of the “.kiwi” registry would be outsourced to Minds and Machines, a company he chairs that is based in Santa Monica in the United States.

InternetNZ president Frank March said all new and existing top-level domains competed with “.nz” and the society had not ruled out lodging its own application to run “.kiwi”.

“We’d certainly have a good case to put up, but there are very heavy costs involved in establishing a top-level domain and it is not a process we would undertake lightly. The arguments are quite finely balanced,” he said.

The .nz Domain Name Commission did some research last year through Colmar Brunton and around 11% of respondents (off memory) said that they would register in .kiwi in preference to .nz or .com, if they had the choice – so I think there is market demand for .kiwi. Whether or not the demand is high enough to cover the costs of a registry is another issue.

As a disclosure I’m on the working group which is looking at the pros and cons of InternetNZ applying for .kiwi. The WG’s role is not to decide, but to prepare consultation papers for discussion with the InternetNZ Council and members. As Frank March is quoted as saying, there are heavy costs involved, and many other issues.

Discussion on Future:Digital

October 26th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

InternetNZ released earlier this month a discussion document called Future:Digital, talking about possible priorities for a future Government. It’s only nine pages so an easy read. There are five themes:

  1. The Internet drives economic growth
  2. A digitally inclusive society
  3. A vibrant, multi-cultural identity
  4. Protecting the environment for future generations
  5. A Government that “gets” the Internet

Waldo Kuipers from Microsoft talks about some of these themes in a blog post. He makes an interesting point:

In a paper looking back on 125 years of refrigeration (PDF), Dr Andrew Cleland explains, “In 1882 the first refrigerated meat left New Zealand for London, the pioneering use of a technology that was to transform the New Zealand economy. Animals were no longer grown for wool only, and the wealth of the nation developed rapidly. From 1882 until as recently as the early 1990s refrigerated food has returned at least 30% of New Zealand’s export income. Whilst much of the equipment has been imported, expertise in the application of refrigeration was developed in New Zealand.”

For New Zealand, the internet could be the best thing since refrigeration.

Reps from five of our political parties also debated Internet issues last week. If you missed it, you can view or listen to it at this page.

Tune in tomorrow for the ICT debate

October 17th, 2011 at 3:01 pm by David Farrar

InternetNZ have arranged a debate between ICT spokespersons for four of the parliamentary political parties.

InternetNZ presents the election debate NetVision 2011, focused on New Zealand’s Digital Future. Major political parties will present and debate their visions across economic, social, cultural, environmental and government perspectives.

NetVision 2011 will be held at Wellington’s City Gallery on Tuesday 18 October from 7-9pm.

The debate will be streamed live on the Internet at

A panel of Political Party spokespeople are participating in NetVision 2011 including Hon Steven Joyce (National), Clare Curran (Labour), Gareth Hughes (Green) and Peter McCaffrey (ACT). Confirmation from the Māori Party is awaited.

Sean Plunket is to MC the event, and journalists including Rob O’Neill and Sarah Putt will be on hand to quiz the politicians. They will also put questions posted on Twitter using the hashtag #Net11 to the politicians.

If you would like to be in the audience for the debate then email .

I’m in Auckland so will not be there in person, but will try and watch it online and follow the chat on Twitter. I encourage all those interested to tune in also, and ask questions that you want answers to.


June 16th, 2011 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

A final reminder about the NetHui 2011 from 29 June to 1 July.

The programme is here. I’m gutted I will be missing it as I will be overseas.

Three Ministers are participating – Deputy PM Bill English, ICT Minister Steven Joyce and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson. Also MPs David Cunliffe, Clare Curran and Gareth Hughes are on panel discussions.

Lawrence Lessig is the key speaker on the third day, which is MC’d by Sean Plunket. The panels are on digitial citizenship, the Internet and the law, Open Government and Access & Diversity.

The first two days have four work-stream running through them, with a huge diversity of sessions and topics.

Review good, framing of it bad

October 14th, 2010 at 3:46 pm by David Farrar

Simon Power has announced a review of new media:

Justice Minister Simon Power has asked the Law Commission to review the adequacy of regulations around how the Internet interacts with the justice system.

“I’ve ordered this review because it’s imperative the law keeps pace with technology and that we have one set of rules for all news media,” Mr Power said.

I am a supporter of there being a review, and have in fact advocated for it. But I have to say the way the Minister has framed it is regrettable and rather confrontational.

First of all it may make a nice slogan, but the status quo doesn’t have one set of rules – broadcast media have very different rules to print media.

“At the moment we’ve got two tracks – conventional media and the so-called ‘new media’ – intersecting with the justice system, and it’s not sustainable.

“It’s a bit of a Wild West out there in cyberspace at the moment, because bloggers and online publishers are not subject to any form of regulation or professional or ethical standards.

