CMAP Meeting - 25 October 2000
AusIndustry
Level 9, 161 Collins St, Melbourne
Present: Rob Anderson, John Bradfield, Peter Gandolfo, Matthew Hall, Matt Healy, Jo Lim, Peter McGrath, George Michaelson, Bruce Tonkin, Andrew Van Der Stock, Pauline Van Winsen, Liz Williams
Teleconference: Evan Arthur, Eugene Clark, Patrick Corliss, Tony Hill, David Howarth, Andrew Howell, Geoff Huston, Ian Johnston, John Lindsay, Tania Wickman
Apologies: Philip Argy, Sonja Bernhardt, Larry Bloch, Roberto Colanzi, Allan Horsley, Amanda James, Bill O'Chee, Jonathon Potter, Andrew Robertson, Karina Warnest, Frances Wood
Observers: Chris Disspain (auDA), Gregg Sonnenburg (IIA)
Actions:
- JL to draft minutes from meeting.
- GM to revise Stage 1 report and circulate to list.
- LW to revise Stage 2 report and circulate to list.
- GM and JL to draft Stage 2a paper and circulate to list.
- BT to table proposed competition models as starting point for Stage 3 report.
- JL to post URLs for overseas models on auDA web site.
Decisions:
Stage 1 report (draft)
1. The Chairperson and secretariat will
continue to draft the Stage 1 report, incorporating comments by other Panel
members.
Stage 2 report (draft)
2. The working group (Liz Williams, Rob
Anderson, Tony Hill, Bruce Tonkin, Pauline van Winsen, Andrew van der Stock,
Gregg Sonnenburg) will continue to draft the Stage 2 report, incorporating
comments by other Panel members.
Stage 2a paper -discussion of issues and next steps
3. The Chairperson and sercretariat will draft the Stage 2a paper, grouping
the issues raised to date, and ranking the criteria in the Terms of
Reference in order of importance.
4. As a starting point for the Stage 3 report, Bruce Tonkin will table some possible competition models.
Coordination with theName Policy Advisory Panel
5.
The following issues will be raised with the Name Policy Advisory Panel:
- impact of policy changes on competition (ie. the more open the policy, the lower the costs of operation and barriers to entry)
- proposed dispute resolution procedure
- common glossary terms.
Next meeting
6. The next Panel meeting will be in Sydney on 29
November 2000, 2pm-5pm (venue to be advised).
Discussion
Panel members were advised that David Lieberman has been appointed Panel co-chair by the auDA board, and will start in November.
1Confirmation of 27 September minutes
Panel
members confirmed the minutes from the meeting on 27 September 2000,
previously circulated via the closed list.
The Chairperson tabled the revised Panel timeline, also provided to the auDA Board. It was agreed that Stages 1 and 2 would be carried forward to the November meeting.
The ACCC had undertaken at the September meeting to provide material on competition, however after discussion with the Chairperson and secretariat, it was agreed that th ematerial will be provided at appropriate stages of the Panel's work.
2Stage 1 report (draft)
Panel members discussed the
draft Stage 1 report. Comments provided by Geoff Huston were acknowledged,
and the Chairperson undertook to check with the other.au 2LD delegates to
ensure accuracy of information.
Panel members made the following suggestions:
- Q2 - highlight separation between policy, registry and customer service
- Q3 - use three categories of 2LD - open, partially open/closed, closed
- Q4 - clarify that substitutability refers to domain space, not service provision - include Geoff Huston's additional paragraph with modifications
- Q5 - note that SLAs and guarantees are required at different levels of the registration system - ie. between registrar and delegate, between registrars, between registrar and customer
- Q6 - note the different levels of dispute - ie. between registrar and delegate, between registrars, between registrar and customer, between customers
- Q8 - change 'lease' to 'licence', to recognise that domain names do not confer any property rights
- Q11 - clarify the technical criteria, using headings from Appendix 2 of the Stage 2 report
- Q13 - remove and address costs of operation (including contributors to costs) in Stages 3 and 4
- include volume of domain names in each 2LD, and rate of growth
- add preamble about the current environment and why the Panel has been established.
