CMAP Meeting - 27 September 2000
Tjakamarra Room
38 Sydney Avenue, Forrest ACT
Present: Rob Anderson, Philip Argy, Evan Arthur, John Bradfield, Roberto Colanzi, Patrick Corliss, Matthew Hall, Tony Hill, Allan Horsley, David Howarth, Geoff Huston, Amanda James, Ian Johnston, Jo Lim, George Michaelson, Bill O'Chee, Andrew Robertson, Bruce Tonkin, Andrew Van Der Stock, Pauline Van Winsen, Liz Williams, Frances Wood
Teleconference: Sonja Bernhardt, Larry Bloch, Peter Gandolfo, Andrew Howell, John Lindsay, Peter McGrath,Karina Warnest, Tania Wickman
Apologies: Eugene Clark, Jonathon Potter
Observers: Michelle Curtis (ACCI), Tom Dale (NOIE), Asa Masterman (NOIE), Michelle Scott (NOIE), Jeremy Thomas (NOIE), Nikki Vajrabukka (NOIE), Derek Whitehead (Name Policy Advisory Panel)
Actions:
- GM and JL to draft minutes from meeting, circulate list of Panel members for declaration of interest purposes, and revise Terms of Reference timeline.
- GM and JL to coordinate Stage 1 report.
- LW to coordinate Stage 2 report.
- ACCC to provide resource material in relation to general competition policy.
Decisions:
Proxies, representativesor alternates
1. Proxies
may be used in exceptional circumstances only. It is the responsibility of
the Panel member to ensure that his or her proxy is well-briefed, as the
Panel will not revisit past discussion for the benefit of the proxy.
Confidentiality andconflict of interest
2. While it
is vital that the Panel’s processes are as open and transparent as possible,
Panel members will observe Chatham House rules. Only the Panel Chairperson
or secretariat may make public statements on behalf of the Panel.
3. Papers and minutes will be made public on the auDA web site as soon as reasonably practical after Panel meetings.
4. Panel members will declare their roles and interests to the Panel secretariat, and this information will be made public on the auDA web site.
Participation in meetings
5. The Panel will endeavour to ensure
that all members have equal opportunity to voice and raise issues, whether
attending meetings in person or by telephone.
6. Panel members should ensure that they are able to authoritatively represent their constituencies at Panel meetings, although it is recognised that members will not always be able to present a definitive position at a meeting. For example, the Small Enterprise Telecommunications Centre Limited (SETEL), in representing and advancing the interests of Australian small businesses, is required by its Deed of Agreement with the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to liaise with its member associations and other consumer and user groups.
Sub-groups
7. Any sub-groups (or working groups) of the Panel
must be established formally. Sub-groups may comprise a minority of
non-Panel members, who must agree to be bound by the same operating
procedures as Panel members. Sub-groups can be used for broad discussion and
consultation of issues, but outcomes should always be reported back to the
Panel.
Location of meetings
8. Panel meetings will be located
alternately Melbourne and Sydney, although consideration will be given to
holding at least one further meeting in Canberra.
9. Where possible, group teleconferences will be held for people who are not able to attend meetings in person. Group teleconferences will be held at the ATUG office in Sydney and the DCITA office in Canberra. Venues in Melbourne and Brisbane are to be advised.
Frequency of meetings
10. Panel meetings will be held on the
last Wednesday of each month, starting at 2pm.
Consensus
11. The working consensus for the Panel will be a 2/3
majority, with minority reports allowed.
Documentation
12. Documentation for Panel meetings will be
circulated by the preceding Monday (in Microsoft Word format). Any
documentation that is tabled at meetings willbe held over to the next
meeting.
Inter-panel relationship
13. The Panel will maintain links with
the Name Policy Advisory Panel via the Chairperson and secretariat and the
four common members.
Terms of Reference
14. The Panel will aim to complete its Terms
of Reference by June 2001.