This is another slogan which means little (and remember I do actually favour a review). First of all bloggers are subject to the law – as have been demonstrated of late. The notion of regulating bloggers (beyond the normal requirement to obey the law) or imposing some sort of “professional standards” on them is ridicolous fancy. Bloggers are simply citizens having a say. Simon Power makes it sound like he thinks you should have to apply for permission to have a voice online. Now that may not be Simon’s intent, but the way he has framed this issue is incredibly bad.

“Issues I’m concerned about include how trials can be prejudiced by information posted on websites and seen by jurors, real-time online streaming of court cases, breaches of court suppression orders, and re-publication of a libel.

Issues which I helped facilitate discussion of at last year’s R v the Internet seminar. They are good issues to discuss.

It will focus on whether either of the two existing industry watchdogs – the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council – could provide a suitable vehicle for regulating unregulated forms of new media.

Yeah, and lets also give them the power to fine MPs if they say nasty things on their Facebook pages.

Having said that, it is worth noting the Press Council is self-regulation, not external regulation. One could discuss options such as allowing bloggers to voluntarily sign up to the Press Council, if they wish to do so as a way to enhance their reputation. But you then have issues around who covers costs of the Council – considering most blogs are non-commercial.

Mr Power says the public will have the opportunity to have their say when the commission releases an issues paper by December next year.

That is December 2011? Good – this should not be rushed.

As I said I am pleased the Law Commission is doing this review, as there are potentially even benefits for bloggers in it. But the way the Minister’s press statement has framed the issues is not good, and likely to rub a lot of people up the wrong way.

I will be advocating to the Law Commission, and InternetNZ, that they look to convene some workshops next year to discuss and define some of the issues.

Get your macrons here

June 21st, 2010 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

This release from InternetNZ hasn’t had a lot of publicity:

InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc), through subsidiary company the Domain Name Commission Ltd, advises .nz domain name holders that they are able to apply for macron versions of their domain names in a ‘sunrise’ application period that runs until 6 July 2010.

The addition of macrons to the .nz domain name space means that names can be registered using the characters ā, ē, ī, ō and ū, enabling, for instance, Te Reo Māori words to be correctly represented online.

Domain Name Commissioner Debbie Monahan says “The sunrise period gives existing name holders the exclusive right to apply to register macron versions of their names”.

“Name holders should take full advantage of the sunrise period before general registrations allowing the use of macrons start during Māori Language Week on 26 July 2010.”

At present Ngai Tahu is at

Now that macrons are technically able to be used in the .nz domain, they could have their URL as http://www.ngā

This is part of a global move towards allowing domain names that have non-Latin characters. The technology to do so is quite simple. The challenge has been working out the policies.

Public ACTA this weekend

April 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

A reminder to those interested, that the Public ACTA conference is on all day Sturday in Wellington at the Town Hall. ACTA is the treaty being negotiated that may require countries to implement policies to terminate Internet access of copyright infringers.

As I have previously blogged, the position of the NZ Govt on ACTA has generally been a good one – but we only know this because the secret draft texts have been leaked in Europe.

This is an opportunity to learn more about ACTA and help critique the proposals around Internet access.

The programme is here. We have three top international experts speaking, plus a panel of local pundits. The three international speakers are:

  • Professor Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. Michael has a Doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) from Columbia Law School and is an internationally syndicated columnist on technology law issues.
  • Kim Weatherall is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Law and an Adjunct Research Fellow with the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture. Kim teaches and researches in intellectual property law, with a particular interest in digital copyright, the relationship between international trade and intellectual property, and the systems for administration and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
  • Jonathon Penney is the Internet NZ Senior Research Fellow in CyberLaw at Victoria University and has a MSt from Oxford and a LLM from Columbia. Hailing from Canada, he has previously worked as a lawyer with the Justice Department and as a policy advisor at the federal level

If you wish to attend, you can register here. Looks to be 100 or so people attending at this stage. There is no charge to attend thanks to InternetNZ,

Auckland ACTA

March 24th, 2010 at 10:53 am by David Farrar

If you are in Auckland and want to learn more about the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), there is a public briefing run by InternetNZ this afternoon.

The venue is the Coromandel Room, Level 1, Rendezvous Hotel, corner Vincent St and Mayoral Drive in Auckland’s CBD.

It commences at 2.00pm and will be finished by 4.00pm.

Speakers include

  • Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
  • Jonathon Penney – the 2010 Cyberlaw Fellow at Victoria University of
  • Colin Jackson – a Wellington consultant and blogger at
  • Rick Shera – Lawyer, Lowndes Jordan
  • Jordan Carter – Policy Director, InternetNZ

If you click on my ACTA tag you’ll find more info about ACTA and why it is important to be vigilant about it.