CMAP Meeting - 15 June 2001
ACA
Level 11, 200 Queen St, Melbourne
Present: Alan Chalmers, David Howarth, David Lieberman, Jo Lim, Peter McGrath, George Michaelson, Bruce Tonkin, Andrew van der Stock
Teleconference: Evan Arthur, Matthew Hall, Tony Hill (left early), Geoff Huston (left early), Ian Johnston
Apologies: Philip Argy, Sonja Bernhardt, Larry Bloch, Eugene Clark, Roberto Colanzi, Matt Healy, Amanda James, John Lindsay, Bill O’Chee, Jonathon Potter, Andrew Robertson, Pauline van Winsen, Karina Warnest
Observer: Nicola Skill (ACA)
Actions:
- JL to draft minutes from meeting.
- JL and Co-Chairs to revise report and circulate to the Panel via the closed list.
- Panel to finalise report and provide to auDA Board.
Decisions:
Final report
1.The Secretariat will revise the report
according to discussion at the meeting and circulate it by 20 June, for
further discussion and revision by the Panel via the closed list.
2.The final report will be provided to the auDA Board on 30 June 2001.
Discussion:
2 Discussion of public submissions
The Panel received and
considered a total of 12 submissions (including 6 that were received after
the closing date).
ThePanel agreed to make the following revisions to its report in response to issues raised in public submissions:
Paragraph 4.3.11: Registry final policy compliance check
The
Panel noted the unintended inconsistency between this paragraph and the
recommendation that registrars be responsible for performing policy
compliance checks. The text will be changed to make it clear that
purpose of a final check by the registry is to provide collision control and
ensure data integrity, not to double-check compliance with policy.
The Panel asserted that a self-selection approach (eg. by use of registrant warranty) would undermine the policy integrity of the .au domain. The Panel discussed its proposal and decided to recommend to auDA that an“independent party” be used to certify non-objective policy compliance checks (eg. the ‘close and substantial connection’ rule). An independent party should ensure fair, equitable and consistent application of policy / rules relating to eligibility and allocation of domain name licences. Itwas not considered necessary to specify whether the “party” would be a single person or a group of people. The Panel agreed that the party must be independent from both registrars and theregistry, as they both have a financial interest in accepting registration applications. The Panel did not consider it necessary for the party to be independent from auDA, as auDA’s interest lies in ensuring the integrity of .au policy.
The Panel discussed the proposal put forward in one submission, that all registration applications be subject to a 30-day public exposure period. Thiswas considered impractical from a consumer perspective, as most registrants want to use their domain name immediately. Also, business users may have commercial-in-confidence reasons for not wanting to publicise their application for a particular domain name (eg. launch of a new product or service).
Paragraph 4.3.14: Registry as registrar of last resort
The Panel
agreed to simplify the wording of this paragraph so that it better reflects
the important point contained in the recommendation, “A registry operator
may not also operate as a registrar unless there is a clear and effective
separation of the two business operations”.
The Panel noted the suggestion that other registrars should be prevailed upon to offer service to registrants,instead of allowing the registry to act as registrar of last resort. The Panel will recommend that this occur inthe event that a registrar goes out of business, so that existing registrants can continue to receive service. However, where no registrar is prepared to provide service in a particular 2LD, then the Panel re-asserts its proposal that the registry be able to act as registrar of last resort (subject to the Panel’s recommendation about separation of operations). It was considered inappropriate for auDA to act as registrar, as this would go against the principle expressed in Section 4.2 of the report about separation of policyand operations, and could compromise auDA’s role as independent industry regulator.
Paragraph 4.3.16: Tender process
The Panel agreed with comments
that the proposal to bundle all open 2LDs together in a single registry is
too restrictive, limiting contestability in the tender process and may not
result in efficiency gains. The Panel will recommend that auDA allow
the market to decide the number of registries. The tender process
should invite proposals for one, some or all of the open 2LDs.
Respondents should be required to provide separate pricing proposals foreach
2LD, to assist auDA with tender evaluation.
The Panel noted that an open, competitive and unconstrained tender process would not exclude any type of proposal, providing it complied with tender requirements. For example, proposals may come from for-profit or not-for-profit entities, from single firms or consortia, from commercial operators or community-interest groups. auDA must ensure that public benefit outcomes are preserved by evaluating all proposals according the same minimum technical requirements and consumer safeguards (ie. a not-for-profit, community-interest operator would have to demonstrate ability to meet the same minimum technical requirements and consumer safeguards as a for-profit, commercial operator).
