--- title: TAG Steering Group — Guidelines for Conduct tags: [Standalone, TAG, Governance, Conduct, CompetitionLaw] --- # TAG Steering Group — Guidelines for Conduct > Connected Services Framework (CSF) — Governance Companion — Version 1.0 (Draft) > > Maintained by the Telecom Technical Architecture Group (TAG). Adopted by reference in the [TAG Steering Group Terms of Reference](./tag-steering-group-terms-of-reference.md) (Appendix A). --- ## Document Control | | | |---|---| | **Audience** | All TAG Steering Group members, observers, focus-group attendees, and anyone joining a TAG meeting or correspondence chain in any capacity. | | **Status** | Draft v1.0 — for TAG review. | | **Adopted by** | The [TAG Steering Group Terms of Reference](./tag-steering-group-terms-of-reference.md). Every meeting invite must cite or attach this document. | | **Purpose** | Set the conduct rules that govern every TAG meeting, call, and exchange so the work stays focused on the Connected Services Framework (CSF) and industry architecture, and so the meeting environment does not become a route for competitive intelligence or commercial advantage. | --- ## 1. Why this document exists You have been invited to participate in the **Telecom Technical Architecture Group (TAG)** for the purpose of developing the Connected Services Framework (CSF) and contributing to other industry-related architectural activities for UK telecommunications. As part of the TAG you will attend meetings and calls with people who, in their day jobs, may be actual or potential competitors of your business. The TAG's value to the industry depends on three things being true at every meeting: 1. **The work serves the whole industry.** Technical contributions should improve the CSF and the wider industry architecture for every participant. They must not be a vehicle for any single MAP, CP, supplier, or organisation to gain commercial advantage. 2. **No competitive intelligence is gathered.** TAG meetings must not be used — directly, indirectly, or inadvertently — to discover another MAP's customer base, the commercial terms under which they serve those customers, or the methods they intend to use to win business. 3. **Competition law is respected at all times.** UK and EU competition law prohibits sharing competitively sensitive information (CSI) among competitors. These rules apply to TAG meetings exactly as they apply to any other multi-party industry forum. These guidelines exist to keep all three things true. They are binding on every TAG participant. --- ## 2. Competition law — the rules Competition law prohibits businesses from sharing or exchanging **competitively sensitive information (CSI)**. CSI is information which: - one party (or other companies in their corporate group) receives about another party (or other companies in their corporate group); - is **not in the public domain**; and - may reduce uncertainty regarding that party's business decisions, activity, or existing or future business strategy. It includes non-public, commercially sensitive information and strategic data. ### 2.1 Examples of CSI — never share or discuss The list below is **not exhaustive**. If you are unsure whether something falls in scope, treat it as CSI until your organisation's competition counsel confirms otherwise. - Wholesale or non-public retail pricing, tariffs, or pricing strategy. - Discounts, costs (including staffing costs such as salaries or benefits), and margins. - Plans for new products, services, tariffs, or offers. - Plans or proposals for changes to the way services are sold or delivered. - Future product characteristics, product development activities, or product roadmaps. - Forecast traffic by voice/data. - Future strategy — for example rollout plans, site deployments, or technology upgrades. - Planned investments. - Details of supplier relationships (including the terms and conditions of supply). - Non-public financial information or information about a company's current commercial state. - Non-public information about current or future sales volumes or turnover — including switching volumes, switching trends, market shares, demand, capacity, or budgets. - Marketing strategy or plans. - Information about commercially sensitive technologies or R&D programmes that are not publicly disclosed. - **Details of a party's customer base — including the identity of any CP a MAP serves, the terms of supply, account values, or contractual arrangements with those CPs.** - **Methods, processes, or commercial tactics a MAP or CP intends to use to acquire, retain, or migrate customers.** The last two bullets above are emphasised because they are the points most likely to be touched in a TAG meeting if participants are not vigilant — and they are the points the TAG is most determined to protect. ### 2.2 What "CSI" is not CSI is **not** the same thing as detailed technical contribution to the CSF. The architecture, message formats, JSON schemas, transport choices, sequencing, error codes, signing patterns, version conventions, and operational telemetry that underpin the CSF are exactly the things the TAG exists to discuss. None of these are CSI when they are about the **framework**; they only become CSI when they are about a **specific party's commercial implementation**. > Test before you speak: *am I describing how the framework should work, or am I describing how my organisation specifically will deploy, price, sell, or win business with it?