Competition policy andprinciples
15. The ACCC will
make available resource material in relation to general competition policy
(including service levels etc). All Panel members undertake to read that
material.
Panel Terms of Reference
16. The Chairperson and secretariat
will revise the Terms of Reference timeline.
17. The Panel will aim to deliver Stages 1 and 2 of the Terms of Reference in November 2000. The Chairperson and secretariat will coordinate the Stage 1 report. Liz Williams will coordinate the Stage 2 report.
18. A Stage 2a will be added to the Terms of Reference, comprising an internal working paper that identifies the relevant issues and criteria, as a basis for starting work on Stage 3. The Chairperson and secretariat will coordinate the Stage 2a paper, based on discussion by Panel members at the meeting and on the closed email list. The Stage 2a paper will also include a glossary of key terms.
19. Panel members will commence Stage 3 report discussions via the closed list.
Next meeting
20. The next Panel meeting will be in Melbourne on
25 October 2000, 2pm-5pm (venue to be advised).
Discussion
1 Welcome and introductions
Panel members
introduced themselves and gave a very brief outline of their interest and
role in relation to domain name policy.
2 Panel operatingprocedures
There was a
wide-ranging discussion of the proposed operating procedures. Decisions made
by the Panel are listed above.
3 Name Policy AdvisoryPanel
Derek Whitehead gave an
update on the activities of the Name Policy AdvisoryPanel, which commenced
in June 2000.
The Name Panel has established six working groups:
1. Right Names: appropriateness of domain name in relation to entity
2. Legal Names: IP issues including well-known names
3. Names with Fences: generic, geographic and objectionable names
4. Moving Names Around: reselling and transfer of domain names
5. Disputes about Names: uniform dispute resolution policy
6. New Names: introduction of new 2LDs
The aim is to release a draft report for public consultation in November, with a final report deadline in February 2001.
It was noted that a number of issues being considered by the Name Panel have clear implications for competition policy, and the Panel Chairpersons will need to liaise closely.
4 Competition policy and principles
John Bradfield
gave a short presentation on the role of the ACCC and some basic competition
policy principles.
The point was made that competition policy has been applied across a number of industry sectors, and therefore the Panel will be able to draw on past experience in formulating its recommendations. The Panel should strive to complete its work within the proposed timeframe (ie. by June 2001) and its processes should be as transparent as possible.
The Panel acknowledged the important contribution of both the ACCC and the ACA to similar industry self-regulation processes (eg. in ACIF) in terms of keeping activities within relevant legal and policy boundaries.
5 Panel Terms of Reference
The Panel agreed that
the timeline in the Terms of Reference needs to be accelerated. It was
considered that Stages 1 and 2 could be delivered in November 2000.
Panel members discussed the proposed public consultation phases. The view was expressed that consultation does not necessarily deliver useful outcomes and often slows down the process, therefore this part of the timeline could be shortened. However, the Panel also noted that the auDA Board is unlikely to accept a final report if it is not confident that all stakeholders have been adequately consulted.
The Panel also discussed public consultative mechanisms. It was considered that consultation via electronic means should be sufficient to reach most major stakeholders, however there was concern that this approach would exclude a large number of interested parties. Panel members considered that there may be value in holding a public forum at some stage of the process, however it was generally agreed that such a forum could not be used to resolve key issues and therefore should not be part of the Panel’s critical path.
It was considered that there is a need for an interim step between Stages 2 and 3. Members of the Name Panel suggested that it would be useful to follow that Panel’s lead and insert a ‘Stage 2a’ comprising an internal working paper that identifies the relevant issues and criteria, as a basis for starting work on Stage 3.
Panel members identified a number of issues related to the introduction of competition in the registration of .au domain names, including:
- thick or thin registry?
- substitutability of domains
- barriers to entry
- ‘corralled’ domains
- global requirements – interoperability, competition models
- ownership of data
- level playing field
- minimum standards
- public utility in WHOIS information
- technical constraints.
The Panel agreed to continue to identify and canvas issues via the closed email list.