The Panel noted that a proposal from an industry consortia may require authorisation by the ACCC.
The Panel was of the view that there should be opportunities for industry participants, consumer organisations and other interested parties to provide comment to auDA relating to the tender process (eg. tender objectives and strategy, selection criteria, technical and performance specifications, etc.), having regard to confidentiality, accountability, transparency and public interest considerations.
Paragraph 4.3.17: Non-Australian registry operator
The Panel
noted that a number of submissions expressed concern about the prospect of a
non-Australian registry operator. The Panel will recommend that the
registry operator must be an Australian entity or operate through an
Australian registered company. In addition, the tender documents must
explicitly state that the registry operator will be bound by Australian
laws, and that all critical hardware must be located in Australia (for good
practical reasons, as well as policy reasons).
The Panel noted that any issues related to foreign ownership and control may need to be notified to the relevant government agency for consideration and any approval under the Federal Government’s foreign investment policy.
Paragraph 4.4.7: Industry code of practice
The Panel noted the
potential for consumer confusion and the impact on competitive neutrality if
the auDA code of practice were not aligned with other relevant industry
codes, especially the ACIF codes. The Panel will recommend that auDA
use the ACIF code development process to inform its own work in this area,
and that the ACA’s assistance should be sought to identify relevant ACIF
codes.
The Panel agreed that complaints-handling procedures should be included in the industry code of practice. The Panel noted the potential for consumer codes to impact on system development by registries, registrars and auDA.
The Panel agreed to recommend to auDA the commencement of planning of the code development process as early as possible in 2001. The Panel also agree to recommend that auDA convene a Panel or Working Group at an early date to undertake consumer code development.
Paragraph 4.6.3: auDA membership
The Panel noted comments that
this proposal would result in a heavy administrative burden on auDA, and
could lead to ‘active’ members cross-subsidising ‘passive’ members.
Whilst acknowledging the practical difficulties of conferring
membership of auDA on all registrants, the Panel re-asserted its belief that
registrants should be actively encouraged to participate in the regulatory
regime. The Panel noted that the current membership fee of $100 is
considered prohibitive by many prospective auDA members. The Panel will
recommend that auDA review its membership policy to make it easier for all
registrants to participate at low cost.
Section 4.7: Funding model for auDA
The Panel agreed that this
section of the report should not be prescriptive but should simply state
options for auDA to consider.
The Panel discussed the proposal put forward in a couple of submissions that, instead of receiving a licence and/or per domain name fee from the registry, auDA should receive its funding from the registrars and outsource the registry function in the same way that AUNIC is currently outsourced. It was suggested that this arrangement would give auDA greater leverage over the registry operator in terms of preventing monopoly profits.
A majority of the Panel considered that this model would be entirely contrary to the separation of policy and operations principle expressed in Section 4.2 of the report; in other words, auDA would in effect be the registry operator as well as the regulator. Moreover, the model provides no incentive for the registry operator to actively promote and market domain names, or to provide good service to registrars.
However, the Panel agreed that the issue of regulatory power is important, and that the tender contract needs to provide auDA with sufficient (but not limitless) control over both registry functions and wholesale price. auDA must have the ability to resume registry service in the event of contractual breach by the registry operator (although this would likely be an option of last resort – eg. the tender contract could include financial penalties for performance failures).
Section 5: Implementation Strategy
The Panel noted concerns that
the implementation strategy does not include any timelines or deadlines.
The Panel agreed that this is something for auDA to determine, but will
recommend that auDA publish its implementation timetable as soon as
possible, to assist existing and prospective industry participants with
their business planning.
Attachment B: Technical requirements
The Panel agreed to include
the following in Attachment B:
- requirement that registrars verify the email address of the administrative contact at the time of registration andthen every 6 months;
- additional requirements regarding security of systems, including an annual security audit;
- definition of terms used in the performance specification matrix at Table A;
- text to explain the need to include DNS information in WHOIS;
- requirement that the registry operator provide a copy of the registry software in data escrow, so that auDA is able to resume service in case of disaster or contractual breach; and
- additional text about transition between registry operators.
3. Final report to auDA Board
The Panel’sfinal report is
to be provided to the auDA Board on 30 June, in time forconsideration by the
Board on 9 July.
Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:04