* The first is in scope; the second is not. --- ## 3. The TAG-specific guardrails The general competition-law guidance above applies to any multi-party industry forum. The TAG has three additional guardrails that flow from the open and collaborative nature of the CSF: ### 3.1 No customer-base intelligence A MAP's customer list — the CPs it serves, the terms under which it serves them, the renewal dates, the volumes, the commercial arrangements — is **off-limits at TAG meetings**, including off-the-record conversations, side chats, and post-meeting correspondence. No participant should request this information from another participant, and no participant should volunteer it. If a technical question genuinely requires knowing that a CP exists on a MAP (for example, to design a migration path), that fact may be confirmed only from the public CP Registry that the MAP itself publishes under the CSF Directory API. Anything beyond what is published in the public registry is out of scope. ### 3.2 No sharing of business-acquisition methods The methods, processes, sales motions, marketing campaigns, pricing tactics, or commercial structures a MAP or CP intends to use to **gain business** — to win new CPs, to migrate CPs from another MAP, to compete for a customer, or to retain customers under pressure — must not be discussed, hinted at, or asked about at TAG meetings. This applies symmetrically: a MAP is no more free to share its own methods than it is to enquire about another MAP's methods. ### 3.3 Collective benefit over individual advantage The default test for any TAG contribution is **collective benefit**. A proposal that improves the framework for the whole industry is in scope. A proposal that, on inspection, materially advantages one participant over another at the framework level — beyond the natural difference of who chooses to invest engineering effort — should be flagged, declared, and (if necessary) referred to the co-chairs for re-scoping. This guardrail does not block any participant from later building commercial advantage on top of the CSF. It simply keeps the framework itself neutral. --- ## 4. Conduct at TAG meetings ### 4.1 Focus Interactions and discussions must be limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the TAG's legitimate objective: developing the CSF and contributing to industry architecture. Competition-law rules must be followed at all times during meetings and in any correspondence or exchange (in any medium) relating to the group. ### 4.2 Citing sources To avoid uncertainty or ambiguity, individuals should cite the **public sources** of any information they rely on in discussion. Where a figure or claim comes from a public dataset, a published spec, a regulatory document, or a public corporate announcement, cite it. This removes any doubt about how the information was derived and keeps the discussion clearly within the public domain. ### 4.3 No recommendations on competitively sensitive topics In addition to not discussing or sharing CSI, participants must not discuss, agree to, or recommend a course of action on competitively sensitive topics — **even in jest**. The focus must be on the CSF and the industry architecture, not on any participant's commercial activities. ### 4.4 Sensitive agendas — competition lawyer attendance For meetings or calls on topics that, based on the proposed agenda, are considered potentially more sensitive, the default presumption is that the meeting should be attended by **at least one competition lawyer** (from a participant organisation or appointed jointly) to provide guidance as needed. ### 4.5 Individual responsibility Every TAG participant is individually responsible for ensuring that documents they produce and discussions they contribute to **do not reveal CSI** pertaining to their organisation. Saying "we couldn't help it" is not a defence. This responsibility applies to standing members, observers, and **invited specialists / subject-matter experts** equally. Where an invited specialist is from a MAP or a CP, the invitation makes clear that their TAG contribution is on behalf of the industry challenge under discussion, not on behalf of their employer's commercial interests — and the specialist is expected to draw that line themselves throughout the session. --- ## 5. Do's and Don'ts Every TAG participant **MUST** follow these. ### Do - **Prepare and circulate an agenda in advance** to all parties (including their competition lawyers where appointed) and stick to it during the meeting. Seek advice from a competition lawyer if you are unsure whether a topic of conversation would be permitted. - **Attach a copy of this document to every meeting invite** and note it in the agenda. - **Provide a reminder at the start of each meeting** acknowledging the competition-law constraints on discussion and the need to stick to the agenda, not to disclose CSI, and not to make anti-competitive suggestions or recommendations (even in jest). - **Ensure meetings and calls relate only to the common purpose** and include only the relevant individuals. - **Keep a short record of every meeting or call**, including: 1. The date and time of the meeting or call. 2. The individuals who attended. 3. The subject of the discussion. 