Panel members discussed theissue of substitutability. It was agreed that mere substitutability of 2LDs does not amount to a competitive system. The point was made that userscurrently do not regard the .au 2LDs as providing equal levels ofserviceability or utility.
The issue of domain nameleasing periods was discussed. Geoff Huston advised that, as a delegate and registrar, he has allocated domain names in perpetuity. Panel members were advised that the Name Panel's view is that domain names are (or should be) licensed, not owned.
The Panel noted that thereis no global requirement for registrars to operate a WHOIS database, and that AUNIC contains only minimal information (no nameserver or billing details).
3Stage 2 report (draft)
Panel members discussed the
draft Stage 2 report. The Chairperson thanked the working group for its
efforts.
Liz Williams explained the structure and methodology of the report, and noted sections that still need tobe completed. Tony Hill volunteered to assist with the global analysis and suggested the report should consider the .us ccTLD separately from the gTLDs.
Panel members made thefollowing suggestions:
- move the glossary into a separate document that can then be used for all the Panel's reports, and shared with the Name Panel
- replace the section on Australia with a reference to the Stage 1 report
- consider including case studies on Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, USA, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Sweden
- focus on different competitive models, not just different ccTLDs.
There was some discussion ofthe need to include an assessment of whether the domain name registration systems used in other ccTLDs are effective or not. It was considered that the Panel does not have the resources to undertake this task, and any judgments abou tother ccTLDs would necessarily be subjective.
The secretariat agreed to add links from the auDA web site to any useful resource material found by the working group.
4Stage 2a paper - discussion of issues and next steps
Panel
members identified more issues for the Stage 2a paper, including:
- difference between substitutability of domain space and substitutability of service provision
- competition between registries, as well as between registrars
- ownership of customer data - privacy principles, escrow provision
- implementation issues - costs, disputes, timeframe, enforcement
- dispute resolution
- non-contestable elements - terms and conditions of access, pricing
- degree of policy and impact on competition
- separation of policy and registry
- customer transfer and customer data transfer between registrars - transfer costs, consumer protection, security/authentication
- need for competition model to include a review period/process
- role of auDA - policy and performance monitoring
- role of regulators (ACCC and ACA)
- technical issues - DNS integrity, stability, interoperability.
It was suggested that the Canadian and New Zealand experiences offer the most useful guidance for the Panel in terms of approaching the Stage 3 report. It was agreed that the draft Stage 3 report should propose and evaluate a small number of different competition models (similar to NZ strawmen approach).
Panel members discussed the issue of 'thick' (or 'fat) versus 'thin' registries, and agreed that the termsare not consistently defined and can be misleading. It was therefore agreed that proposed competition models should not be labelled 'thick' or 'thin' (or any other possibly prejudicial term). Similarly, it was agreed that 'database' is a more neutral term than 'registry'.
There was some discussion about possible non-contestable elements of the DNS. It was suggested that the minimum position is maintenance of the zonefile plus WHOIS information (eg. the AUNIC database), however this proposition would involve a relatively high degree of risk. The Panel clarified that the provision of non-contestable elements must be industry-neutral, but not necessarily cost-neutral - ie. they do not have to be provided by a non-profit organisation, or even on a non-profit basis, although an ACCC authorisation may be required if this were the case.
5Coordination with Name Policy Advisory Panel
Panel
members discussed the inherent link between policy and competition, noting
that a more open and fully automated policy would likely increase the volume
of registrations in the .au domain space, thereby reducing the costs of
operation. It was further noted that the trend overseas seems to be to open
up domain name policy rather than restrict it (eg. Canada and Belgium).
Panel members were advised that the Name Panel has developed a proposed dispute resolution process, to be included in its public consultation report in November. It was suggested that the Competition Panel should review the Name Panel's proposed dispute resolution process from a competition perspective, and liaise accordingly.
Panel members also noted the need for both Panels to use consistent terminology.
Last Updated: 07/03/2006 09:04