4. Any decisions adopted. - **Stop the meeting or call immediately and consult a competition lawyer** before proceeding further if you consider that any party may be sharing CSI. ### Don't - **Do not circulate, share, or discuss CSI** with any other party at any point, in any medium. - **Do not participate in private or informal meetings or "off the record" discussions.** The TAG's records and conduct rules apply to every conversation that touches its work. - **Do not misuse the TAG process** to discuss or influence parameters on which participants compete. - **Do not recommend a course of action on competitively sensitive topics (even in jest)** — including but not limited to fixing prices or other parameters on which companies compete, sharing markets, sharing customers, sharing commercial opportunities, or boycotting third parties. - **Do not use the meeting environment to gain access to another MAP's customers or CPs.** Direct questions about another party's CP list, contractual terms with CPs, or commercial relationships with CPs are out of scope. - **Do not solicit, or volunteer, business-acquisition methods.** Sales tactics, pricing tactics, migration tactics, retention tactics, and marketing tactics are out of scope for TAG meetings. --- ## 6. What to do if something goes wrong ### 6.1 If you think CSI is being shared Stop the meeting or call. State plainly that the discussion appears to be heading into CSI. Park the topic. Consult your own organisation's competition lawyer before proceeding further. Do not rely on the original speaker's view of whether what they said is CSI — the test is objective, not subjective. ### 6.2 If you have shared CSI yourself Tell your own organisation's competition lawyer at the earliest opportunity. Then notify the TAG co-chairs so the meeting record can be updated and any necessary remediation (for example, a request that other participants disregard the information) can be coordinated. ### 6.3 If you are pressured by another participant Decline. Use these guidelines as the public reason. Notify the TAG co-chairs. The TAG will not censure a participant for refusing to share CSI; it may censure (and ultimately exclude) a participant who repeatedly pressures others to share CSI. ### 6.4 If you are unsure Ask. Contact the competition lawyer in your own organisation in the first instance. It is often possible to **recast** information — for example by aggregating data or expressing it as a range — so the substance can be shared without raising competition concerns. Your competition counsel can advise on the right framing. --- ## 7. The key test — remember this > The defining test for CSI is whether the information is capable of **influencing another company's commercial or competitive behaviour, policy, or strategy** — or capable of affecting "normal competition" in the market. If it is, **do not share it**. If you take only one thing from this document, take that test. Apply it before you speak, before you write, before you circulate any draft or any data. If the answer is "yes, this could influence another company's commercial behaviour", the information does not belong in a TAG meeting. --- ## 8. Acknowledgements and acceptance By attending a TAG Steering Group meeting, focus-group session, or any TAG call, every participant is taken to have read and accepted these guidelines. This applies equally to: - **Standing members** of the TAG Steering Group. - **Observers** attending under §4.3 of the TAG Terms of Reference. - **Invited specialists and subject-matter experts** — including key industry representatives and specialised technical representatives invited from MAPs, CPs, regulators, vendors, academia, or aligned industry bodies under §4.4 of the TAG Terms of Reference. Invited specialists **must explicitly acknowledge** these guidelines before joining the session they have been invited to. Acknowledgement is recorded in the meeting notes. The co-chairs will reiterate the conduct rules at the opening of each meeting and will introduce any invited specialist by name, organisation, and the agenda item they have been invited to address — so the meeting record is unambiguous and so every other participant knows the basis of the specialist's presence. These guidelines may be revised by the TAG Steering Group on the recommendation of competition counsel or in response to operational experience. Any revision is published in this document with a version bump and a dated change note in the Document Control table. --- ## Document Control | Version | Date | Description | |---|---|---| | 1.0 Draft | 2026-06-19 | First-draft TAG Steering Group Guidelines for Conduct. Adapted from the GPLB-SG *Guidelines for Conduct of Gaining Provider Led Business Steering Group Meetings v1.0* (CONFIDENTIAL). Retargeted to TAG meetings about the CSF and industry architecture; added the TAG-specific guardrails in §3 (no customer-base intelligence, no sharing of business-acquisition methods, collective benefit over individual advantage). For TAG review. | | 1.1 Draft | 2026-06-19 | Extended §4.5 *Individual responsibility* and §8 *Acknowledgements and acceptance* to explicitly cover **invited specialists and subject-matter experts** — key industry representatives and specialised technical contributors invited under §4.4 of the TAG Terms of Reference to assist with specific TAG challenges. Invited specialists must explicitly acknowledge these guidelines before joining and are bound by them on the same footing as standing members and observers. |